1975 Legislative Session: 5th Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, MARCH 11, 1975

Night Sitting

[ Page

533 ]

CONTENTS

Budget debate (continued)

Hon. Mr. Levi — 533

Mr. Chabot — 541

Mr. L.A. Williams — 549

Mr. Rolston — 555

Hon. Mr. Nunweiler — 560

TUESDAY, MARCH 11, 1975

The House met at 8 p.m.

Oral questions.

MR. SPEAKER: We have six minutes remaining from this afternoon. It was

felt that, with leave, we would proceed to question period again to complete

it. Agreed?

The Hon. Second Member for Victoria was asking a question when the lights went

out.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, in view of the tremendous

absence.... Only two Ministers feel they can get to the front row tonight.

All the rest appear to have left the House. The Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr.

Nicolson), one of my favourite boxes, seems to have disappeared, and the Minister

of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon, R.A. Williams) has disappeared.

The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) has disappeared, the Attorney-General

(Hon. Mr. Macdonald) has disappeared and the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs.

Dailly) has disappeared.

MR. SPEAKER: Is that your question? Where are they?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I wonder whether we shouldn't add these six minutes

of questions onto tomorrow's question period. I would so move, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I can put a motion, but we've already granted leave

for question period and everybody agreed, so I think we have to proceed.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Nobody wants question period?

AN HON. MEMBER: Let's add it to tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Next order of business.

Orders of the day.

ON THE BUDGET

HON. N. LEVI (Minister of Human Resources): Mr. Speaker, I want to talk

about the budget of the Department of Human Resources, I'd just like to point

out for the benefit of the Members that I have here a very interesting statement

by the Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith). Where is he? He's not here.

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): He's with the Premier,

who hasn't been here all day.

HON. MR. LEVI: He said, when he was opening up a new constituency office:

"The budget of $3.2 billion is basically a welfare budget." As I recall, it

was characterized as an employment budget, but we'll see how much welfare —

as the Hon. Member talks about it — is actually in the budget.

First of all, Mr. Speaker, I think it's important that we get something straight:

this is not the old Socred Department of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement

that only gave welfare to people, and usually in the most demeaning way possible.

This is now the Department of Human Resources, that genuinely believes that

people are our most important resource.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (South Okanagan): When are you going to learn?

HON. MR. LEVI: As such, we've begun to give a broad.... Just listen,

lady: you'll learn.

As such we've begun to give a broad range of services to a wide spectrum of

people who were starved for 20 long years for these services, and I'm proud

to explain the facts of the $ 5 16 million Human Resources budget, When people

see $500 million inflation, they think — and, of course, we can't describe that

for the Socreds — that it's all going to welfare. But that's not so, my friend;

that's not so. Don't shake your head, Bill; it's liable to fall off. (Laughter.)

Mr. Speaker, what are the facts about the $516 million for the budget of the

Human Resources department? Who gets the money? The facts are as follows:

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Where does it come from?

HON. MR. LEVI: It goes to 128,000 people who are on Mincome, 96,000

people over the age of 65 years, 23,000 people ages 60 to 64, and 9,000 people

who are on handicapped income assistance — for a total cost of $122 million.

Interjection.

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): You don't like to hear this, do

you?

HON. MR. LEVI: We'll get to your dad in a minutes.

It goes to 231,000 people over the age of 65 who are on Pharmacare, plus another

10,000 people who will be added by the end of 1975 — for a total of $14 million.

[ Page

534 ]

He's arrived.

It goes to 211,000 people who are on the provincial drug subsidy plan and to

100,000 people who are on the welfare plan. The total cost of Pharmacare: $20

million.

It goes to adult chronic care for $34.5 million, to the homemaker service programme

at a cost of $7.5 million; $2 million goes to activity centre programmes for

the handicapped and senior citizens. Nearly $1 million, again, goes for senior

citizens' day-centres, senior counselling services and senior transportation

for a total cost of $45 million.

It goes to services for families and children — day-care services for 18,000

children, compared to 2,300 in 1972 — for a cost of $14 million.

It goes to children in care, $18.5 million; it goes to group homes, receiving

homes and therapeutic foster homes at a cost of $6 million. There is $4.5 million

that goes to the special services for children, which includes alternate schools,

and $16 million goes to the residential and treatment programmes for children

— for a total cost of $59 million.

It goes to special programmes for the retarded at Woodlands, Tranquille, Glendale

Lodge and special community homes, This programme was transferred from the mental

health branch in July of 1974, and under the Canada Assistance Plan will bring

in $7 million more in cost-sharing this fiscal year. Next year the total programme

will be cost-shared for a total cost of $29 million.

MR. FRASER: Did you notice your leader here? It's the first time he's

been here today.

HON. MR. LEVI: Alex, wait — don't get upset.

It goes to community programmes, such as the Vancouver resources board which

is the amalgamation of the former Children's Aid Society, the Catholic Family

and Children's Service, the Vancouver City Welfare and Rehabilitation department,

as well as the Alcohol Foundation and the Narcotic Addiction Foundation, for

a total of S 19 million.

We saved the City of Vancouver $4 million last year, and I haven't heard any

complaints about that. In addition, there was $8 million for community grants

to every community in the province. That's aid to municipalities. Total under

community programmes: $28 million.

It goes to health-care services for families on welfare and to

single people who are not employable, at a cost of $8 million. It goes

to the Alcohol and Drug Commission which is in the budget for the first

time because its programmes have expanded beyond the capacity of the

alcohol, drug and tobacco fund, and their report will be tabled

shortly. Total cost of that programme: $5 million, Finally, it goes to

income assistance. You recall, Mr. Member for Columbia River (Mr.

Chabot), that you said this budget was all welfare — all welfare. On

income assistance it goes to people who are in need. It goes to 70,000

children who are in families on welfare, at a cost of $65 million.

AN HON. MEMBER: No compassion.

HON. MR. LEVI: It goes to 26,000 family heads — mostly mothers who are

raising their children alone, as well as fathers who are raising children. It

also goes to 29,000 single people between the ages of 18 and 59. Of that 29,000,

19,000 to 21,000 are not employable because of age, illness, alcoholism, mental

illness or lack of employability. A cost of $30 million.

So we are left with 7,000 to 8,000 people who are classified as employable

and who are competing with nearly 80,000 people who are on unemployment insurance

and seeking work. So, Mr. Speaker, we have a budget of over $516 million. Nearly

$500 million of this budget goes to people other than the employables, and that

is some "welfare budget," which you characterize it as. That's a people's budget.

And you are consistently saying that it's going on welfare.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LEVI: Are the Mincome people on welfare? Are the retarded on

welfare? Are the faster children on welfare? Are the thousands of children in

care on welfare?

MRS. JORDAN: Just the Minister.

HON. MR. LEVI: What are they suggesting — that we do away with these

programmes? Is that what you are suggesting, Madam Member? Shall we let the

70,000 children starve?

AN HON. MEMBER: She doesn't understand.

HON. MR. LEVI: Shall we let the 26,000 mothers and fathers starve? Is

that what you are saying?

MRS. JORDAN: Just let the Minister starve for awhile.

HON. MR. LEVI: Mr. Speaker, the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey

(Mr. McGeer) said that he would cut $93 million from the budget of the Department

of Human Resources. He would cut out Mincome and he would cut out Pharmacare.

I tell you, my friends, in terms of Mincome and Pharmacare the federal government

does not share in one penny past $200 — all of the cost past $200 is borne by

the taxpayers of this province. They don't share any kind of money in Pharmacare.

[ Page

535 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame on the Liberals!

HON. MR. LEVI: So you won't cut out these programmes. How about the

services-to-seniors programmes? You can save money there, but have no homemaker

programmes — and we'll save, altogether, with senior programmes, $59 million.

We'll have no activity centres, no special transportation services, no more

subsidized chronic care for thousands of people in rest homes, boarding homes

and the chronic-care facilities in the province.

Now which programmes are we going to cut out? How about the $30 million to

those people between the ages of 18 and 59 who cannot work? Shall we cut out

that money? So we have to make a choice, and where is the humanity when you

make that kind of choice?

The choice over there is that we should not give anyone welfare at all; we

should let them starve. I'll tell you this: we have fewer people on welfare

in this province than the Socreds ever had in their last years.

In 1971, 6.4 per cent of the population of this province was on welfare under

Social Credit. In 1974, under the NDP government, we have reduced this to 4.9

per cent. Yes, 4.9 per cent. I would like to see the headlines for a change

say: "Welfare Rolls Reduced by the NDP Government." But I doubt that, my friends.

I doubt that.

AN HON. MEMBER: In the gallery — no one is writing.

HON. MR. LEVI: He's writing.

AN HON. MEMBER: He'll be on welfare tomorrow.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): The Vancouver Province will apologize.

HON. MR. LEVI: Once more and once and for all, let's put the lie to

the myth that all of this budget is going on welfare.

To the taxpayers out there and to the workers, the people who pay the taxes,

I ask them: Do your parents benefit from Mincome or Pharmacare? Do your children

benefit from day care or from the special services to children or from the alternate

school programme that is providing services for 1,100 children in the province?

Does your handicapped relative benefit from the transportation programme, the

activity centre or the sheltered workshop? Does your wife benefit from the community

project where she is employed or volunteers? Of course people are on welfare.

That, Mr. Speaker, is a direct legacy of the private enterprise system. We didn't

discover poverty; the system created it. We're trying to do something constructive

about it.

As usual, the doom-and-gloom boys and girls — they are all over there — have

all sorts of reasons why this budget must be questioned.

HON. MR. BARRETT: They want to eliminate the succession duty and let

the rich get more.

HON. MR. LEVI: Here he is back, my friend from North Peace River (Mr.

Smith). I see the great statement you made, Mr. Member. Maybe it is not accurate,

so I won't quote you directly. But you said that there will be a $3.2 billion

budget, basically welfare. Basically welfare! My, my, what an observation!

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): Shame!

HON. MR. LEVI: They are over there, the doom-and-gloom boys. However,

there does appear to be a consensus about one thing: the budget is rooted in

honesty. After all, who could disagree that to tell it the way it is heralds

a new, positive omen in this province? It is all laid out, no overestimating

and under spending to build false surpluses, but as close an estimate of revenues

and expenditures as is humanly possible. Truth in budgeting is, in fact, a new

phenomenon in this province. It started last September in my explanation of

the overrun of the department. After all, did the previous government admit

to overruns? Of course they didn't.

MR. LEWIS: No way!

HON. MR. LEVI: That would have tarnished the image of the hardware man.

Not only did he overestimate and under spend, to the detriment of the children,

the seniors, the handicapped and the civil servants who worked for disgustingly

low wages, but he hid it from the public by not telling it like it was in the

overruns of the former Department of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement.

You know, we had my predecessor (Mr. Gaglardi) saying, when he was asked about

the overruns: "Don't tell me, my friends, about that. I've been through that

one."

Of course, my predecessor, a member of your party over there, will be back

along with the old gang. We are seeing the old gang appear all the time more

and more.

Now, of course, we have something new added to the old gang. We now have the

12 apostles who are finance experts. But we don't know who they are. We have

to presume that they are Gunderson — we know how well he did — and Bonner —

we know what kind of unemployment insurance lie went on — and Dan the Man and,

of course, the young lad's dad. Now there was a financial genius if I ever saw

one. The Columbia — an $800 million overrun. Not $100 million, not $200 million

or $300 million or even

[ Page

536 ]

$400 million — but $800 million!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Listen, when they do it, they do it up big.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): That's class.

Interjections.

HON. MR. LEVI: Down the stream without a paddle, that's him.

A new phenomenon has occurred in municipal/provincial relations. For the first

time municipalities are being provided with a large number of services at no

cost — I repeat, at no cost to them at all. This never happened under the old

regime.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Who wants Phil back?

HON. MR. LEVI: I recently received a letter from the Union of British

Columbia Municipalities. They wrote me and they asked.... I'll quote the letter;

it is from Mr. McKelvey, the executive director, he said:

"On previous occasions the Union of British Columbia Municipalities

membership has repeatedly endorsed the principle that the sole responsibility

for payment of social assistance costs should be borne by the provincial and

federal governments jointly.

"A resolution to this effect was again endorsed during our

1974 convention."

I wrote to Mr. McKelvey on February 25 and I said to him:

"I have your letter of January 30 regarding the principle

that the sole responsibility for the payment of social assistance be borne by

the province and the federal government. As you know, the provincial government

reduced from 15 per cent to 10 per cent the municipal share of welfare costs.

You may also know" — keep your cars open, Mr. Member — "that the Department

of Human Resources paid out close to $ 10 million in grants..."

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Big deal!

HON. MR. LEVI:

"...for operating of community projects for senior citizens,

transportation, homemaker services, activity centres for the handicapped, for

children. And we also provided funds for information services, crisis lines

and many other services for the benefit of the residents of municipalities at

no cost to the municipalities. The government will continue to move toward reducing

the burden of social services to the municipalities of the province."

Yes, Mr. Speaker, last year we gave the equivalent of $4.50 per capita in services

at no cost to the municipalities. But what about next year? Next year it will

be $15 million for activity centres, senior citizens' services, special services

for children, community grants and resources board funding, outside of the City

of Vancouver — again at no cost to the municipalities. That is equal to $6.50

per capita.

The municipalities want a guarantee of $20 million. Well, Hon. Members, there's

$15 million for starters.

My colleagues for Delta (Mr. Liden) and North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Gabelmann)

dealt with the question of the municipalities the other day. Really, Mr. Speaker,

I find the UBCM a bit of an incredible bunch. Do you remember the screaming

and the shouting about how they were going to have to find another $12 million

because of the overrun? Well, Mr. Speaker, that overrun melted from $12 million

down to $5 million.

I have placed on your desks — or at least I hope it will be on your desks —

some facts of the overruns in the department going back several years, and I

just want to refer to these.

In 1966-67 the overrun in the department amounted to 8.7 per cent; in 1967-68,

5.9; in 1968-69, 24.5 per cent...

MR. LEWIS: Shame!

HON. MR. LEVI: ...in 1969-70, 18.6 per cent; in 1970-71 — and I'm sure

that the Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis) will remember this

— 36 per cent.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. LEVI: 1971-72, 8 per cent.

HON. J.G. LORIMER (Minister of Municipal Affairs): What was that number?

I didn't hear it.

HON. MR. LEVI: It was 36 per cent, Mr. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Overrun!

HON. MR. LEVI: Overrun.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LEVI: I'm going to come to that in a minute — 36 per cent.

HON. MR. LORIMER: I can't believe it.

HON. MR. LEVI: They budgeted, believe it or not, $108 million and they

spent $147 million.

[ Page

537 ]

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: That can't be true!

Interjections.

HON. MR. LEVI: In 1972 and 1973, 23.7 per cent; in 1973-74 — and it

seems to me that was a different government — 14.4 per cent. This year, it will

come in at 36 per cent.

But there is a bit of a difference, a little bit of a difference. You know,

you didn't have any programmes. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. BARRETT: You joined them.

Interjections.

HON. MR. LEVI: What does all this involve?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, oh! What a political opportunist. Hang your head

in shame.

HON. MR. LEVI: We've heard a great deal of screaming and shouting from

the Members across the way about the terrible burden that the municipalities

are bearing.

All right. Well, where are we? You'll all get a copy of this if they haven't

already distributed it. Where were you in 1969? In 1969 your per capita was

84 cents — that's the municipalities. Later on, it went to 96 cents. In 1970

it went to $1.06, $1.15, and then it went way up to $1.58 in 1970. From $1.15

to $1.58 in one jump. Then it went down in 1971 to $1.25 because, they went

from 20 per cent sharing to 15 per cent sharing. In 1972 it was $1.10. We took

it down to 96 cents; we put it up to $1.20 and took it down to 85 cents. And

what is it today? It's $1.10; that's what it is.

I want to ask the Members across the way — I'll ask the Member for Saanich

and the Islands (Mr. Curtis): where were you during all these increases?

HON. MR. BARRETT: He was in the Liberal Party. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. LEVI: Did you protest, Mr. Member? Yes, you did, and I can't

think for the life of me why you are sitting over there when you made such a

row in 1970, because you sure did make a row.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. LORIMER: It was the All Canada Party.

HON. MR. LEVI: And how about you, Mr. Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser)?

You were the mayor of Quesnel.

MR. FRASER: Right.

HON. MR. LEVI: Did you protest? You never said a word! (Laughter.)

Interjections.

HON. MR. LEVI: You never said a word! And how about you, Mr. Member

for Langley (Mr. McClelland)? You were an alderman. Did you protest? Never heard

a word!

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Where were you?

HON. MR. LEVI: Where was I? We were protesting. Where were they, Mr.

Speaker? Where were they then? So now we know: $1.58 in 1970; 96 cents in 1973;

and in April, 1973, the municipalities got a new billing — over $400,000 they

didn't have to pay because we were reducing the amount of money compatible with

what the costs were.

So there we have it: $1.58 under the Socreds, and a nil billing in April,

1973, under the NDP. Those are the facts. That was a new era in municipal-provincial

arrangements.

But where were they, Mr. Speaker? After all, there were three former cabinet

Ministers. They are sitting here somewhere. Oh, yes, there's one of them over

there. Where were you, Madam Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan)? Did you

say anything? You did not. And how about you, Mr. former Minister of Labour

for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot)? Did you say anything? You didn't say a word!

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, not a word.

AN HON. MEMBER: He doesn't understand it.

MR. LEWIS: All smoke and no fire.

HON. MR. LEVI: And the Member for Boundary-Similkameen (Mr. Richter),

did he say anything? He never said a word. They didn't protest. Nobody protests.

Do you know why? Because Mini-WAC's daddy ran the whole show. (Laughter.) So

we have looked at the overruns under the previous government.

Interjections.

HON. MR. LEVI: And what did we look at? We found no programmes: there

was no Mincome; there was no Pharmacare; there was no handicap pension; there

was no day care.

I just want to go back — I'm sure some Members

[ Page

538 ]

on this side will want to go back with me — back to that wonderful night of

Thursday, February 10, 1972, when there was a subamendment, and the subamendment

related to a motion by Mr. Barrett that provision of a guaranteed minimum income

of $200 per month be made for senior citizens over 65 with five years' residence

in the province; supply of medical drugs under the British Columbia Medical

Plan, free of charge for senior citizens; the elimination of all fees for coverage

under the British Columbia Medical Plan for all British Columbia residents over

the age of 65.

And where were we, Mr. Speaker? Well, first of all, of course, the Hon. Member

for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) wasn't even present for the vote, but there

were four Members sitting over there who were. Mr. Fraser, the Member for Cariboo,

voted against that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, no!

HON. MR. LEVI: Mr. Chabot, the Member for Columbia River voted against

that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: I can't believe that!

HON. MR. LEVI: Mr. Richter, the Member for Boundary-Similkameen voted

against that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: He just didn't understand.

HON. MR. LEVI: Mr. Ed. Smith, the Member for North Peace River voted

against that.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Shame!

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): Sorry to tell you, but that is

a fact.

HON. MR. LEVI: They voted against it, and then what did they

say? His dad used to say: "Senior citizens in this province can get

$191." Now my predecessor...you remember him, don't you? My predecessor?

AN HON. MEMBER: What was his name? Names, please.

HON. MR. LEVI: Philip. Philip, the flyer.

HON. MR. LORIMER: Wasn't he the one who conducted the war on poverty?

MRS. D. WEBSTER (Vancouver South): Flying Phil.

HON. MR, LEVI: He was asked a question by Hon. Mrs. Dailly. Asked of

the Hon. Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement, February 15, 1972,

her question read: "How many persons are in receipt of supplementary social

assistance?"

HON. MR, LORIMER: Was that question period?

HON. MR. LEVI: That was for the senior citizens.... That was a question

tabled. There was no question period then; this was all written.

So the Hon. P.A. Gaglardi — that's his name, yes, Gaglardi — the Hon. P.A.

Gaglardi replied as follows: "There are presently 16,645 persons — old age security

cases — receiving the supplementary allowance; 1,283 people are in receipt of $191."

That 1,283 people are less than 1 per cent of the number that we are now supporting

on Mincome in this province.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LEVI: Oh, my colleague has said that it's a deathbed repentance.

I'll tell you about a deathbed repentance.

In October, 1972, we did have a deathbed repentance. When I was introducing

the Mincome bill, lo and behold, the First Member for Victoria (Mr. Morrison)

introduced a bill! He introduced a bill, and he called it the Guaranteed Minimum

Income Act.

AN HON. MEMBER: What gall!

HON. MR. LEVI: The Guaranteed Minimum Income Act — and he was going

to give them $225 in October of 1972. Isn't that amazing?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Waldo must have written that for them.

HON. MR. LEVI: They were in power until the 29th — no, actually until

the 14th, because they made a few decisions up to September 14. But one of the

decisions you never made was to give senior citizens $225. You never made that

decision.

Now we have the young blood over there telling us he's going to take Mincome

up to $260. By the time he ever becomes in power it'll be up to about $500.

(Laughter.)

Mind you, they did say one thing: I think they were going to include the handicapped

— you were going to take them from $139 up to Mincome level. Well, those people

now get $234. You had 24 years in which to be able to do that, and you didn't

produce. When you didn't produce you got defeated, and

[ Page

539 ]

that's why you're sitting over there.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LEVI : And they're loving it. You're right, Mr.

Member, they love it. You know why they love it? Because you hear the penetrating

questions they ask at question time. (Laughter.)

In this budget what would you really have us do with the money? Now what would

you have us do with it? You know, from your policy convention — where was it,

at Harrison? — or from the other convention, the one down at the Hyatt, not

one new idea.

The other day, the Hon. Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) was talking

about the previous government, and the Leader of the Opposition held tip his

hand and said: "Five new innovative programmes." I said: "Which programmes?"

He said: "Five. Not one, but five." What was he talking about? Five new programmes.

He was talking about the bus pass programme. Okay, it's a good programme. He

was talking about the drug subsidy programme. It's a good program. Nobody's

knocking it. He talked about senior citizen counselling. Good programme. I can't

remember the other two.

But you didn't deal with the fundamental issue: that people needed money.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. LEVI: That was a fundamental issue and you avoided it consistently.

So what would you have us do with the money? We'll put it in the bank — so what

— so the banks can make a profit out of it?

Interjections.

HON.

MR. LEVI : This is the money that you want to control. It's nobody's

private fund; it's not to be hoarded or to be saved or to be profited by. It's

the people's money; it's gathered by taxation and it's for the common good.

We shall continue to spend it for the common good, and that's what government

is all about.

So what have they been saying during the budget speech? I'll tell you what

they've been saying, Mr. Speaker: no more Mincome; back to the means test days

— the days of tea, toast and dog food.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame!

HON. MR. LEVI: Dog food — that rings a chord in my memory. We had an

alderman out in Central Saanich recently.

MR. LEWIS: We had a mayor from there, too.

HON. MR. LEVI: Lazarz, I think his name was. He said that it

was the policy of the government to give pet food. So on November 12, I

wrote to Alderman Lazarz. You remember the big headlines. He made a

statement which was a smear statement. I wrote him and I said:

"At the end of September last, I contacted you by phone

regarding the comments you had made about a supposed policy in this department

with respect to an allowance for pets of welfare recipients.

"I asked you for any information you have supporting your

claims. You gave me one name and that case didn't check out. You agreed to supply

me with further information on some horses and how they were fed. I have yet to hear from you.

"In discussing your completely unfounded charge of an allowance

for pets, you said that you were actually implying that recipients who receive

welfare and have pets give some of their food to these pets. I then asked you

if what you were really saying was that people on welfare should not have pets,

and you agreed that's what you were saying.

"I would be interested in hearing from you.

"Yours sincerely...."

That was sent on November 12, and I've yet to hear from him.

That's the kind of ridiculous charge that was made, that was given a lot of

coverage in the press, and no facts — no facts whatsoever.

HON. P.F. YOUNG (Minister of Consumer Services): An elderly person not

allowed to have a pet?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Take away their dogs.

MR. FRASER: Come on! Let the Minister speak.

HON. MR. LEVI: Quiet, Alex. Go back to sleep.

So what do we have? We

don't have any facts on this kind of situation; we have a lot of smear. But

I can tell you that there was in this province under the former government,

under the former leader of that party, Bennett, people who did in fact have

to eat dog food because they were not given the kind of income they needed to

support themselves.

I'd like the people of British Columbia to understand a little bit about how

the news is managed in this province.

MR. FRASER: Ah, here we go!

HON. MR. LEVI: Down, boy!

Here's an example of how the news is managed. The Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland)

gets up

[ Page

540 ]

and says: "How many delinquents stayed at the Empress?" See that big headline?

Look at that — big headlines. Eight column inches — big headlines.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame!

MR. FRASER: Who said that was fact?

HON. MR. LEVI: You're the chairman of the public accounts. Get him to

come to the public accounts and examine the vouchers.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Make him prove his statements.

HON. MR. HALL: You should censure him.

MR. FRASER: We will.

HON. MR. LEVI: You will? We have the guarantee of the chairman of the

public accounts committee that he will censure the Member for Langley.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You can't censure him. He admitted on the air that

he does no research.

HON. MR. LEVI: Yes, that's true. He doesn't do any research.

I wrote him a letter, too, and asked him if he would be good enough to tell

me if he would talk to the RCMP officer who gave him the information and ask

him if he could tell him what case he was referring to. He wrote to me in reply.

He didn't make any reference to the question that I asked him. He just said:

"As a former Member of the opposition now in government, you know that the role

of the opposition is to ask questions." I don't doubt, Mr. Member, that the

role of the opposition is to ask questions. But the role of the opposition is

also to be responsible about asking questions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. LEVI: You can get all the information you want simply by using

the practice that has been traditional in the parliamentary system for years;

speak to the Minister first, he'll come prepared, and you can have all the facts.

If you do not accept that as a practice, what you are doing is rejecting a tradition

that goes back over 500 years, and I suggest you should think about that.

I just want to make one other comment for the benefit of my friends in the

Liberal Party about the kind of coverage we get. It has been referred to before,

but I don't want to let it go because I have an interest in the supplementary

budgeting — or overruns, as it's called.

Did anybody see on the back page of the Victoria Times last week about the

overrun of the federal government? It was a $1.7 billion overrun — a record

overrun.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Was that under "Help Wanted"?

HON. MR. LEVI: On the back page — once. No comment, nothing.

AN HON. MEMBER: Classified ads.

HON. MR. LEVI: An overrun for them is okay.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Was there an editorial in The Vancouver Sun ?

HON. MR. LEVI: No, Mr. Premier, no editorial.

AN HON. MEMBER: No calls for resignation?

HON. MR. LEVI: No.

MR. LEWIS: I can't believe it.

HON. MR. LEVI: So there you have my views on management of news.

Now I want to turn to a couple of other subjects. The first one is — just so

that the press up there isn't asleep — by way of an announcement. Wakey-wakey.

(Laughter.)

On three different occasions now the Premier and myself have been meeting with

a group of church people in respect to a number of problems which we have been

discussing. We suggested to them that they perhaps put together a petition in

which they make a petition to the House. Because we want to act on it I'm going

to include this in the statement.

The undersigned are: Dr. Reverend George Affleck, the executive secretary for

the Victoria and Comox-Nanaimo presbyteries of the United Church of Canada;

the Most Reverend Dr. Remi DeRoo, bishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Victoria;

the Right Reverend Dr. F. Roy Gattrell, bishop of the Diocese of British Columbia

of the Anglican Church of Canada; the Reverend Bruce Maloy, representing the

Victoria presbytery of the Presbyterian Church of Canada; and the Reverend Canon

C. Hilary Butler, acting president of the Greater Victoria Council of Churches

of the Cities of Victoria and Parksville. They humbly showeth:

"In the rapidly changing material and moral conditions of

our society, we believe the life of the family is undergoing exceptional stress.

"Since the family is, in one form or another, the basic

social unit upon which the well-being of all of us depend, we consider it to

be a responsibility of leadership in British Columbia

[ Page

541 ]

to examine the issues affecting family life in this province and to recommend

to the public and to the various levels of government policies that will diminish

the difficulties and enhance the opportunities for a healthy and happy family

life.

"To this end, we, the leaders of churches on Vancouver Island,

hereby petition the Hon. Legislative Assembly of British Columbia to take the

necessary steps to organize a provincial conference on family life sponsored

jointly by the political parties represented in the said assembly and by those

religious bodies within the province who may desire to cooperate.

"We would expect this conference to be preceded by widespread

preparation in local groups, throughout the province to consider the major influences

conditioning family life in the province today and also ways and means towards

strengthening that life and to engender a continuing process of reflection and

action in the community supportive of the family for the future.

"Wherefore your petitioners hereby pray that your Hon. House

may be pleased to accede to our request and, committing ourselves to assist

in the process above described to the extent of our powers, undertake to commend

it as a matter of prayer to our people.

"In duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray for your

Hon. House."

I am happy to announce, and I have informed Bishop Remi DeRoo on behalf of the

group he represents, that the government will in fact sponsor a provincial-wide

conference in the fall and we will be moving towards the preparation of this

over the next several months.

I want to cover today what I consider to be one of the most desperate situations

in relation to the plight of the low-income working people.

We have estimated that in British Columbia today, based on data we looked at

in June, 1974, there are approximately 150,000 children living in families where

the income is less than $5,400 a year. This is based on the 1971 income tax

data and it's adjusted until 1973.

Of the 150,000 children when the study was done, 65,000 children were on welfare.

Thus about 85,000 children are in low-income working families — between 25,000

and 30,000 families.

Could I get leave to continue, Mr. Speaker? I won't be very long.

Leave not granted.

MR. SPEAKER: It's not agreed. I'm sorry.

HON. MR. LEVI: It's not agreed? Can I get leave to continue, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: I believe I asked for leave and it was denied by some Hon.

Members. I must regretfully say that....

HON. MR. LEVI: Could I start again, Mr. Speaker?

MR. CHABOT: The Speaker's the judge in this assembly, not you.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, certainly if there is any doubt that leave was denied.... Shall leave be granted?

Leave not granted.

MR. SPEAKER: There was a "no," I think.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who said "no"?

HON. MR. BARRETT: The Leader of the Opposition.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Speaker said there was a "no."

MR. SPEAKER: I understand there was a "no." I'm sorry, Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: It's the first time that leave has been denied in

this House for 15 years.

MR. FRASER: Oh, baloney!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

Interjections

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Would you permit the Hon. Member to proceed,

please?

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Mr. Speaker, I'm very happy to see

the enthusiastic response with which I rise in the assembly tonight from the

government and from the back bench. And it's always a pleasure to follow the

roly-poly dispenser of welfare in the province.

Interjections.

MR. CHABOT: It appears the Minister believes the more welfare dispensed

in the budget

[ Page

542 ]

the happier he is and the happier the government is as well. Really, the dollars

that are dispensed, Mr. Speaker, are not what we're questioning here tonight.

It's the dollars that have been squandered and the dollars that are being wasted

by that Minister of Human Resources.

Tonight I'll be speaking about other portfolios that are wasteful and extravagant

as well. But certainly he should take his rightful position as one of the prime

portfolios of this government that wastes tax dollars. We have seen the Department

of Human Resources budget increase from the budget year ending March 31, 1973,

from $138 million to the present budget of $516 million — and the more the merrier!

The one thing that that Minister fails to realize is that we're talking about

taxpayers' dollars. He talks as though those were his dollars, as if they were

NDP dollars. Those dollars are taken out of the pockets of every taxpayer in

this province. I'd like you to remember, Mr. Minister, that they're not your

dollars. Those dollars belong to the people of this province, and it's about

time you stopped squandering those dollars. You have the most lavish and extravagant

office of any Minister of the Crown.

Mr. Speaker, I know you want to interrupt me, because you don't like me attacking

your Ministers. Nevertheless, there's no doubt — and you know full well, Mr.

Speaker — that there is no other office that has as extravagant chesterfields,

leather chesterfields, as that Minister has. The Minister has a desk big enough

to sleep three people, and that cost thousands of dollars. Mr. Speaker, King

Farouk would feel at home in his office; there's no doubt about that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. CHABOT: And, you know, the management of his department is symptomatic

of the incompetence that exists in that government over there.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, a point of order has been raised.

HON. MR. LEVI: I need your guidance, Mr. Speaker. The previous Member

has been speaking in inaccuracies. Can I give the facts?

MR. SPEAKER: You can only correct him in regard to any statements you

may have made, but not in regard to his statements. That's a matter for debate.

We all have to take our chance.

HON. MR. LEVI: Thanks very much.

MR. SPEAKER: But I would ask the Hon. Member to address his remarks

impersonally to the Chair.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, you allowed that Minister over there to stray

all over the place, and I'm going to speak to the Chair as I'm doing right now.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, but don't say "you" to any other Member in the House;

just speak impersonally.

MR. CHABOT: Okay, you, Mr. Speaker, if you prefer it that way. Mr. Speaker,

through you to that Minister over there, there is no other office.... I know

you want to leave, Mr. Speaker, because you don't want to hear the facts. He's

anxious to talk to the press — to get his remarks straight to the press.

MR. SPEAKER: That's very unusual in this House, isn't it?

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, there is the Speaker again wanting to attack

the press. There is the Speaker again. But really, Mr. Speaker, there are very

few offices that are as lavish as that of the Minister of Human Resources. There

is imported panelling on the walls that cost thousands of dollars. The only

thing that bothers me is the fact that he doesn't realize that these dollars

are not NDP dollars. They're not dollars of Mr. Levi; they're taxpayers' dollars,

and I wish that he would remember that.

MRS. JORDAN: Services to the people, not to the NDP.

MR. CHABOT: Now the Minister talks about a question that was brought

up in all sincerity by the Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) regarding a delinquent

who was supposedly housed in the Empress Hotel. This information was brought

to him in good faith. I'm not here to defend the Member for Langley, but the

question is that the government spent $50,000 in the Empress Hotel. Where were

those dollars spent, and for what purpose? When will we see them in public accounts?

HON. MR. BARRETT: You'll see them in public accounts.

MR. CHABOT: The Premier says they're in public accounts. When will we

see them — a year from now, 18 months from now? $50,000! The taxpayers of this

province have a right to know why the government spent over $50,000 in the Empress

Hotel. In what part of the hotel was this money spent?

The Minister talks about his great contribution to society. We have municipalities

knocking on the door of the Premier, begging for more assistance. All they get

are shallow promises from that Premier over there and yet we see the waste and

extravagance of that

[ Page

543 ]

portfolio of Human Resources where they are wasting $28,398,000 on community

resources boards. Community resources boards — jobs for friends in Vancouver,

Mr. Speaker; $19,124,000 represents jobs for the NDP in Vancouver. That's what

it is. It's a political charade, and that's all the community resources boards

represent — jobs for their friends.

The municipalities are not asking for the kind of waste that is represented

in this department of $28 million for community resources boards; they would

be satisfied with $20 million. They can't get five cents from that government

over there. And they waste $28 million. Then that Minister (Hon. Mr. Levi) has

the gall to stand up here and suggest that they are not wasting any money in

that portfolio. He even sent around these statistics himself and said, that

the assistance to municipalities — per capita charges to municipalities — was

reasonable. In fact, his chart shows that in 1972 the per capita charge to municipalities

was $171 million for contribution to welfare. In 1974 this was $384 million.

Mr. Speaker, the figures presented by the Minister of Human Resources tell the

full story.

Speaking towards the budget, I was happy to hear the Member for Skeena (Mr.

Dent) give us a short talk the other day about the new members who are joining

the Social Credit Party. There are people joining the Social Credit Party all

over the province — even in your riding, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Name names.

MR. CHABOT: In fact, we have one in Vancouver who has joined the Social

Credit Party who happens to be a twin brother of the Member for Skeena. But

I am sure that the Member for Skeena....

Interjections.

MR. CHABOT: No, Mr. Leader, I am not holding that against the member

for the North Shore — being a brother to the Member for Skeena. But you know

that Member for Skeena, Mr. Speaker, presented himself in the Cariboo three

times and was defeated every time until he wore out his welcome.

MR. FRASER: Throw him out. Throw him out.

MR. CHABOT: Then he carpetbagged up to Skeena just in time to grab

a nomination and run in the last election and get elected on the tide that took

place in the last election. Mr. Speaker, he is a real carpetbagger — a carpetbagger

of the first order. The people up there know full well. He talked about the

former Member (Mr. Little)...

HON. MR. BARRETT: What did you do to Greenwood?

MR. CHABOT: ...who is up there living in Terrace and the possibility

that he might run. Well, I hope he runs because he was a good Member and he

served the people of British Columbia well for 20 years, and I am sure he will

serve the constituency of Skeena well after the next election.

I think in speaking — and I think the people in the gallery believe I was probably

a little harsh towards the Member for Skeena calling him a carpetbagger — but

I was rather surprised that he hasn't brought up his pet project any more. I

presume he's been told by the Premier, or someone in that government, that it

can't possibly become a reality. But that Member stood in his place and made

a suggestion that on behalf of the people he represents in Terrace there was

a desperate need, because of winter driving conditions in the north, that a

tunnel be constructed from Terrace to Vancouver, B.C. As the crow flies that's

approximately 650 to 700 miles from the coast. This is the kind of vision, this

is the kind of thinking that we get from some of those backbenchers who get

up and speak in this House. You know full well that it is not financially feasible

to get a tunnel....

AN HON. MEMBER: Tunnel vision!

MR. CHABOT: That's tunnel vision. I agree, Mr. Speaker, that's tunnel

vision. Those are the kind of ideas that are put forward, that there's a need

for a tunnel.

I am not going to stand here and suggest that we build a tunnel from Columbia

River down to Vancouver because I know it's too ridiculous a statement for me

to make. I'll leave that to the Member for Skeena and there are many of the

other Members on the back bench who wouldn't make that statement because many

of them don't ever speak. Some of them introduce Girl Guides from time to time

and others don't speak at all. Certainly their constituents must have some problems.

They have a responsibility, I believe, to stand in this assembly and speak on

behalf of the people they represent.

Interjection.

MR. CHABOT: Well, yes, I wouldn't doubt for a moment that the Minister

of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea) would, but he is not here tonight to tell us how

far they have progressed with a survey or the task force examining the feasibility

of the tunnel from Terrace to Vancouver.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of. Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley), wherever he

is, I hope he hears me because I want to say a few things about....

MR. FRASER: About all the garbage. I hope he is in one of the bags.

[ Page

544 ]

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, I have had a little bit of correspondence regarding

my constituency with the Minister of Public Works, and the correspondence appears

to be all one way. In case the Minister or one of his executive assistants....

I know he doesn't have as many executive assistants as the Minister of Human

Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi) because, although he is extravagant, he doesn't appear

to be as extravagant as the Minister of Human Resources. He has so many executive

assistants I can't keep track of them. But the Minister of Public Works has

one executive assistant and I hope that he will mark this down or read this

in Hansard because I have been having extreme difficulty in getting a reply

from the Minister regarding a problem that exists in my constituency.

I think that it is very apropos that I read this letter so that the Minister,

in case he hasn't seen it or hasn't heard about it or hasn't cleaned his desk.... Maybe he will read Hansard . If he is in his office and has a P.A. system there,

maybe he will listen to me and come in and give me the answer. I wrote to him.

I was very polite to the Minister of Public Works. I wrote to him on June 19.

I wrote to him again on August 31. I wrote to him again on October 22.

HON. MR. LEVI: What year?

MR. CHABOT: It was 1974 — and still no reply. I wrote to him and I said:

"Dear Mr. Minister:..."

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): That's very good.

MR. CHABOT: Very salutary, isn't it?

"On the afternoon of June 16, you no doubt recall coming

to my office in the parliament buildings..." (That is very unusual, for

a Minister to come to my office; but the Minister came to my office with a purpose

) "...to advise me that you had finally agreed to locate the provincial

tourist information booth in Golden adjacent to the weight scales rather than

at its originally proposed location next to the gravel pit on the hill east

of Golden. I was indeed pleased to secure your decision to relocate the proposed

building.

"Your file on the subject will certainly indicate a strong

desire for the Town of Golden, the Golden and District Chamber of Commerce and

other concerned citizens in having this facility located in a more desirable

location. The most serious objection to the hillside location was the congestion

at this location caused by secondary roads, busy tourist facilities in the immediate

vicinity and poor visibility. Being on a steep hill, this is not the safest location for tourist information.

"On your advice that the proposed building was to be relocated

I advised those individuals that I had received correspondence from that the

building would be constructed near the weigh scales. Needless to say, I was

surprised as I travelled to Golden shortly after the session at the end of June

to be informed that this building was under construction on the east hill.

"If you had no intention of relocating this proposed building,

why did you come to my office on May 16 and advise me that you agreed to the

question of the citizens, of Golden? Was it because your estimates were to be

debated in the Legislature within a few hours from your visit and you did not

want me to raise the issue, which I fully intended doing?

"Mr. Minister, I certainly regret that this incident has

caused me to mistrust your statement. I don't particularly mind being misled

personally by you and your government, but I do take exception to misleading

statements made to my constituents.

"If you had a valid reason for constructing this proposed

tourist information booth on the east hill after stating that it would be located

near the weigh scales, the least you could have done was to inform me and explain

your reasons for the change in plans.

"On June 19 I wrote you seeking written confirmation that

this structure would be located near the weigh scales. To date you have failed

to acknowledge this letter. Please advise at your earliest opportunity the reason

for the change in plans."

The June 19 letter, no reply; August 31 letter, no reply; October 22, no reply.

The October 22 one was just a very brief letter seeking a reply to the letter

which outlined the whole problem on August 31. I can't believe that the Minister

is unwilling to tell me why he has decided to relocate this very lavish building

that has been constructed in Golden. There s no doubt in my mind that it is

located in the wrong pot. It is a building which cost, with landscaping, $250,000.

MR. LEWIS: Is that a fact?

MR. CHABOT: That is a fact. The contract was $224,000. A contractor from

Kamloops built the building with a contract let for $224,000. Along with landscaping

it will cost $250,000. It's no doubt the most expensive tourist information

booth in Canada, probably the most expensive tourist information booth in the

world. That prosperous Province of Alberta has a tourist information booth in

Golden, a little A-frame valued, probably, at $1,500. It does as good a job,

in my

[ Page

545 ]

opinion, in distributing pamphlets, which people inside these structures do

primarily to inform people of the sights to see in the province. I can't understand

why this government would see fit to mislocate a building as extravagant and

as wasteful as this $250,000 building in the community of Golden.

MR. FRASER: Ah, here he comes.

MR. CHABOT: Now we have the Minister of Public Works.

AN HON. MEMBER: Four letters!

MR. CHABOT: He heard me in his office — $250,000.

The Minister suggested that it was required, that it was going to be a year-round

building. The building is finished, with its lavish fireplace and so forth.

It looks more like a steakhouse than it does a tourist information booth. But

it is far too costly for anyone in private enterprise to be able to afford to

put a steakhouse in. Yes, it appears to be a steakhouse. From all appearances

it is a very attractive building, you have to admit. But for the purpose of

distributing pamphlets!

Interjection.

MR. CHABOT: I don't know. It is liable to be, with that Minister over

there. It is liable to be licensed.

MR. FRASER: No wonder your budget is $90 million.

MR. CHABOT: It just indicates very clearly the kind of waste and extravagance

that takes place in government and the waste and extravagance that exists within

the Department of Public Works — $250,000 to distribute tourist pamphlets.

In Golden the Province of Alberta has a similar structure worth about $1,500.

It does the same job, No wonder people in British Columbia are concerned about

the waste of their tax dollars when you see this kind of extravagance taking

place with tourist information booths.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'll write to the mayor and to the people of Columbia

River and tell them you didn't want it.

MR. FRASER: Shut up or I'll send you a letter!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, the Minister does not answer correspondence,

and he twists the facts. At no time have I suggested that we didn't need a tourist

information booth in Golden. Certainly there's a need for a tourist information,

but not as lavish as has been established in that community. No way. I don't

think the taxpayers of British Columbia can afford that kind of extravagance.

I don't care whether it's in Golden, Vancouver, or Skookumchuck; it can't be

afforded — not that kind of extravagance.

Now I'm watching very closely to see where their access is going to come from,

because they're located along the Trans-Canada Highway, and I know that the

Department of Highways has been extremely harsh with other businesses along

the Trans-Canada Highway. I would hope that the government is not a double-standard

government — a government that would provide access for itself and deny access

to other businesses along the Trans-Canada Highway in the immediate vicinity.

But we see the waste and extravagance not only in the tourist information booth

in Golden but we also see it regarding the building rentals by that department.

Would you believe that in the estimates ending March 31, 1972, there was allocated

a sum of $2.5 million for rental of space for the housing of civil servants

in the province? Would you believe that in the budget we are presently debating

the government has allocated $15 million?

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): Things are booming in

B.C.

MR. CHABOT: Certainly we must be adding awfully fast to the civil service.

We know full well the civil service has increased from 29,000 to 50,000 in a

period of two years. We've increased our costs by six times for the rental of

space; tens of millions of dollars in new construction for civil servants. That's

waste and extravagance. That's bureaucracy in full bloom by the Department of

Public Works.

Now we find there's a little difficulty with the Minister wanting to establish

a tourist site in Yale, the great community of Yale. He appears to be the only

one who wants to establish another Barkerville, another Fort Steele, because

the residents are hesitant to support it. In fact they can't see any justification

for this historical site being established in that community. In fact they've

opposed it. They say that the only historical building within the community

is an old church.

Just last Sunday I had the opportunity to drive through Yale and try to see

where this justification was for the lavishness which the Minister is attempting

to establish in his constituency, in the community of Yale. The only thing they

have is the church.

I don't know what they're going to establish in Yale — a street of signs to

say that this rubble you can see, these few bricks, this little bit of mortar,

[ Page

546 ]

these vines and weeds, is where the old bank was in 1849. Then down the street

— this is where the bakery was in 1851. Is it going to be a street of signs?

— because there's nothing to restore. You can't start comparing Yale with the

communities of Barkerville and Fort Steele. Both those communities had something

worth restoring — an old community. There's nothing at Yale. There's a church,

and it's in good repair — there's a good roof on it. It looks to be in good

shape.

I can't understand why the Minister was extremely angry at the time the announcement

was made by one of his senior Deputy Ministers.

MR. FRASER: He didn't know anything about it and it's in his own riding.

MR. CHABOT: He was angry because the Deputy Minister suggested it was

not going to be another Barkerville, but the Minister wants to make it another

Barkerville. There's nothing to build on; absolutely nothing. He even threatened

the press — that if they wrote anything about it, he'd deny knowing anything

about it or of it ever having been announced. It had already been announced

by the Deputy Minister. I just don't understand what this Member is speaking

about. I just don't understand.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: You're kind of slow at learning.

MR. CHABOT: I might be a slow learner, Mr. Minister, but I don't see

any justification for you, again, wanting to squander more taxpayers' money

in the community of Yale when there's absolutely no justification. You suggested

that you're going to establish another Barkerville when there's nothing but

one church there that I know of, unless we're going to take over the hotel,

and the hotel was built only last year.

Interjections.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, the budget for the Minister of Public Works

has skyrocketed. The budget is in the vicinity of $90 million, and just three

years ago, in the estimates ending March 31, 1973, it was $37 million. Now it

has reached $90 million. There's no doubt that there is a lot of waste and extravagance

by that Minister of Public Works.

Now I want to-say a few words on the matter of education as it relates to the

East Kootenays. I remember bringing this question to the attention of the Minister

(Hon. Mrs. Dailly) back in the spring session of 1973. I suggested to her at

the time that there was a pressing need for the establishment of the vocational

school in the Cranbrook-Kimberley area of East Kootenays, it being central for

that particular region.

"Oh, no," the Minister said, "oh, no, no. I think that

it should be in Fernie. We're going to have an inter-tie with the Southern Alberta

Institute of Technology." Oh, yes! We're more interested in having an inter-tie

with Lethbridge technological school than we are in being central for the people

in the East Kootenays.

I pointed out to the Minister that in 1972 the former government had come to

the conclusion that there was a pressing need to establish vocational services

in the East Kootenays, and they were prepared to proceed either in the fall

of 1972 or the spring of 1973 to construct facilities in the Cranbrook-Kimberley

area. But oh, no. That wasn't good enough for the Minister. The studies that

had been carried out by her department weren't satisfactory. She had to have

a task force, of political hacks, well paid to examine a question that had

already been thoroughly researched by the Department of Education. The task

force reported and gave its conclusions to the department. Then we even had

a royal commission on the needs of post-secondary education in the Kootenays.

Tonight I watched the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Nimsick)

on television and he said: "Oh, I used to be in opposition and I used to argue

for royal commissions on the question of mining. Now I am in government and

there is no need for royal commissions."

Mr. Speaker, there must be a need for inquiry because this government has so

many task forces no one, in this province could possibly keep track of them.

But they had no hesitation to carry out a royal commission to study the needs

of post-secondary education in the Kootenays when they already had the answers

to the requirements and the needs for the people in that region.

The conclusions brought down by the royal commission were similar to the conclusions

arrived at by the Department of Education before they came into office — that

there was a need for....

Interjection.

MR. CHABOT: Well, the report just came in in 1972, and you had it. It

was available to you. Instead of acting, this Minister over here thought it

was necessary to have a royal commission and a task force as well so these people

could travel all over, stirring up the water, accomplishing nothing. And we

were in the process of establishing vocational facilities in the East Kootenays.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON (Kamloops): Yours is a 20-year study.

MR. CHABOT: But nothing is happening in the

[ Page

547 ]

field of post-secondary education in the Kootenays right now because that government

over there and that Minister over there have put the brakes on post-secondary

education in the East Kootenays. They've put the brakes on.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): That is nonsense.

MR. CHABOT: That royal commission brings down the exact suggestions

that I made to the Minister in the spring of 1973. They completely discredit

the idea put forward by the Minister that there was a need for vocational facilities

to be established in Fernie. They say that the base centre should be in the

Cranbrook-Kimberley area. It's clearly spelled out in the royal commission.

Now the Minister said she is not putting the brakes on. Well, I'll just read

to her about a little meeting that took place on January 20 at 7 p.m. in Cranbrook

— the East Kootenays post-secondary education committee meeting. This is what

they had to say:

"Mr. Baber began by giving a brief outlining the activities

toward the community college in the East Kootenays which had brought Selkirk

into the picture. Two official studies had been made, the McTaggart-Cowan report

and now the provincial task force. The first had proposed a semi-autonomous

unit in the East Kootenays. The second had recommended a completely autonomous

college, much like Selkirk College itself. Having these reports on hand, the

provincial government proceeded to let them gather dust on the shelf."

Oh! The Minister suggested to me just a few moments ago that they were acting

on the royal commission, and here is a meeting that was covered by 52 people

present, mostly town councillors and school board members from various districts

of the East Kootenays. All districts were represented, and they say that the

Minister has put the reports and the studies to gather dust on the shelf.

"Eventually Selkirk College was requested by the Department

of Education to provide interim service to the East Kootenays pending final

resolution of the East Kootenay Community College problem. It was understood

up to this point that the educational system was heading towards the provincial

government paying all the bills in school construction and operation.

"For the current fiscal year, April 1, 1974, to March 31,

1975, Selkirk was given a grant of $114,000 to provide satellite services in

the East Kootenays, with a promise of further 100 per cent provincial funding

at a later date if additional services should so require.

"However, the new superintendent of finance has pointed

out to Mrs. Dally that it is illegal for the provincial government to fund 100

per cent of any programmes which have not been approved by the school board."

Well, now she has been told by the superintendent of finance that she was wrong

in the original instance. Is this similar to what took place in the firings

and the clearing out of the desk and one of the members of the research committee

complaining on television? He's still in the department — Mr. Arnstad.

He said: "It was terrible. I came back to my office and it had been cleared

out, had been thrown on the floor with a pile of other stuff. People had been

fired." He said: "I had difficulty rounding up my stuff to put it back in thy

desk. My job was apparently still there."

Interjection.

MR. CHABOT: Who instructed the Minister to clear out Mr. Arnstad's desk

and the other desks?

Now we know who's informing the Minister regarding the 100 per cent funding

of the satellite services provided in the East Kootenay: the superintendent

of finance.

"Between this and declining tax revenue, Selkirk was abruptly

informed that all 100 per cent support would cease as of March 31, 1975. Any

financial aid after that time would be given only on the usual 60-40 basis.

"Since Selkirk's academic year runs from September to June,

the period from April 1 to June 30 is now a financial disaster. Selkirk has

no intention of abandoning its commitments during this period, even if it means

a $40,000 loss for the West Kootenay school. However, it did appeal for help

to the East Kootenay School Board to defray this deficit."

Mr. Paynter made it very clear that he was not begging, that he was really

embarrassed about the whole thing, that the school boards had no more obligation

to come to Selkirk's aid.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: Twist, twist, twist!

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, the Member for Kamloops says that I

"twist, twist, twist." All I'm reading is a report of an East Kootenay

post-secondary education committee meeting attended by 52 people

representing all school boards and municipalities in the East Kootenay.

And that Member for Kamloops has the gall to say I'm twisting. I'm just

reading a copy of the report from that meeting.

"The idea that the provincial government will build a community

college for the East Kootenays may now be considered dead."

I read you, Madam Minister, the date — it was

[ Page

548 ]

January 20, 1975, 7 p.m., in the community of Cranbrook, which is central to

the East Kootenays.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Get up-to-date.

MR. CHABOT: The Minister says: "Get up-to-date." Apparently she hasn't

changed her mind, because it appeared on January 20. The latest information

conveyed to me was that the government was backtracking, that the government

was pulling back its commitment to the East Kootenay regarding satellite services

of post-secondary education in the academic field in the East Kootenay.

It's despicable that the Minister hasn't seen fit, if there's been a change

of policy in that department, to issue a press release. She issues a press release

almost every second day. If she has had a change of heart, why doesn't she tell

the people of British Columbia that she's had a change of heart, that she's

been informed of what's right by her superintendent of finance, and that the

trouble in the East Kootenay is being rectified?

[Mr. G.H. Anderson in the chair.]

I don't know if it's being rectified. The

latest information that was given to me is that the government has destroyed

the opportunity of establishing post-secondary facilities and programmes in

the East Kootenay. It's quite clear right here in the report of January 20.

No wonder there is apprehension in the East Kootenay regarding the government.

No wonder there is a feeling of loneliness. No wonder there is a feeling of

isolation. No wonder there is a feeling of going to Alberta, with the kind of

treatment that is given by this government over there. All we ask in the East

Kootenay is fair treatment and fair plan from this government. We don't expect

any more, we don't want any special favours. We just want fair treatment and

that's all.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): Oh, oh!

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, we hear from the Minister of Transport and

Communications. He says: "Oh, oh!" Well, I wish that Minister of Transport and

Communications would jack up somebody in ICBC that gives him a lot of erroneous

information, because he gave a lot of erroneous information yesterday to this

House. I'm not going to accuse him of misleading this House...

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Oh, oh!

MR. CHABOT: ...but the information that he received from some of those

people in ICBC was certainly misleading to the Members of this assembly.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: You're not interested in the truth anyway.

MR. FRASER: Give us some answers.

MR. CHABOT: The Minister suggested that the cheque had been recovered.

Well, the cheque is in my office.

Mr. Speaker, I was going to speak about economic development to a substantial

degree tonight. However, the hour is getting late, and I'm just going to say

a very few words on that question.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: We'll give you leave.

MR. CHABOT: All I want to ask of the Minister of Economic Development

(Hon. Mr. Lauk) is that he table his annual report before his estimates come

before the House.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Hear, hear!

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, last year he didn't give us the courtesy of

tabling his annual report before his estimates — that wafer-thin report, about

four or five pages. I'm sure that with the kind of activity that's taken place

in his department during the last year, no page would be ample to tell us what

has taken place. Just one side of one piece of paper will tell us — complete

disclosure, full disclosure of the activities within his department for the

last year.

MR. FRASER: Zilch!

MR. CHABOT: Is that, asking too much, Mr. Speaker, to have that Minister

over there table his annual report so that we can find out whether he has done

anything or not? We know full well whether he has or not, but at least have

a little consideration. Don't only have contempt for this assembly — table your

annual report. It can be summarized, and you know full well that it can be summarized

on one page.

Now that I'm speaking, I hope the Minister will take into consideration the

fact that unemployment has gone up to 107,000 people in British Columbia — 107,000.

That's almost 10 per cent of the labour force unemployed, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The best speech you ever made.

MR. CHABOT: Never in the history of this province have 107,000 people

been on unemployment insurance. I hope that the Minister

[ Page

549 ]

will, when he stands up, tell us what kind of activities his department proposes

to undertake to create jobs for those people.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon. Member is on his last two minutes.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: He's on his last leg.

MR. CHABOT: Well, Mr. Speaker, I had much more to speak about. I'd like

to talk for a few minutes on the Minister of nothing....

MR. FRASER: He never voted for that closure button anyway.

MR. CHABOT: Well, Mr. Speaker, I was going to speak about the Minister

of nothing...

MR. FRASER: Democracy in British Columbia ho, ho!

MR. CHABOT: ...the Minister Without Portfolio (Hon. Mr. Nunweiler),

but time doesn't permit me, Mr. Speaker, and I want to speak about the budget.

There's nothing in this budget, Mr. Speaker, but evidence of broken promises

by this government to the electorate.

MR. FRASER: We'll tell the people.

MR. CHABOT: There's nothing to-indicate that the promises made by this

government to the people will be fulfilled. There's nothing in this budget to

indicate that there's going to be a Ministry of women established in British

Columbia. There's nothing in the budget that indicates there'll be a department

of fisheries established in this province this session.

There's nothing in this budget that indicates that the people of British Columbia

will get that promised $25 a year car insurance. We know full well what the

price of insurance is in this province. We know full well that every time you

pull up to the gas pump in this province you subsidize the auto insurance in

this province.

There's nothing in this budget that indicates a resource companies information

Act will be forthcoming for full financial disclosure by resource companies.

There's nothing in this budget for the removal of school taxes from family farms

and owner-occupied homes. There's nothing in this budget that indicates a dental

programme for the young people and the older people in this province.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Hey! The light's red!

MR. CHABOT: There's nothing in this budget that indicates there is going

to be an Indian board of claims for dealing with Indian land claims; all we

have is Mr. Howard with the peace pipe. There's nothing in this budget that

indicates an ombudsman will be appointed.

Mr. Speaker, there's nothing in this budget that indicates we're going to get

a provincial bill of rights. You remember that provincial bill of rights that

was put forward in the throne speech in 1973 and was never carried forth.

Mr. Speaker, this budget fails to fulfil the promises and the expectations

of the people of this province. Thank you very much.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): During the closing moments,

as the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) was driving through a red light

(laughter), I paid very close attention to what he was saying. When he remarked

about all the things that were missing from this budget, I thought that he was

talking about the things that were missing from the budgets pre-1972. He must

have borrowed sonic speeches left over from the opposition.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I was in the opposition criticizing the Social Credit administration

budgets. I'm still here, and I still intend to criticize the budgets of this

government.

MR. LEWIS: Positive opposition.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Yes, it is positive opposition, Mr. Member for Shuswap (Mr.

Lewis), if you'll just listen very carefully.

I suppose the reason I have to criticize this budget, and what is so disappointing

about it, is that it is so much the same as the budgets that were produced by

the former administration.

MR. LEWIS: That's a terrible thing for you to say.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: If you look at the budget carefully, it certainly

is bigger. There's no question about that. The NDP have learned how to do it

in bigger and better ways. But as you go through the details of this budget

you find that there is really nothing new in this budget.

I think that if anything is disturbing the people of this province it is that

the government, which was expected to produce so much, has in a very few short

months fallen unhappily into the patterns of the previous administration. The

money is bigger and we have all kinds of claims about "welfare budgets" and

"job-security budgets." All budgets have to have some kind of a name tag attached

to them.

I notice that the government Members speaking in this debate have been prepared

to tag to the opposition the initials D and G — that's doom and gloom. But I've

noticed, Mr. Speaker, that as the government Members have risen in their places,

[ Page

550 ]

including cabinet Ministers, they haven't been G and D — gleeful and

delighted. They've talked about recession; every one of them has talked about

recession. But, of course, it's not the fault of this government. Somehow or

other it's a national malady or an international malady, something over which

we have no control. Recession, they talk about, and the dangers of inflation

and how terrible it is. But they aren't really gleeful about a budget which

has increased by over $ I billion in this year. And they all talk about the

same thing: we're all proud of Mincome; we're all proud of Pharmacare. And about

that time they launch into a discussion of something to do with their ridings.

MR. D. T. KELLY (Omineca): Ever go across the line?

MR. FRASER: Beartrap! Beartrap!

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: It seem to me that the government Members have been

under considerable strain to find it within themselves to really support this

budget. I find it among the. backbenchers. I'm convinced that they truly are

a little disappointed with what their Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett)

has produced this year.

In some respects, you know, it is fair to call this the welfare budget, if

you look at some of the items department by department. I recognize that the

Members have had this budget prodded from every particular angle for almost

two weeks now. But it bears some recognition that agricultural expenditures

last year were budgeted at $15 million; now it's gone to $60 million. If you

look at where it's spent, it's welfare for the farmers.

You know, I just happen to be old enough to recognize what we used to call

"relief" when I was a boy. But there's one distinction, and that is that

among all the moneys that are being spent for farm income assurance there is

a difference from what there used to be in relief, back in the days that I recall,

back in the '30s. Now you get it whether you're rich or poor. It doesn't

make any difference; it doesn't matter how wealthy you are or how poor you are

as a farmer. Under farm income assurance, you get it too. Therefore, the dairy

industry is getting it, the fruit industry is getting it, regardless of whether

you're wealthy or poor; and very shortly the cattle industry is going to get

it, whether you're wealthy or poor. It's another subsidy. It's relief.

If you look at the Department of the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr.

Macdonald), you will find that his budget is going from $70 million to

$115 million. If you look at all those estimates that are in that green

book, you find that a major portion of this vast expenditure is going

to look after the criminals in our society. Really what is involved in

the Attorney-General's budget is welfare for lawyers. Look at the

estimates! I urge all the Members to look carefully at the estimates.

The people who are going to benefit from that vast expenditure are

largely the legal profession. All of this money will be spent, and at

the same time there is a feeling in all of our communities that somehow

or other we're losing control of law and order in our communities. Why

all this expenditure?

Then look at Economic Development. Here's a really startling

statistic in this budget of the one department of government that you

would think that this government would be turning to in order to get

something moving in this province, when we're faced, as the papers

report today, with 8.5 per cent unemployed. You know, since we had a

debate earlier in this session about the number of unemployed, they

have increased at the rate of 150 a day. We're now at 8.5 per cent. But

unfortunately the Department of Economic Development, the one that you

would think would be energized to do something about this problem, has

a budget that only goes up from $4 million to $5 million.

If I were the Minister of Economic Development under those

circumstances, I think I would tender my resignation. It seems to me

that the Minister of Finance has shown a massive distrust of the

abilities and talents of that Minister. It was the same thing in the

former government.

HON. MR. BARRETT: We'll accept your resignation.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Education goes up fro $553 million to $754 million.

MR. KELLY: It's not enough.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: It's not

enough, but at the same time there is in all of our constituencies and

in all of our communities the unsettling feeling that somehow or other,

with all this money being spent, our children are not being educated.

That's the feeling around in this province.

We have criticisms of the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly).

We see the department apparently in some confusion and chaos. We are

spending all this money, and the people wonder why. Is it welfare for

teachers? You hear that in some communities as well.

Then we have the Department of Finance. It goes from $30 million to

$53 million. It doesn't produce anything. That is just a department

that houses the individuals who reach out into the pockets of every one

of the taxpayers in this province and yard it in. Their expenses have

gone from $30 to $53 million.

Health goes from $529 million up to $712 million. And still we hear from the Minister (Hon. Mr. Cocke)

[ Page

551 ]

that he is attempting to resolve the problems of health delivery in all of

the communities of this province. The B.C. Medical Center is yet to produce

for the people in the metropolitan areas any significant change in health delivery.

We still have not yet made any real advance in the rural areas of the province.

If you happen to be a person who is in need of immediate care, you are in trouble

because there aren't any facilities for you. And yet all this money is going

up. Is this welfare for doctors? The question remains in our minds.

Housing goes up from $75 million to $90 million. That's not much of an increase

in a department which is charged with the responsibility of looking after a

situation which could be described as "crisis" in our community, not only

in our province but in the whole country. That's this government's responsibility,

but somehow or other this department is left a little short too.

MR. KELLY: You have to have it one way or the other.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Then we get to Human Resources and we go up from

$304 million to $516 million. I must say that the Minister this evening gave

a very sterling defence to the charges that have been made against him. But,

of course, he didn't convince me.

Back in 1970, just five years ago, the actual budget expended by the government

for welfare and human resources was only $104 million. Now we are going to spend

five times that much. Yes, we've got Mincome and the people need it. The people

who receive it need it.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Don't spend money on it.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: No, the amount that you are spending on Mincome,

Mr. Minister of Finance, does not justify a fivefold increase in that budget

over five years.

HON. MR. BARRETT: They need the programmes, but don't spend money on

it.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: You're spending money on it but nothing like the

money that's spent in your department, the $500 million. One-sixth of the budget

of the province of British Columbia is being spent by the Ministry of Human

Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi).

HON. MR. BARRETT: Now you tell us what you'd cut, as a Liberal Party.

You tell us right now.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I don't have to tell you.

You happen to be Minister of Finance, and I happen to be criticizing your budget.

The first member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) gave you the

alternative Liberal budget. It's in the Hansard . He said he would cut down Human

Resources and he gave the amount. He did not cut down Mincome; he did not cut

down Pharmacare. But we would cut down the wasting programmes you have in communities

which are only providing jobs for people who happen to feel the way that you

do — that welfare is a way of life in this province and will continue

to be a way of life.

HON. MR. LEVI: Which programme? Which programme?

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: That's what you're doing. You are making welfare

a way of life that the former government never believed possible. This is what

is wrong with this budget Mr. Speaker.

HON. G.V. LAUK: (Minister of Economic Development) Flim-flam! You can't

tell us one programme.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: The difficulty with a budget of this kind is that

it fails recognize that the inflation and recession situation which faces us

in this province and throughout North America and, indeed, throughout the world

is not itself the problem but is really a symptom of a much deeper social disorder

is the inability of the governments to meet the increasing demands and the rising

expectations which government is finding to be unfillable. That's the problem,

and we see it in our communities today.

Yes we have 8.5 per cent of the people unemployed — people out of work.

But in this community, greater Victoria, we also have 1,400 or 1,500 employees

either on strike or locked out. We have the same situation in the Municipality

of Surrey. We are on the verge of having the same situation in the city of Vancouver

where 6,000 employees either will go on strike or will be locked out. We have

it as well in the Port of Vancouver.

We are facing it with our forest industry. We are facing it with our pulp industry.

We are facing it with the retail clerks in this province. Where will it end?

People believe that somehow or other the government, somebody, can meet their

rising expectations and fulfill their needs for a greater amount of money to

spend each month. That is the problem that government has contributed to, particularly

in British Columbia, because it has led the people to expect

[ Page

552 ]

that there can be a never-ending increase in their purchasing power.

This government has done it with this kind of a budget which has suddenly risen

by more than $1 billion, apparently without any difficulty. No problem in raising

the taxes to pay for a budget of $3.2 billion. No problem when you increase

the civil service by 29,000 jobs. No problem when you grant raise after raise

after raise to the civil servants. Somehow or other the money is available.

That attitude creates the rising expectation of everyone who looks at government

and believes that somehow or other it is in a position to solve the problem.

MR. R.T. CUMMINGS (Vancouver–Little Mountain): How many new jobs?

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: That is where we stand with this budget. While all

this is happening with the government which is providing nothing new in this

budget, we find the unusual circumstance of people who apparently do not care

to work. We find decay in our social order. We find that the Minister of Human

Resources closes his remarks in this debate tonight by announcing that this

fall the government is going to convene a conference on problems which beset

the family. That's part of the difficulty; that's part of the great dent in

our society which the government is doing nothing to heal with this budget.

So this fall they're going to have a conference to discuss what the problem

is with the families.

HON. MR. LEVI: You're an incredible man.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: No, I'm not incredible. It's you, Mr. Minister, who

are incredible, who fail to direct your mind to the problems.

We had the Member for Omineca (Mr. Kelly) speak to us the other night. He told

us what the problem was in the north. He said there are lots of jobs in the

north; they're crying for employees in the north. You can't get service. You

can't get a plumber. You can't get a bricklayer. You can't get a shoemaker in

the north. All of the things we take for granted in the lower mainland communities

are not available in the north.

I sat here in this seat and listened in wonderment to what the Member said,

and I asked him: why not? He gave me the answer that it seems people don't want

to work anymore. That's the answer that came from that Member, a government

Member, who recognizes what the problems are.

It's noteworthy that this morning in the press the same response was given

at a forum of leaders of unions and industry. The president of the International

Woodworkers of America said in Vancouver on Monday:

"Somebody has to instil some incentive, a feeling of dedication

among our young people.

"Both sides are missing the boat. If job openings are more

than a couple of blocks off Granville Street, they don't stay filled very long.

They don't stay filled very long, while employers in the north are crying for

workers."

The leader of one of the major unions in British Columbia agrees with the Member

for Omineca.

There appears to be a reluctance on the part of the young people in our community

to work. That, too, stems from the rising expectations which are being fed by

a government that produces a budget of this kind — a budget that does not challenge

them; a budget that does not provide them with the incentives; a budget that

says to the young people of the Province of British Columbia: "It's easy; it's

easy. We can raise our budget by over $1 billion with no problem at all, It's

easy."

This will lead to the breakdown in any apprentice programme that we may have

left in this province. Why should a young man become an apprentice and learn

a trade when he can go and get more money than some honest tradesman by just

taking a job he can find in Vancouver? Then if he can't hack it there he can

get it from the Department of Human Resources.

MR. KELLY: It's not quite that simple.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Not quite, no. But what's the incentive, Mr. Member

for Omineca, to go up where it's cold, where the life is tough and where you

talked about...

MR. FRASER: You don't know what incentives mean.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: ...living in a tent? Why is a young man going to

go and suffer those kind of privations to give you the services you require

in Omineca?

That's the difficulty which exists with a budget of this kind, and that's why

I intend to vote against the motion.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to turn to another matter which arises out of the budget

and to which I've addressed myself on a number of occasions — the matter of

the use of our energy resources in this province, and the manner in which this

government has, I think, ineffectively protected the rights of British Columbians

now and in the future insofar as those resources are concerned.

I don't intend to go into the details of what I consider to be an unfortunate

set of negotiations which the Minister of Finance has carried on with the national

government. But I do wish to recognize that in this budget the Minister of Finance,

in what I consider to be a crass political move, has attempted

[ Page

553 ]

to curry some favour with the municipal leaders in British Columbia by offering

them, as he says, for the first time, a share in the natural resource revenue

of the Province of British Columbia — an amount which is yet undetermined, to

be divided in a manner which is yet undisclosed.

But he has missed the boat; he is moving in the wrong direction. He is offering

to the municipalities a share in the resource revenue from natural gas which,

as everybody knows, is a diminishing resource. Careful estimates have been made

as to our present requirements. In the span of 25 years, we may find that we

have no longer the natural gas supplies in this province that we will require

in order to....

HON. MR. BARRETT: How many years?

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Twenty-five — the year 2000.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I don't think any of us will be in the House at that

time.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: That's right. I'm not speaking for those who are

in the House, because we have got it made. It is easy for us, it is easy for

the Minister of Finance, with the salary that he is getting. But, Mr. Speaker,

it has always been my belief that when we stand in this House in debate, when

the government brings forward programmes, we are not talking for ourselves but

for the generations who are yet to come.

I'm not criticizing the Minister of Finance on this respect. I just think that

it is time we got down to thinking about those people who are going to be here

in 25 years, either in this House or else as members of the public in British

Columbia. It is the legacy that we leave them that may harness them to conditions

of abject poverty or at least give them the opportunity to live a worthwhile

life.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You never made that speech on the land bill. You had

different views then.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: You may want to go back into the land bill debate,

but I am not talking about the land bit at the moment; I am talking about the

deal that you are prepared to offer the municipalities. I am only offering you

a suggestion. You have made your decision in this regard, but I want to offer

you a suggestion as to the problem that you are creating.

I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that what the Minister should recognize with this diminishing

natural resource is that there is a need to husband the revenues which are ours

from that natural resource. The day will come when we will need every dollar

that we can garner from those resources. It is like the farmer who sells his

seed grain. What will he do when it comes time to plant? It is all gone. What

do we do when our natural resources, in the form of natural gas, are gone and

we have spent the money?

I suggest that rather than offering the municipalities a share of the revenue,

the Government of British Columbia should embark immediately upon a programme

of establishing a growth trust for British Columbia. The revenues from natural

gas — all the revenues from natural gas — should be paid into that growth trust

for the purposes of replacing the energy resource that we are slowly using up

and for the production of other capital works which will be needed to sustain

our economy in the decades to come, which will in turn produce the dollars to

meet the needs of the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi), the Minister

of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke), and the Minister of northern development (Hon. Mr.

Nunweiler) and the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly). We must continue

to produce and to sustain our economic society, or all of these things — Mincome,

Pharmacare, education — will slowly collapse from the lack of financing.

I think, in this year, when we have all this money to spend, we should give

the municipalities the assistance they require. But the money we get as revenue

from the sale of natural gas should be carefully placed in this trust. The Minister

of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Lauk), with an expanded department, should

be given the responsibility of planning for the expenditure of those moneys

over the next decade and the decade following that to make jobs, to challenge

our young people and to ensure that the economy of this province will continue

to flourish. He will be challenged to use these funds in an imaginative way,

to really use his initiative in order to make certain that the selection he

makes provides challenging responsibilities for the Young people of this province.

I'm talking about new energy sources. That's one — the use of thermal power,

the use of solar energy. That's one way he could go. Or he could turn to the

Department of Agriculture and direct some of his activities towards that Minister's

(Hon. Mr. Stupich) responsibility to ensure that we find ways of producing more

protein, which is so much needed in order to sustain life.

Or he could turn and help the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon.

Mr. Nimsick) and say, "Okay, let's stop talking about digging holes in our mountainsides

to find low-grade copper ore. Let's go out and look in the ocean beds and see

what's there for us." There's been a glimmer of what is there, but vast exploration

is yet to be undertaken. That's the responsibility of the Minister of Mines

and Petroleum Resources and the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Lauk).

The kind of funds of which I speak could assist that Minister in his responsibilities.

[ Page

554 ]

Let's turn to the problems of northern development and the things spoken about

by the Member for Omineca (Mr. Kelly) and find ways in which to establish communities

in the north that will be acceptable to our young people, middle-aged and old.

That's the challenge that faces this government, and to fail to fulfil this

challenge is to deny to the young people of British Columbia the future which

it is our responsibility to make for them.

There's another feature about this whole matter of energy use and the financial

returns from energy that I must touch upon. We have heard it said recently by

a Member of the national government that somehow or another we must conserve

our energy resources, particularly insofar as petroleum is concerned. I agree

with that. We, too, must start to conserver our natural gas.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: It is good enough for me to call officials of the

British Columbia Energy Commission and discuss the future of energy in this

province with them and have them tell me that favourable estimates would give

us a 25-year supply. That's not good enough. How can we say to the young people

who come to the galleries of this assembly in the afternoon: "Before any of

you are old enough to sit in this House, you won't have natural gas”?

How is that good enough as a legacy for them?

I think we have got to start practicing conservation immediately, and one way

to practise is for this government to announce that the price of that product

in British Columbia is going to be raised to its proper value and with the moneys

being retained by this government and placed into this growth trust which I

mentioned.

Interjection.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Nonsense, because you also take some of the moneys.... And this is where there hasn't been a new idea in that government since

you took office. The Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi) talked about

all the money he was going to spend on all these programmes, but he didn't make

any mention of a programme which was going to reduce the regressive taxation

policies as they affect the old and the poor in this province.

There's a challenge for you. There is nothing in this budget to meet that particular

problem.

Interjection.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: You blame it on the federal government...

MR. C.S. GABELMANN (North Vancouver-Seymour): That's right.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: ...just

as if the Province of British Columbia doesn't raise any taxes. You

raise $3.2 billion in taxes. That's what you do, every year. That's

what you are doing with this budget. Don't kid yourself. This

government is raising this money. Don't blame it on the feds. You get a

few hundred million dollars from the federal government. Face up to the

facts: you are the taxes in this province, and your major revenue is

from personal and corporate income tax, and the Minister of Finance

(Hon. Mr. Barrett) is not doing anything to ease the burdens on those

people in the lower middle class of income and below.

There's no question of what the federal government is doing. It's

giving the breaks to the middle and upper middle income classes so far

as tax is concerned. But what is this government doing? Anyway, I've

been digressing from my point.

Conservation is something we must practise, and we must recognize

that as we practise conservation we will diminish and delay the returns

to us from our resources. When we diminish and delay, we also are faced

with the clear indication that the cost of producing these resources

will rise. Therefore, with a diminishing return and a rising cost, the

net recovery to the Treasury will, in turn, diminish.

That is why this Minister must husband carefully these resource

revenues, not promise them to the municipalities as a political move,

not gamble them away in fruitless discussions with the national

government. That's what he did when he went to Ottawa. He gambled away

our resource revenue, and he lost.

HON. MR. COCKE (Minister of Health): Oh, come on!

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: He lost

the gamble. He gave it away, just like a toss of the dice. He failed to

meet the challenge that was his and the challenge that is British

Columbia's.

Now lest anyone suggest that somehow or other I'm trying to urge

that this province not make its proper contribution to Confederation,

let me hasten to say that that is far from the case. But the fact of

the matter is that the revenues which we receive from the resources

which are ours should be made available for the benefit of all

Canadians through proper agreement between the national government and

the governments of the province.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Our Minister of Finance should meet with the other Ministers of Finance and say: "I'm prepared to

[ Page

555 ]

make my contribution, bargaining as an equal with

the national government and the other nine provincial premiers, but not

to give those revenues to the national coffers so that the decisions

with respect to the expenditures of those revenues which are ours are

made by those who are in control of power in Canada — namely, those

federal Members from central Canada."

That's where the decisions are made for our national government. That's where

the source of power politically is in this country, as it has been for 100 years.

That's why this Minister of Finance should not have given them anything, should

have kept what is ours and then said: "I will bargain with you as an equal for

the contribution to the needs of Canada."

MR. P.C. ROLSTON (Dewdney): Mr. Speaker, there's been some real feeling

here tonight. I just heard the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound. You know,

he speaks very much like three of the new Liberal MPs, who as Liberal MPs, Mr.

Speaker, feel a sense of alienation from that Liberal government establishment

in central and eastern Canada. I lament that and I'm sure that the Member for

West Vancouver–Howe Sound laments that.

We heard the Member for West Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) describing that

lethargy, and I can't tell whether it's an indifference or what it is. We hear

of this and we hear some people, even some Liberal MLAs, say that it's even

getting worse, this sense of alienation from eastern Canada. I hope that this

is not true, Mr. Speaker. I hope that we're Canadians before we are British

Columbians. I hope that when we talk about taxation and income, about expenditure

and about budgets, we're talking first of all of Canada and, secondly, British

Columbia.

I could talk about the fight that appears to be looming in western Canada —

or, in fact, any of the provinces — with resources, a fight between them

and the federal government. But whether it's a fight over who gets the returns

on resources.... I believe and this government believes that we require the

money to provide services. If we're going to get money for resources, we're

quite willing to see that there are services provided, whether it is roads or

schools or hydro or rail services or court or police or a host of other services.

We provide those services.

In this province with the B.C. Rail, I'm not aware of any federal

help in operating or even in putting down new rails for the B.C. Rail.

We rarely get any help from the federal government on developing the

hinterland where we hope to get these resources. So I hope, Mr.

Speaker, that there will be a greater sense of sharing with eastern

Canada. I think that this province, like any other province, feels a

certain constitutional right to those resources. But it also feels a

great commitment to the total country, and we want to share these with

the country. Our Premier has made on various occasions gestures — more

than gestures — definite programmes for nationalization of the

depleting resources that can be shared by all Canadian.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that this is a very honest budget. We are first of all

talking about revenue, and I believe that this is an honest reflection of what

we believe is a 2 to 3 per cent real growth in this economy over the next fiscal

year. We believe that this increase, which is really a 26 per cent increase

in actual expenditures of this particular fiscal year compared to the 1975-75.

is honest. At least, the media and the press have said that there is a realism

in this budget, in this $3.2 billion budget.

It's a large budget. It reflects some things that I guess are not very difficult

to compute, the main income being from personal income tax and still nearly

the lowest in Canada at 30.5 per cent of income tax payable. Presumably in a

time of inflation, provinces that have higher rates would, in inflationary times,

receive a great deal more percentage-wise.

We feel as federalists and as people in Canada — we have a right to share

in the second biggest income that in the Canada share of the programmes in lieu

of option out the $643 million which we think again is an honest estimate of

moneys that we expect to come from the central government.

Thirdly, we see from the social services tax a rather large increase —

again, it can be a calculated increase, Mr. Speaker — of $150 million,

which again, Mr. Speaker, as a sales tax must reflect a fairly healthy economy.

The media — television — claim that actually even a hard goods such

as hardware, furniture and even automobiles, the sales are still quite remarkable.

It would appear, Mr. Speaker, that again this is an honest estimate of income.

Again, I am certainly one that would want to promote prudence in expenditures

and caution...

MR. FRASER: Vote with us, then.

MR. ROLSTON: ...but we are still figuring that we will get this kind

of income.

Fourthly, of course, when it comes to corporate income tax, again, it's one

of the lower income tax rates in Canada — in fact, it's being dropped

for the small companies. The small companies will go down to 10 per cent, which

I think is an inducement to the small companies.

We are also saying that the rate of tax under this capital tax which we introduced

last year will be increased to 0.5 per cent again, the same as the two largest

provinces, Quebec and Ontario.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: One-fifth.

[ Page

556 ]

MR. ROLSTON: Oh, one-fifth, excuse me. But again it's the same as the

two larger provinces.

Mr. Speaker, if that is any deterrent, you would think there would be less

capital formation. But I want to assure you, Mr. Speaker, that the capital formation

has increased 18.5 per cent as an average. But in my riding alone, we've seen

two very large sawmills getting under construction. the Japanese are spending

many millions of dollars at what we call the "Q.C." sawmill in Pitt Meadows

— a very large operation which will be operational by June. If this 0.2 per

cent capital tax is any deterrent we don't seem to be seeing it there.

In fact, most of the sawmills are increasing. Bestwood Industries from Coquitlam

is going to be building a shake, shingle and cedar mill in, Maple Ridge. We

are seeing at least two syndicates in the cedar business building chippers.

These are expensive operations and operations that again this capital tax will

affect. But it doesn't seem to be a deterrent. So I think that's kind of an

encouraging sign.

Also talking on the revenue side, Mr. Speaker, we are seeing as a

province that there is a price for the natural resources. This is laid

out quite clearly. We've got to be honest. There is going to be a drop

in actual timber sales. There is going to be an increase in the logging

taxes. There's going to be quite an increase in the natural gas

royalties, leases and fees, assuming that Ottawa will ratify this.

Again, I don't think it's proportionate to the rest of the $3.223

million revenue — a rather small part of the budget.

Mr. Speaker, I note that for all the hue and cry about Bill 31 there seems

to be a pretty small amount of money — not even $13 million — in the royalty

section of revenue.

Interjection.

MR. ROLSTON: Well, we'll look for it. I'm sure they will start when

copper gets up.

Mr. Speaker, what I'm trying to say is that this province, when it is dealing

with the revenue side of the budget debate, is looking for growth. It's looking

for controlled growth though, Mr. Speaker. This is a government that won't allow

any more Roberts Banks or Columbia River dams or, in my case, transmission lines

through ridings without a lot of careful thought, a lot of careful impact Studies.

It won't allow Peace River dams, Mr. Speaker, without a lot of explanation to

the public, biologists, geologists and environmental people, and a proper explanation

and

interpretation to the people, including hearings. We inherited the Dease

Lake extension of the B.C. Rail. I gather we have to live with that, but again

it's a government that recognizes that somewhere down the line in time we do

have to make decisions on growth, on large industrial expansion, which means

income. We're talking about the income side of the budget, Mr. Speaker. But

I'm confident these decisions will reflect some thinking. some involvement of

the people.

If I can be specific, let me speak about Abbotsford. Let's talk about Mohawk

that wants to build — or at least they're talking about building — a refinery

in what we call Kilgore, which is a

section of the district municipality of

Abbotsford.

Mayor Ferguson of Abbotsford on radio, in the media, at meetings is enthusiastic

about it. Other people are not enthusiastic. I think we need to do a lot of

listening. I am affected in the sense that we fear that a lot of the sulphur

and other smells could blow over to the north side of the river and into my

riding.

But what I'm saying is: sure, we're in a deficit position in petrochemical

supplies; we can't have a refinery more than about 40 miles away from the main

market. But somehow there must be a lot of consultation, a lot of sharing. That

refinery is not to be dumped on the people of Abbotsford any more than the one

in Surrey will be dumped on those people without a lot of consultation, a lot

of sharing. I think that is pretty crucial; that is involvement. That is open

government.

I remind this House that it was the Socreds who did away with the very excellent

lower mainland planning board which did, in a sense, try to collaborate and

bring together the lower mainland regional districts. It's too bad — that probably

would have been a pretty workable unit as far as overall planning.

Our Minister for Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) is trying to share with

other regional districts and MLAs from the lower mainland some kind of overall

scheme for movement of people on buses. We're trying to work out a Literate

structure. But It's pretty difficult when you have to deal with four regional

districts.

If we talk about a coal port or a steel mill or a rail plant at Squamish, or

increasing the capacity of, or even improving, the mills at Watson Island,

or whether we're talking about the Tilbury industrial assembly or the Pitt Meadows–Maple

Ridge industrial park — these are decisions we do have to look at, decisions

that we have to decide on, yes or no. But it's with consultation; it's with

planning; it's working with the environmentalists. It is not growth for growth's

sake.

I caution this House that sometime we will be required to make decisions, and

we don't avoid these decisions. They'll be difficult decisions, but they are

things which we, responsibly, must face.

One of the first things on the expenditure side that I would like to really

applaud is a little item that really hasn't, to my knowledge, been mentioned

yet — that there will be $5 million, probably through the Department of Agriculture,

for overseas development relief. I say at the outset that I think this is really

commendable.

[ Page

557 ]

It's kind of an irony that the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi)

is involving many of the churches in a conference this fall. I know that the

church leaders and the Christians in the province who have been working toward

a better deal for the Third World will by really enthusiastic about this sharing,

where $5 million per year is going to be used.

I believe the first million will be an outright grant; the next $4 million

will be a matching dollar-for-dollar programme for world development relief.

My caution to the House...and I don't really think it's necessary to say this,

but I would assume that this is done through recognized world relief organizations,

including the United Nations and the Vietnam committee. I've become quite familiar

with a group of very responsible committees who have a proven record and who

know the infrastructure of the Third World, and can see that this money goes

as far as it can.

I think this is commendable and I want to work with the Minister of Agriculture

(Hon. Mr. Stupich) who, I assume, will be administering this expenditure. I

remind the House that the problem isn't always their poverty; it's really our

affluence. Indeed, our affluence that can raise $3.2 billion as the provincial

budget.

I might say, just in passing, that I kind of share the embarrassment of the

Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser), who was slapped down by the Leader of the Opposition

(Mr. Bennett) during an earlier part of the debate. It was that same Leader

of the Opposition who wouldn't allow leave tonight. I really lament that, and

feel his embarrassment.

On the expenditure side I think the House should just first of all

make a quick survey of some of the increases in expenditure, which,

again, are consistent with the kind of overview this government has. In

the Attorney-General's (Hon. Mr. Macdonald'

s) department, a three-fold

increase in the costs in the court service. If you read in yesterday's

paper the comments about Jack Cramm, I think you could see the real

serious difficulty there is in the administration of the court service,

the problems of sentencing and problems of general administration.

As we take over this court service, I think it's important that the taxpayers

realize the kind of money we must be talking about, money which probably would

have been spent by tile municipalities. It's $12.6 million in the court service,

a service which I hope will be greatly streamlined, especially in the actual

administration and the scheduling of appearances. I'm sure in your profession

you hear what I'm saying.

The police services — again, a rather heavy increase in cost. I think it's

an honest recognition that we require at least 350 more police. It's recognition

that in the middle of 1976 we have to renew the federal contract with Ottawa,

which is going to cost us a lot of money.

I appeal, to the Liberal Members, none of whom are in the House at this time,

who hopefully, have some remnant of a trust with that Liberal establishment

in Ottawa, to help us as we renegotiate the police contract with the federal

government. We're going to need some help.

You can see in the A-G's department.... Also the rentalsman, a new programme,

and the cost there.... These are new programmes that I want to just quickly,

highlight before I get into some detail.

You'll also notice in post-secondary education a $70 million increase. You'll

notice in grants to school districts a $105 million increase. I think it should

be noted, just very quickly while we're talking about education, that last week

cabinet saw $32 million — I understand it's the largest sum of money going in

one chunk — going for capital projects in this province. That's probably one-third,

indeed, of a whole year's capital outlay in one chunk. We're trying to get these

schools built responsibly. For instance, in Mission and Maple Ridge we're very,

eager to try to get the job done. It has to be done now. The construction costs

later will be a great deal more. We're pleased with the current tendering that's

coming in — some of it a little bit lower than we had originally estimated.

If you go quickly to the Department of Health, you'll see very large increases

in the occupational health, in the aid to the handicapped, in the community

health services department. Here's where we're starting, I believe, four or

five prototypes of the community, health centre, and the Members I certainly

hope, while they're here, will take time to walk three blocks from this [louse

to the James Bay Community Health Project and see what's happening there. See

the use of pharmacists, of doctors, of nurses. of physiotherapists, of occupational

therapists, with the heavy concentration of senior citizens, many of whom are

shut in, many of whom really can't get out that easily into the community to

seek out their own medical attention. This we see as preventive health care.

Incidentally, out of interest, only 34 of the 55 MLAs have taken the preventive

programme our Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) has laid on. All of you got

a letter. You've been invited to take this preventive health programme which

would monitor your particular condition. But 34 of 55 — I kind of hoped we would

have done a little better than that. I don't know who the abstainers are, but

I hope they'll get into the thing.

Also, Mr. Speaker, we see $11 million in new expenditure for health services.

You see the white ambulances with the increasingly familiar red stripe. Certainly

in the metropolitan Victoria area you'll be seeing them, and also in many other

parts of the country. I feel that this is a rather exciting programme.

[ Page

558 ]

Similarly I feel it exciting that we're getting into intermediate care. The

Health Minister said we'd be spending a minimum of $40 million, maybe even up

to $100 million, at various levels of intermediate care which, of course, includes

the new thrust into home care and also the four personal-care facilities which

were opened this year.

If I can slip quickly to Department of Highways, again you see

responsible stewardship in the maintenance of roads. There's an

increase of $36 million alone for the maintenance of roads and grading,

which in my riding is crucial. I keep reminding the Minister of certain

roads which are just a dreadful problem — roads which are costing us in

fatalities and in social costs a great deal of money. I am pleased that

infamous roads, like Sylvester Road, are getting built.

You'll also see an increase in ferries and bridges of $30 million.

Again, you see a tremendous increase in programmes for senior citizens and

in community programmes. It was mentioned by the Minister of Human Resources

(Hon. Mr. Levi) the work that is being done by community services in the various

communities. It's a tremendous increase, Mr. Speaker, and I think it needs to

be recognized when you're talking about expenditure — and there was a

great deal of discussion earlier by the Members of this House about the money

which they feel should be going in per capita grants to the municipalities —

that there's been a very substantial increase in money going to certain programmes

in municipalities.

If I could be specific: in a place like Mission you're seeing probably $7 per

capita as a grant to the day care, to community services, to legal aid, to Indian

friendship centers, to a workshop for the retarded and handicapped adults. You're

seeing at least $7 per capita. You're seeing in the province at least $13 per

capita in recreational grants. If you divide our population of 2.5 million into

$32.5 million, that's $13 per capita in recreational grants alone.

Interjections.

MR. ROLSTON: Our money, the people's money, the same money that a larger

municipal per capita grant would come from. You kno