1974 Legislative Session: 4th 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)

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 1974

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

171 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Guaranteed Minimum Income Plan (Bill 20). Mr. Richter.

Introduction and first reading — 171

British Columbia Harbours Board Amendment Act (Bill 17).

Hon. Mr. Strachan.

Introduction and first reading — 171

An Act to Amend the Public Bodies Information Act (Bill 21).

Mr. McClelland.

Introduction and first reading — 171

Transportation Assistance Fund Act (Bill 22).

Mr. McClelland.

Introduction and first reading — 171

Election Expenses Act (Bill 23). Mr. Wallace

Introduction and first reading — 171

Air Ambulance Aid Act (Bill 24). Mr. Phillips.

Introduction and first reading — 171

Rural Student Aid Travel Fund Act (Bill 25).

Mr. Phillips.

Introduction and first reading — 171

The Department of Northern British Columbia Act

(Bill 26). Mr. Phillips.

Introduction and first reading — 171

Oral questions

Squamish Highway closure. Mr. Bennett — 171

Inspection sticker for government vehicle.

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 172

Roberts Bank acreage for recreational reserve.

Mrs. Jordan — 172

ICBC negotiations with auto body shops. Mr. Curtis — 172

Allocation of interest on overcharged ICBC premiums.

Mr. Gardom — 172

Behaviour modification programme; propriety of police parties held by private

citizens. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 173

Provision of newsprint to The Victoria Express.

Mr. Phillips — 173

Progress in Victoria Press strike. Mr. Wallace — 173

Date of release for Purcell Range study. Mr. Chabot — 173

Work stoppage by janitors in Vancouver schools.

Mr. Gardom — 173

Talks re operation of Victoria transit system.

Mr. Curtis — 174

Plans to take over Surrey welfare administration.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 174

Purchase of shares in Kaiser Resources.

Mr. L.A. Williams — 174

Acquisition of timber rights by North Canadian

Forest Products. Mr. Phillips — 174

Farquharson report on Kimbasket Lake area.

Mr. Chabot — 175

Budget debate (continued)

Hon. R.A. Williams — 175

Mr. Smith — 182

Mr. Rolston — 188

Mr. Dent — 197

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I would ask the House

to welcome some students who are on a Crown Zellerbach tour. The Crown

Zellerbach plant is part of my own constituency of Coquitlam. There are

30 students from Coquitlam who are on the CZ tour and Mr. Jack Morris

is the representative with them.

MR. SPEAKER: I would like also to ask the House to welcome a

large group of market garden and Canadian Chinese student constituents

of mine from Burnaby-Edmonds, who are in the House, and they are very

happy to be here today.

Presenting reports

Hon. Mr. Macdonald files the first report of the Royal Commission on

Family and Children's Law, under the chairmanship of Mr. Justice Berger.

Introduction of bills

GUARANTEED MINIMUM INCOME PLAN

On a motion by Mr. Richter, Bill 20, Guaranteed Minimum Income Plan ,

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

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

BRITISH COLUMBIA

HARBOURS BOARD AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Strachan presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled British Columbia Harbours Board Amendment Act .

Bill 17 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on

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

after today.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

PUBLIC BODIES INFORMATION ACT

On a motion by Mr. McClelland, Bill 21,

An Act to Amend the Public Bodies Information Act ,

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

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

TRANSPORTATION ASSISTANCE FUND ACT

On a motion by Mr. McClelland, Bill 22, Transportation Assistance Fund Act ,

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

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

ELECTION EXPENSES ACT

On a motion by Mr. Wallace, Bill 23, Election Expenses Act ,

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

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

AIR AMBULANCE AID ACT

On a motion by Mr. Phillips, Bill 24, Air Ambulance Aid Act ,

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

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

RURAL STUDENT AID

TRAVEL FUND ACT

On a motion by Mr. Phillips, Bill 25, Rural Student Aid Travel Fund Act ,

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

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

THE DEPARTMENT OF

NORTHERN BRITISH COLUMBIA ACT

On a motion by Mr. Phillips, Bill 26, The Department of Northern British Columbia Act ,

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

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

Oral questions

SQUAMISH HIGHWAY CLOSURE

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): I'd like to

address my question to the Minister of Highways. I'd like to ask him if

he can give any assurance to the citizens that use of the Squamish

Highway will not be closed, as rumoured, part of the day or part of the

evening.

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): Mr. Speaker, I can't

give the assurance that it will not be closed part of the day, because

it's going to be necessary to close it for part of the day to do repair

work.

INSPECTION STICKER

FOR GOVERNMENT VEHICLE

[ Page 172 ]

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications):

The other day the First Member for Victoria (Mr. Morrison) asked a

question regarding a Vega car, licence VAB950. I'm advised that there

was some problem with the registration; evidently the dealer had lost

the registration. We had to go through a procedure to apply for lost

registration before it could go through the inspection station, and it

went through the inspection station late last week. But there's been no

change in policy. You asked the question; there has been no change in

policy. All government cars are supposed to have the inspection sticker

on them.

MR. SPEAKER: Is there something that turns upon that answer? Do you have a supplementary?

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): I'd just like to ask the Minister why it didn't have a temporary sticker on it.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I don't know.

ROBERTS BANK ACREAGE

FOR RECREATIONAL RESERVE

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to

address my question to the Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources, and ask him if he would like to correct his statement of

yesterday regarding the lifting of the recreational reserve at Roberts

Bank, when he said that the original order-in-council contained an

error by staff, in view of the fact that the Minister himself signed

order 352 and in that order it contained the exact description of the

acreage and an accompanying map of the area in question.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources):

I'm pleased to answer, Mr. Speaker. The error was, in fact, in the memorandum

attached to the order-in-council, which stated that the matter had been reviewed

by the Fish and Wildlife Branch of the Department of Recreation and Conservation,

and that it had their approval. That was the error. The information was incorrect

that I had received, and that is the error I referred to.

MRS. JORDAN: A supplementary, then. I wonder if the Minister

is in the habit of signing orders-in-council that he doesn't

understand, when it was a very short order and very clear, or if he

continues to be in the habit of blaming his staff for his own

inabilities and shortcomings.

MR. SPEAKER: Which answer does the Hon. Member want?

MRS. JORDAN: Both, Mr. Speaker. We would just like an answer

from this Minister as to why he blames his staff for a very simple

order that is very clear-cut. I'm sure it points out his own

incompetence.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: If the Hon. Member would like a hearing aid, I'd be glad to contribute, Mr. Speaker.

MRS. JORDAN: I find my eyes quite sufficient, Mr. Minister. Perhaps you should try using yours.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MRS. JORDAN: But it seems to be a habit that this Minister consistently blames his staff.

ICBC NEGOTIATIONS

WITH AUTO BODY SHOPS

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): To the Minister of

Transport and Communications: is it a fact that officials of the

Insurance Corporation of British Columbia are now approaching

individual auto body shops, particularly on the lower mainland, in an

attempt to sidestep their official negotiating agency, the Automotive

Retailers' Association?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, we're approaching individuals, and asking them whether or not they agree that $14 is a fair price.

MR. CURTIS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The Minister then

feels that the auto body shops concerned do not have the right to be

approached on a group basis. Is that the inference we can draw from the

answer?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No. The ARA do not, and they admit frankly that they do not, represent all body shops.

MR. CURTIS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. What about those

they do represent, such as the one which has been documented for us,

which is a member of the ARA and has been approached on an individual

basis by a representative of ICBC?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, if you say it was, I'll have a look at it. I appreciate the Member asking.

ALLOCATION OF INTEREST

ON OVERCHARGED ICBC PREMIUMS

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver-Point Grey): A question to the

same Minister, Mr. Speaker. The other day I asked this Minister whether

or not the ICBC was receiving interest on overcharged premiums, and

[ Page 173 ]

he informed the House that he would look into that. Do you have the answer today?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: All of the moneys we receive are put out

on the market as soon as possible, and we do receive interest on all

moneys that are put out onto the market.

MR. GARDOM: Well, therefore, Mr. Minister, since the

government is receiving interest on the premiums, will you not allow

interest on rebates?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'll certainly think about it.

MR. GARDOM: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The ICBC stated in

their press release a day ago that interest would not be allowed in

rebates. Is this a change in policy that the Minister is announcing

today?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No. You've asked me about it and I simply said I'd be quite happy to consider it, look into it, check into it.

BEHAVIOUR MODIFICATION PROGRAMME;

PROPRIETY OF POLICE PARTIES

HELD BY PRIVATE CITIZENS

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): May I ask the Attorney-General,

Mr. Speaker, first, whether or not he has any more information on the

behaviour modification programme of his department, and secondly, may I

ask him whether he, or to his knowledge a member of his department, has

discussed with either the incoming or outgoing chief of police of

Vancouver the propriety of having private citizens throw $25,000

farewell parties for the outgoing chief?

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): Well, those are two

questions, Mr. Speaker. The first question had to do with behavioural

things — that's presumably revealing the records of juveniles and that

kind of thing.

Statistics Canada wants that kind of information. We're inclined to

think that they even legally should not have it, because the Juvenile Delinquents Act

prescribed secrecy in respect to the records of juveniles. So I think

there is even a legal point before we should consider opening up

dossiers on kids who have been in juvenile court for the benefit of

Stat Canada, quite apart from the fact that I don't believe that kind

of information should be revealed.

Secondly, in answer to your other question: no, I don't think there

have been any discussions — none that I personally know of, in respect

to that dinner, and I don't think I was even invited. If I was, I

missed the invitation.

PROVISION OF NEWSPRINT

TO THE VICTORIA EXPRESS

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): I'd like to direct a question to the Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources. Is it true, Mr. Minister, that The Victoria Express is one of the only papers in British Columbia getting paper from Ocean Falls Limited?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I'll take the question as notice, Mr. Speaker.

PROGRESS IN

VICTORIA PRESS STRIKE

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, could I ask the

Minister of Labour if he has given any further consideration to the

strike in Victoria at the Victoria Press, and whether he might have any

comment he could make to the House at this time?

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): We have a mediation

officer involved in that dispute, I think as the Member knows. There

has been no further request from either of the parties involved, so at

this point in time no further action is contemplated.

DATE OF RELEASE

FOR PURCELL RANGE STUDY

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): A question for the Minister

of Lands, Forests and Water Resources: can the Minister advise me when

he will release the Purcell Range study by Professor Chambers?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: It is my intention to discuss some

aspects of the problem and study today, Mr. Speaker, and the full

report will be released in the reasonably near future.

MR. CHABOT: A supplementary question. Would the Minister give

me an

interpretation of "reasonably near future"? The report's been in

your hands for several months. I'm wondering if the Members of the

House could have the enjoyment of looking at the report as well. What

is your definition...?

MR. SPEAKER: I don't think that is a proper question.

MR. CHABOT: Well, when is it going to be released?

WORK STOPPAGE BY JANITORS

IN VANCOUVER SCHOOLS

MR. GARDOM: To the Minister of Labour, a

[ Page 174 ]

question, Mr. Speaker: some 40 schools were out

today in Vancouver as a result of the custodial work stoppage, and I'd

like to ask the Minister of Labour what steps, if any, the government

is taking concerning this work stoppage.

HON. MR. KING: The dispute by the school janitors is being

looked at very closely by the department. We again have a mediation

officer involved in that dispute. I've been advised by the Associate

Deputy Minister of Labour, who has also been watching it very closely,

that progress is being made. I think there are encouraging signs that a

settlement will be achieved by the parties in the next few days.

MR. GARDOM: As a supplementary, do you think it will be

government policy, Mr. Minister, to allow tax rebates to parents of

children who are prevented from going to school as a result of this

kind of stoppages?

HON. MR. KING: You'll have to talk to the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett).

TALKS RE OPERATION

OF VICTORIA TRANSIT SYSTEM

MR. CURTIS: A question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs:

has the Minister had any formal contact with the Capital Regional

District with respect to the operation of the greater Victoria transit

system?

HON. J.G. LORIMER (Minister of Municipal Affairs): I

personally haven't met with the group as a whole. I've met with certain

people that are on the group — certainly some of the mayors — but not

with the group as a whole. But the department has.

MR. CURTIS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Was that meeting relatively recent, in terms of days, weeks?

HON. MR. LORIMER: No. Any time I've spoken to them was, I would say, sometime before Christmas.

MR. CURTIS: With your indulgence a supplementary, Mr.

Speaker, to the same Minister. Is the Minister offering the same

cost-sharing formula in the greater Victoria area as has been refused

by the Greater Vancouver Regional District?

PLANS TO TAKE OVER

SURREY WELFARE ADMINISTRATION

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of

Human Resources: could I ask the Minister whether he would indicate

whether his department is about to take over the welfare administration

for the district of Surrey?

HON. N. LEVI (Minister of Human Resources): No, we are not.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Can the Minister please indicate whether or not this can be expected in the near future?

HON. MR. LEVI: I did speak with Mayor Vander Zalm and told

him that the staff in Vancouver were preparing a timetable for all of

the lower mainland area. When we'd completed that we would invite all

of the mayors and managers of municipalities to discuss it with them.

But I also indicated to them that the takeover would not be happening

within the next six months.

PURCHASE OF SHARES

IN KAISER RESOURCES

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

question to the Minister of Finance: would he indicate to the House

whether any of the funds under his control are being used for the

purchases of shares in Kaiser Resources Limited?

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, Mr. Speaker.

ACQUISITION OF TIMBER RIGHTS

BY NORTH CANADIAN FOREST PRODUCTS

MR. PHILLIPS: I would like to direct a question to the Hon.

Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources. I understand that North

Canadian Forest Products have purchased a planer mill and other

facilities of Imperial Lumber of Grand Prairie. Would the Minister

inform me if, with this purchase, North Canadian Forest Products gets

the timber rights that Imperial Lumber had in the Monkman Pass area of

British Columbia?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: No such submission has come to my attention, and it would require my approval.

MR. PHILLIPS: If the request does come, would the Minister

consider returning the rights of this timber in the Monkman Pass to a

British Columbia firm so that that lumber can be forested for the good

of the Peace River area of British Columbia, instead of going to the

Peace River area of Alberta?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I would think that this government's record in repatriating timber rights to

[ Page 175 ]

the people of British Columbia is unprecedented in the history of this province.

MR. PHILLIPS: A supplementary question Mr. Speaker.

Would the Minister, then, talk to the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr.

Lea) and ask him to get a road in there so that that particular area of

the province....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I'm afraid that's out of order in this case.

FARQUHARSON REPORT

ON KINBASKET LAKE AREA

MR. CHABOT: A question to the Minister of Lands, Forests and

Water Resources: I wonder if the Minister could tell me when he will be

tabling the Farquharson report of a study of the uplands and land use

in the neighbourhood of Kinbasket Lake? The report has been in his

possession for some time.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, that

the report was submitted only a week ago, and will be reviewed by the

regional staff in the Kootenays because we think regional input is

necessary, it will subsequently be reviewed by the staff in Victoria.

The expectation is that the final report will be ready in March.

MR. CHABOT: A supplementary question. Will the Minister pay

any attention to the input made at the public hearings at Revelstoke

and Golden relative to the naming of the body of water to be formed

behind Mica? There's a strong desire on the part of the residents there

to have the lake called Kinbasket Lake. Would the Minister take that

into consideration, calling the Lake Kinbasket instead of McNaughton?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I really don't like to get into these

controversies regarding place names because of the record of the former

administration with respect to major water bodies, darns and other

facilities in the province. We have named them after genuine, historic,

important figures in the nation. I agree that Chief Kinbasket was one,

but I think General A.G.L. McNaughton was another.

Orders of the day

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources):

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to take

part in this debate. I find it interesting,

particularly after this question period from the Members of the official opposition.

The Members are most concerned about the integrated resource management studies

that are at long last being carried out in British Columbia. And it's intriguing

that that's the case because we went for 20 years without them in this province.

One need only look at the problems in the Mica Reservoir — call it

Kinbasket, call it McNaughton, whatever you will. They're severe;

they're extensive; and they are the result of seat-of-the-pants,

single-purpose work by a government which never saw beyond the

immediate task they had in front of them, and rarely saw the

consequences of what they were doing.

It's intriguing that the opposition is beginning to catch up because

one of the major jobs this administration has is a massive mop-up

operation with respect to the single-purpose enterprises of the last 20

years, That's the case in the north; that's the case in Williston;

that's the case in Mica; that's the case in the Purcells, and on and

on, There is a massive task left for this administration to bear

because of the single-purpose view of a government that rarely looked

ahead as it took major steps that are affecting both the economy and

the environment of this province.

Dealing with budget, Mr. Speaker, is a chance, I think, not only to

deal with numbers and the amounts that are reflected in the budget, but

it's a chance to reflect on the spending and government programmes and

what they can mean in at least a couple of the regions in the province

in more real terms — because the numbers in themselves don't mean very

much.

I'd like to talk about two major regions of the province: The

northwest, a part of the province where a great deal of activity has

been carried on by this government. Another is in the Kootenays where

considerable activity is beginning by this government. I'd like to show

what a different approach by this administration can mean for the

people living in those regions.

I want to show, Mr. Speaker, that social democrats on this continent

— social democrats in British Columbia — are free of the hang-ups of

the old-line parties — particularly the hang-ups of the group that

governed us for 20 years, and that through our policies we can work

toward improving the life of people in regions that have been ignored

in the past.

The first one I'd like to cover is the northwest. What was at stake

in the northwest when we came into office in British Columbia was the

total regional economy of a quarter of the province. The economy of

that region was teetering in the balance when we came into office. That

region, to a very great degree, was dependent almost always on

decisions made in board rooms in New York or board rooms in Finland.

The future of the people who work in that region was determined

generally by a management elite in a Manhattan high-rise. Jobs in

Prince Rupert, jobs in Terrace, jobs in Kitwanga, jobs in Nascall

depended

[ Page 176 ]

on the whims of decisions of absentee owners in New York.

The decisions that one can make that far away get pretty abstract.

Kitwanga and the places of the northwest don't mean very much in New

York. I suspect they may not even mean very much in Point Grey because

the First Member for Point Grey (Mr. McGeer), yesterday, talked about

the lunch bucket brigade and the impact of this budget on those people.

I think this government, Mr. Speaker, has clearly shown that it will

not ignore these people when the private market system is willing to

ignore them consistently. We do not view the people of these regions as

abstractions as seen from New York. The social concerns regarding the

people of Ocean Falls, the people of the northwest, the people of the

Kootenays are indelibly intertwined in our economic thinking as a

government in this province; it's indelibly intertwined in our economic

planning in this province.

In effect the Members on the other side are saying let them, the

people in New York, determine the future of those people of ours in

Prince Rupert, in the Kootenays and in the northwest. Does the Member

think for one minute the view of the man-on-the-street in Prince Rupert

is that this is the way we should manage our economy in British

Columbia?

None of the major private sector forest enterprises in British

Columbia were willing to step into the northern regions of the

operations of the former Columbia Cellulose, none of them. Does that

mean that it should have been allowed to die? Is laissez-faire the

approach you want in that part of the province?

Mr. Speaker, it obviously would have been okay for the Members of

the opposition, both the Members of the Liberal Party and the Members

of the Social Credit Party, to ignore the economic and social

implications of a laissez-faire attitude and the attitude of the

absentee-owned corporations.

The alternative: There were two choices at that time: one was the

sale proposed to the Weyerhaeuser Company, siphoning off the southern

assets of the operation and leaving the northern assets in the hands of

the New York owner.

The other choice was the choice we took because we believe that

government has a role, that we should use the power of government to

allow us to become masters in our own house.

The two opposition parties, as I see it, Mr. Speaker, lack

confidence both in themselves — which is maybe understandable — but

lack confidence both in the land and in the people of this province to

solve their own problems right here in British Columbia. Clearly, the

two major groups on the other side of the House would have accepted the

other alternative, selling off the southern assets of the company,

which clearly was in motion during the tenure of the last government,

turning the Celgar operation, the Arrow Lakes operation, over to

Weyerhaeuser, letting the northern region remain with the New York

owners and likely go bankrupt, likely damaging the region's economy for

a decade. Damaging that region's economy for a decade has mammoth

implications.

intervention prevent the major parties in the opposition from doing the

kind of job that is necessary in this day and age in this province to

preserve jobs for people, to develop proper regional development

programmes and to affect the environment. It's your ideological

hang-ups that prevented you from solving these problems. Because if the

tack that the former administration was prepared to take was followed,

it would have meant that the workers in that region in the northwest

would have been without steady jobs. It would have meant that their

savings would have been used in relocation. It would have meant social

ties would have been severed. It would have meant the future of those

communities in the north would have been in jeopardy for a decade. That

was the prospect we as a government faced and they, the people in the

region, faced.

What was in the making, in addition, was an immense tax holiday for

the next multi-national that would have taken over the profitable

southern operations of the enterprise. The funny-money tax world of the

corporate elite would have been used to transfer the losses of the

northern operations to the new company in the south. For a decade there

would have been a tax holiday by the major forest enterprise in

southeastern British Columbia. That would have been the case, and

within a very profitable company. We would in fact have had another

Standard Oil of British Columbia on our hands: a profit-making company

in southeastern British Columbia that probably wouldn't have paid taxes

for a decade.

Those were the choices that we faced: Weyerhaeuser in the south with

a tax holiday dominating yet another huge region of the province,

including Kamloops, much of the central plateau, the Yellowhead pass

area down through the Kootenays to Nelson and Trail; one single

enterprise — not a Canadian enterprise — dominating the whole southeast

quarter of British Columbia.

In addition, we would have faced a major depression in northwestern

British Columbia. The only other alternative was acquisition by the

government. In that single step we avoided single industry dominance in

southeastern British Columbia; we avoided a depression in the north. We

created the opportunity of "Made in Canada" solutions; in fact, "Made

in British Columbia" solutions.

[ Page 177 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: No more giveaways.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, they were the people that

voted against it and I look forward to a period when I can spend some

time in the northwest with people from those parties, pointing out that

when their jobs were in jeopardy that was the group which voted against

it.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Who rehired the people?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: It was, in fact, a magnificent

opportunity to look at the full potential of a region through Canadian

eyes. We were able to look at the difficulties of the company and see

if the potentials of the region and the problems of the company could

be uniquely melded to the benefit of us all here in the province. There

was an opportunity there that few saw; an opportunity to be bold almost

beyond our dreams to benefit the people of the province and a region in

a way that has never happened before in this part of Canada. We could

transform the economy of a region and not create a windfall profit for

an absentee-owned, non-Canadian company.

Let's compare that with the Ottawa pattern, Mr. Speaker, and DREE

(Department of Regional Economic Expansion) in Ottawa and those

programmes as they've been applied in eastern Canada. What has happened

is some regional development with massive windfall gains for the

multi-national companies. Just look at Quebec. Our competitors in the

pulp field in Quebec, ITT (International Telephone and Telegraph), are

being financed by the federal government in the Quebec region, so that

regional development in the Maritimes and in Quebec means massive

windfalls for absentee, multi-national corporations. Regional

development in British Columbia will mean windfall profits for the

people of British Columbia through enterprises they own.

HON. MR. BARRETT: We know how you voted.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: But the two groups on the other side

essentially have been trapped by their own laissez-faire, do-nothing

philosophy. They couldn't accept or take the steps that we took as a

government.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's right.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: And ironically, they were trapped in their own dogma — they who think they don't have a dogma.

It was a unique chance, Mr. Speaker, to look at the north in a

different way than the north had been looked at by the former

government. Almost everything the former government did in the north

was with a lower mainland point of view, with heavy benefits and heavy

impact on the Vancouver area. Everything the former administration did

in the north had a massive impact on the lower mainland.

In fact, the great B.C. Rail programme, when you analyse it, was

primarily related to its southern terminus in North Vancouver. That was

the focus for the movement of freight on B.C. Rail; that was the focus

of transportation planning in the former government.

Interjections.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: There was no thought of relationship to a

northern port, Mr. Speaker. There was not a view, Mr. Speaker, of the

north region as an economy itself, growing more autonomous over the

years. We saw the opportunity of changing that and relating

transportation more and more to Prince Rupert rather than to Vancouver

and the population pressures of the lower mainland.

At one point, Mr. Speaker, we actually stopped rail construction on

the line that was being built from Fort St. James to Dease Lake on the

Bennett route.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): What's happening now?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: We took a second look at that programme

because, when you started analyzing the region, you found that the

railway was not being built in the valleys that were resource rich,

that had the best forest potential and other potentials; the railway,

in fact, was going through an area that was a magnificent upland alpine

area with limited resources. That was where the railway was going.

I had the opportunity of following that whole railway line last

summer and living for a period in the region, Mr. Speaker, and to see

the magnificent meadowlands at the headwaters of the Skeena and the

Sustut. To follow that route is an exciting thing that I would hope

more British Columbians could do. To see the magnificent area that is

not resource rich but will have a railway built in it was staggering in

many ways. But the railway programme was underway; construction was

beginning at both ends and it was clear that the commitment had been

made.

Last winter, Mr. Speaker, a great deal of work was done by our

departments in resources, in Mines, in trade and industry and other

departments, along with the federal government, with respect to route

location. An analysis was made that had never been undertaken by the

former administration. Incredibly, the Forest Service had never been

involved in the planning of the rail routes in the north. Incredibly,

the department of trade and industry hadn't been

[ Page 178 ]

involved. Incredibly, Recreation and Conservation had not been involved.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): Nobody told Waldo.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: As a result of our work we were able to come up,

Mr. Speaker, with a programme that would optimize the return, given the situation

we had. The result of that was the federal-provincial agreement of last summer.

It also involved the northern port which we viewed as important for that region.

Now, I'd like to say that the former Premier (Hon. Mr. Bennett) made

much of his Interior base, being the Member from central Okanagan and

Kelowna. But in later years the focus was not on regional development

at all. The Interior base of the former Premier seemed more and more

like a Palm Springs branch plant to the Vancouver wheelers and dealers.

A northern port was critical, Mr. Speaker, for the region, as we saw

it, because the whole northern region west of Prince George is tied

essentially to the American lumber market. The American lumber market

is cyclical, of course; but this area at the tail end of the rail line

was always more the victim of the market forces than any other part of

British Columbia. Their costs are high in the region and their

transport cost are the highest of probably any group serving the

American lumber market. So a transport system that worked for them is

what was needed. The chance of focusing on a northern port and

providing markets for that region that were not just American markets

was a means of freeing the economy of that whole part of British

Columbia.

It was that kind of dream we had, Mr. Speaker, that we could work

toward a north that was less and less dependent upon the south, a north

that more and more would be self-sufficient. So much that the last

government did make that region more and more dependent on the south.

The rail agreement and the new line focused on Terrace and Prince

Rupert, the significant communities in the westerly part of that

region. The rail line bisected the Canadian Cellulose Tree Farm Licence

holdings; the railway benefited holdings 79 per cent held by the public

of British Columbia directly. In turn, it strengthened two cities:

Terrace and Prince Rupert. I'm convinced there is a need for

strengthening the cities of the north.

In addition we repatriated 9 million acres of land. An immense,

magnificent region, Mr. Speaker, was brought back home to British

Columbia. It was truly a major, bold start at becoming masters in our

own house.

Interjection.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Matres chez nous, mais oui.

But not only did we want to turn around the southern focus of

provincial development policy, we wanted to integrate our resource

development work with a recognition of environmental problems and

opportunities. We established a secretariat for the Environment and

Land Use Committee of the cabinet. We integrated it with the Canada

Land Inventory staff, and that's now covered in this budget.

We have them working on the problems of this region. We have them

working with most of the departments of government, regarding the

problems of this and other regions. So we have Trade and Industry,

Highways, Recreation and Conservation, Lands and Forests and Municipal

Affairs working together in more integrated programmes than we've yet

seen in this province.

To summarize, Mr. Speaker, the basics have been established. We have

acquired the majority interest in Canadian Cellulose Corporation. Two,

we've established a freight rate agreement with the Canadian National

Railway for chip movement, in relation to lumber, in that region

through British Columbia Cellulose. I might note that we now have a new

chairman of B.C. Cellulose, as is mentioned in the paper this morning:

Mr. W.C.R. Jones. Mr. Jones is....

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Thank God for that.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I admit his qualifications exceed those

of the former chairman. Mr. Jones, in fact, worked at the Canadian

Cellulose plant in Rupert about 15 years ago, and he subsequently was a

vice president of MacMillan-Bloedel at the time of the merger. But,

like many at the time of the merger, he subsequently left. They lost

some of their better people in that period. He then became president

and chairman of the E.B. Eddy Company in Hull, Quebec, and managed it

successfully for over a decade — very successfully. We expect that

he'll be able to continue in his work in a similarly successfully

manner with our own enterprises.

We then worked on establishing a sawmill development programme for

the region. Burns Lake was the first area we planned on developing. I

expect that within a week we will announce our decision on the Burns

Lake development. The railway infrastructure, with its focus on Terrace

and Prince Rupert, was the beginning of making those more significant

communities in the north. In addition, there was the northern port

development as well.

The next steps, Mr. Speaker, are with the Department of Trade and

Industry and DREE on improving the existing industrial structure in the

[ Page 179 ]

existing communities, along the north line of the

CN essentially. Then there will be a careful, step-by-step programme

into the farther north of the CN main line itself and into the Ootsa

Lake region, These steps will be taken in conjunction with the people

in the communities in the region.

Further steps will evolve in the

sawmill development programme in Houston and Smithers, and subsequently

in Hazelton and Prince Rupert. We intend to work with the communities

closely. In Burns Lake, for example, once our announcement is made, the

Municipal Affairs Department will be working, I expect, closely with

the local council in Burns Lake and the secretariat staff. We intend

similarly to work with all the people in the region to determine the

major steps that we take beyond that.

Mr. Speaker, I can frankly think of no other part of the country, no

administration, that has been as prepared as this administration — to

be as bold as we have in that part of British Columbia — to turn a

region around in the time that we've had. We've been building a

foundation for a different north, a north that will reflect more direct

benefit on the people of the region than has ever been the case before.

And they voted against it, Mr. Speaker.

I just had the chance to review the speech from the Hon. First

Member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) earlier today, Mr.

Speaker. One of the things he was talking about was the surplus the

government had. He said that it had been slipping away, and that

obviously some of it had gone to Canadian Cellulose. Well, let's look

at Canadian Cellulose in just a little more detail.

HON. MR. BARRETT: He slipped away.

HON. R. A. WILLIAMS: I should make it very clear, Mr.

Speaker, that absolutely no funds were paid for the acquisition of the

Canadian Cellulose empire — absolutely no provincial taxes. In fact,

Mr. Speaker, we insisted that the New York-based owners, American

Celanese, write off some $72 million, and that mortgage was written off

before we acquired the company and its assets.

In addition, we insisted, in effect, that they leave working capital

in the company, and some $4.6 million in working capital was left. In

addition, we insisted on paying the arrears to the preferred

shareholders, comprising some $1.5 million. In addition, we insisted on

them paying some of the debts of the Brussels subsidiary of the

company, Hassledocks, based in the capital of Belgium, a fine-paper

operation that we, citizens of British Columbia, are now the owners of.

In addition, there was money left for capital expansion. In

addition, the normal inventory level was assured. And what kind of

mortgage did we accept when we accepted this empire, Mr. Speaker? It

was a $68 million mortgage, part of which was at 5.25 per cent and part

of which was at 6 per cent, held by the Prudential Insurance and Mutual

Insurance companies of the United States. That was the kind of mortgage

we were able to establish for the people of this province on the

considerable assets of that company, the pulp mills of the north, the

pulp mills of the south and the sawmills of both regions as well.

What about the price of the shares of this enterprise on the market

now? The range has been $6 to $6.50 and the people of British Columbia

own 9.6 million shares in the company. Based on the usual type of

analysis of earnings, Mr. Speaker, the company is worth at least $100

million at this time, and we would think that if there were bids, they

would be in the range of $150 million to $200 million for this company

of which we are the prime owners. And it's not for sale.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: B.C. Is not for sale either.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Let's look at the profits of the last

year, Mr. Speaker. I see that The Province newspaper has that

information, although the annual report is not yet out. The profits of

Canadian Cellulose, the daily Province tells us, are $12 million in the

last year — $12 million under public ownership. Let's compare that, Mr.

Speaker, with the previous year under the New York owners. In the

previous year, under Celanese, the loss was $7,959,000.

Interjection.

AN HON. MEMBER: And we can't run a peanut stand. (Laughter.)

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: The annual sales of Canadian Cellulose now, Mr. Speaker, are something like $200 million annually.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: How do you like those peanuts? (Laughter.)

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: The annual sales of Ocean Falls in the

coming year should probably be around $18 million. The annual sales of

Plateau Mills in the next year.... Well, in the past year it was $15

million. The annual sales of Kootenay Forest Products in the coming

year are anticipated at $18 million. That's a total of some $250

million, and the amount that the government has spent in acquiring

these assets, these enterprises, assuring these jobs — having a chance

to work directly with these companies to prevent abuses to the

environment — the amount paid was under $20 million.

[ Page 180 ]

Contrary to what the Member for Point Grey says, Mr. Speaker, what

we're doing in this administration is establishing lunch-bucket equity

in the assets of British Columbia. As the Hon. Attorney-General says,

"Some peanuts! Some stand!" (Laughter.)

You know, Mr. Speaker, I don't think one can ignore this kind of

activity that the government has been involved in to ensure jobs in

these regions, and say that it hasn't had an impact on employment and

the basic economy of the province. Look at what the newspaper this

morning says.

AN HON. MEMBER: Which paper?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: The daily Province . They actually put the budget on the front page, unlike the Sun.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, shocking.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: They stated that British Columbia — this

is out of Ottawa — was the only province to make any headway against

rising unemployment during January.

In January of this year the unemployment rate in British Columbia

dropped from 6 per cent to 5.5 per cent. No other province achieved

that kind of goal.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You're still suffering from shock.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I'd like also to talk about the Kootenay

region of the province — the beautiful basin of Kootenay Lake and the

Purcell Range — one of the great assets of the province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Alberta?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: That's a little further east. We have a

statute regarding the provincial boundary problems with Alberta that

should reflect some improvements we might consider later.

While it's one of the most beautiful parts of the province — the

Kootenay Lake basin and the Purcell mountains — it's also an area where

in many ways we are at the margin. We're at the margin or we're beyond

the margin in timber cutting in the region in some of the

sustained-yield units. We've been moving into the high-elevation areas,

and there are significant problems in the high-elevation areas in the

Purcells and in the Kootenay basin. We're at the margin in terms of

negative impact on wildlife in some watersheds in the region as well.

We're also at the margin in terms of recreational and industrial use

conflict. This is the core problem in terms of conflict in the region.

It's also a region which has been long settled, at least in terms of

British Columbia's history. So the people of the region identify very

closely with the land that they live in, and they eloquently articulate

their concern about the land.

It's these conflicts that have led us to carry out an integrated

management study of the region. Doctor Alan Chambers from the UBC

Resource Science Centre carried out work throughout last summer, along

with the regional staff of the different departments, and he got the

staff working together reasonably well. That's no mean achievement,

given the years of neglect that the Fish and Wildlife Branch of this

government suffered and that recreation suffered under the former

Social Credit administration.

The key areas that were examined were high-elevation logging, where

there is a conflict between recreation, forestry, and wildlife — with

the greatest problems being in the Goat Creek drainage near Creston.

The untouched creek basins were also examined — the Fry-Carney

watershed west of Kaslo. There, recreation, forestry, and fisheries

were in conflict.

Access roads were also conflicting with recreational interests in much of the Purcells.

Overgrazing in the east Kootenays was a conflict between agriculture, wildlife and forestry.

That's the kind of residue that we received from the former administration.

Beyond that, inter-agency competition had become extremely severe

between the branches and departments of government. The major company

in the region, Kootenay Forest Products, based in Nelson, had been

involved in some of these conflicts, of course.

We believe and we're convinced, as a result of our most recent work,

that the conflicts, over time, with planned, careful programmes — more

like those already underway in the Prince George region — can be

greatly minimized by working closely with the company. As a result, the

acquisition of the company — announced last week — gives us an

opportunity to use public ownership creatively to resolve difficult

environmental problems. In addition, it too, like Canadian Cellulose,

is a repatriation of a significant land base of the province.

The lands that are held by Kootenay Forest Products cover the

Lardeau River Valley between Trout Lake and Kootenay Lake — which is

one of the most significant bottom lands in the region, now that so

much of the bottom land has been flooded as a result of the disastrous

Columbia River Treaty, which I hope in subsequent debates this session

to detail. I think the province deserves information that it never had

before regarding the incredible mismanagement of our resources, the

loss of our sovereignty, and a kind of backroom hardware economics that

I hope is

[ Page 181 ]

never applied in British Columbia again.

We received, as a result of that acquisition, 42,000 acres of fee

simple, privately held land. Critical bottom land is included, as I

said; critical shoreline land, where much of the shoreline is

alienated, is returned to the public. Critical fisheries and wildlife

land was repatriated, as well — land that otherwise would have been

mainly managed for industrial forestry purposes alone, rather than for

the other purposes which may be, in fact, far more significant.

It is land, in fact, that has been valued by resource economists as

worth $200 a square yard. The Gerrard spawning area at the southern end

of Trout Lake at the beginning of the Lardeau River is worth $200 a

square yard. On an acreage basis alone, Mr. Speaker, that is worth

$946,000 an acre. This company and its land assets we acquired for $9

million plus working capital.

Beyond this most significant acquisition, I'd like to announce

several other major steps that were taken to overcome critical resource

conflict problems in the Kootenays:

(1) We are carefully considering the province's first

wilderness area in the Purcell mountain range. We see the highlands between

the east and west Kootenays as one of the natural opportunities for wilderness

preservation. The area that will be considered in detail is well over 300 square

miles in area and includes the upper reaches of Toby Creek, Dutch Creek, Findlay

Creek, Skookumchuck Creek, Dewar Creek, Fry Creek, Carney Creek, Hamill Creek,

and the upper St. Mary's River. These alpine and sub alpine areas are rich

in scenic beauty and wildlife, and include the historic Earl Grey Pass. It is

the largest untouched area in the entire Kootenays.

(2) We will be appointing an independent regional resource

manager for the Kootenays to be based in Nelson. The longstanding jealousies

that have festered over the past 20 years we hope will be removed as a result

of the beginning of this process in the Kootenays. That was a recommendation

of the Select Standing Committee on Forestry and Fisheries in the last spring

session of the Legislature.

Jealousies between the departments that have been starved and the

departments that have not been starved: the Fish and Wildlife Branch,

the recreation

section of Recreation and Conservation, which suffered

with a virtually impossible budget through the last 20 years developed

a bitterness among the professionals that will take years to erase.

MR. CHABOT: It wasn't there 20 years ago.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: It will take years to erase the abuse,

the lack of funds and the lack of opportunities for the good

professionals that we had on staff.

(3) Logging in the fragile high-elevation areas of the

Purcells will be phased out on a detailed basis with the work of the new manager.

(4) Five-year plans for logging operations, along the lines

of the Prince George region planning programme, will be required in the Nelson

district. In the interim, while the plans are being prepared, logging road construction

will be limited to one year in advance of actual logging.

The other major point with respect to cable and cable logging in the

Kootenays is that the forest service will be undertaking shortly an

experiment in aerial logging. In some areas extensive damage can result

from typical logging methods, especially in the steeper areas.

Frequently, under the present programmes, watercourses can be disrupted

and surface soil scarred, and erosion can take place, affecting

productivity of fisheries and wildlife habitats.

Interjection.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: The experiments that will be taken won't

be balloon experiments but, in fact, cable essentially, but that is

being looked at in other areas.

Further, it's clear that considerably more work needs to be done in

intensive management in the region. I'm convinced that with the

regional resource manager in the Kootenays we can begin an intensive

management programme that will preserve much of the landscape of the

basin and the Purcells.

Mr. Speaker, I believe we are taking a creative route to solve many

problems from both a regional development point of view and from an

environmental point of view. Part of the way is through public

ownership. And public ownership is a way that is unacceptable on the

other side of the House.

I think it is ironic, Mr. Speaker, that we have an opposition that

is trapped, in fact, in its own ideology. Because of their ideology,

had they continued to be government, we would have had greater

concentrations of economic power in the hands of absentee owners in

British Columbia. Had they continued to be government, we would have

had unemployment and insecurity for thousands of workers in the

northwest and in the Kootenays. Had they been government, we would have

had a regional depression in northwestern British Columbia. Had they

been government, we wouldn't have taken the creative public ownership

route we've taken with respect to the enterprises in these regions. Had

they been government, we wouldn't have repatriated the 9 to 10 million

acres of British Columbia land that was repatriated during the last 18

months.

Mr. Speaker, this is the only group in this House that is prepared

to build a truly mixed economy in British Columbia, a unique British

Columbia

[ Page 182 ]

economy in North America that will assure us that we are masters in our own house.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): After the dissertation by

the Hon. Minister, who has just taken his place in this debate, Mr.

Speaker, I think it only fair that I be allowed a few minutes from the

speech that I was going to give this afternoon to correct a few

misstatements, a few myths that were bounced off the ears of the

Members in this chamber this afternoon. The Minister loves to use the

word "repatriation". He loves to talk about "repatriating 9 million

acres to the people of the Province of British Columbia."

Well, Mr. Minister, the people of the Province of British Columbia

should realize that that land and the resources upon the land always

did belong to the Province of British Columbia. By agreement, people

were required and given an opportunity to harvest logs and trees.

Now, in recent months it's become very apparent that this same

Minister who talks about repatriation has no regard for contracts. If

he felt at any time that any tree farm licences or cutting rights did

not return to the Crown sufficient revenue, he could do the same thing

that he is presently doing to the people who are harvesting logs and

timber in the Interior of this province and by subterfuge, or one means

or another, suggest to these people that if they want to continue in

business in the Province of British Columbia, they'd better toe to

your line or they won't have any cutting rights left in the Province of

British Columbia. That's going on right now.

You don't have to own the resource outright, and you said it

yourself, all you have to do is control it. And with control in the

hands of the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources, you call

the tune and if the people who want to actively operate in this

province do not march to that tune, they simply are out of business in

the Province of British Columbia.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Some control!

MR. SMITH: This is what worries the small private investor.

This is what worries the man who's employing 100 to 200 people in the

bush right now — that he doesn't know from one day to the next how long

his tenure will last. He doesn't know what requirements or imposts

you're going to put on him next week or the week after which will

require him to pay far more to the Crown in revenue than he can

possibly afford and therefore go bankrupt. But this doesn't seem to

matter to the Minister. The Minister's quite happy to talk about Prince

Rupert and the development that's going on in the north.

Mr. Speaker, I suggest the Minister go up to Prince Rupert and through the

Skeena-Terrace area and talk to some of the people who live there; they're

not so happy with his moves.

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): Yes I am. I don't live there anymore.

MR. SMITH: You have to be, Mr. Minister — you don't live

there, you're living down here. But the people who live there are not

happy with his moves any more than they're happy with your own at the

present time.

Let's talk about the port of Prince Rupert for a few minutes.

There's one thing that's an undeniable fact: the development of Prince

Rupert as a major port in the north was well along and proceeding very

well before you ever became a Minister of the Crown — while you were

still a Member of the opposition. Because it is a fact that the whole

matter of the development of the Prince Rupert area as a major port had

proceeded to the point where the boundaries of Prince Rupert would have

been extended to cover the port area. That was taken care of. The area

was in the process of being turned over to the Federal Port Authority

by agreement with the province. That was looked after. The arrangement

between the B.C. Rail and the CNR for reciprocal running rights was

agreed to between Jameson and the former Premier of this province. That

was looked after.

MR. PHILLIPS: Put that in your pipe and smoke it!

MR. SMITH: It was also agreed that the federal government

would build the port at Prince Rupert and their own CN extensions at no

cost to B.C. It was also agreed that the Ashcroft-Clinton line would be

built at the sole expense of the federal government. It was a matter of

record that the B.C. government would not have to give up the $27

million claim for B.C. Railway subsidy, which your government has now

given up.

MR. PHILLIPS: That's construction in the Peace River area — a giveaway — $27 million.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that that money would have

gone a long way in the Dease Lake extension, provided the Dease Lake

extension ever gets back off the ground again. Talk to the people that

are up in the Dease Lake area right now. A meeting is taking place in

the north country this afternoon — a meeting of people who are

concerned about the lack of action on the Dease Lake extension.

The facts of the matter are that the NDP were taken for a ride by

the CNR and the federal department of regional disparities, That is the

type of

[ Page 183 ]

super-planning that has been going on in this province under this Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources.

MR. PHILLIPS: You were sold out!

MR. SMITH: Let's take a look at a few of the other things.

You brag about the profitability of Canadian Cellulose in the first 12

months of its operation under the provincial government. Let me say

this, Mr. Speaker, neither the Minister of Lands and Forest nor anybody

else in this chamber created the market conditions of 1973. The market

conditions were created by a world demand for that product, and the

foreign market took 90 per cent of the production of northeastern and

north central British Columbia, as you well know.

The same market condition does not exist today. Instead of talking

about the profit of last year, you should be concerned about the

picture of the future because there doesn't seem to be as great a

demand if you look beyond the borders of British Columbia. Quit looking

at the world through rose-coloured glasses and see what's really going

on outside of the perimeters of the Province of British Columbia.

Interjection.

MR. SMITH: They might be pink glasses at that; you're right, Mr. Member.

You know yourself that at the present time the price of No. 1 spruce

is down an average of $60 a thousand. You know yourself that in the

Interior of British Columbia at the present time we have 300 million

board feet of timber waiting to get to market, and they can't get any

railway cars. You know yourself that the average requirement, the

shortfall on cars to haul timber, lumber, processed material over the

B.C. Rail to the port facilities is between 5,600 and 5,800 cars per

month. That's what they need and that's the shortfall.

You know yourself that the small and the private operators in the

Province of British Columbia, collectively in the Interior, lost $18

million in this last six months as a result of the lack of rail cars,

And then you get up and say how profitable Can-Cel is.

AN HON. MEMBER: Whose fault is that?

MR. SMITH: Let me suggest to you that if you want to compare

Can-Cel as a going concern and an operation, don't brag about the few

dollars of profit they've made in the last 12 months. Take a look at

their picture and compare it to other people in similar circumstances

operating in the same line, and then see how you compare the Crown

corporation to the others who are doing business in the same line in

British Columbia. Don't compare apples with oranges.

Now, Mr. Minister, when you talk about these things in such glowing

terms, it leaves the opposition with the feeling that everything you

say lacks credibility.

You talk about the Kootenays in glowing terms. You know, Mr.

Speaker, the Kootenays are so happy with the present government that

they want to leave British Columbia and secede to the Province of

Alberta. That's just how happy they are with you and your operations in

this province. So if I were government today in this province I

wouldn't be bragging about your position in the east Kootenays.

AN HON. MEMBER: He said it's uphill all the way.

MR. SMITH: You talk about people, the money barons, who owned

the Province of British Columbia before you stepped in to repatriate

the province, and then you turn right around and advertise for lumber

sales and timber quotas and sales in New York and Japan and Britain and

other parts of the world. Who are you trying to kid?

MR. PHILLIPS: Selling abroad.

MR. SMITH: Who are you trying to kid? You talk about

made-in-British Columbia decisions. Well, let me tell you something

about some of the decisions that have been made in British Columbia in

the past 12 months under the direction of your department — decisions

like the redirection of chips from the Prince George pulp mill to the

Prince Rupert area in order to bail out Canadian Cellulose; decisions

like the re-allocation....

Interjection.

MR. SMITH: Oh, Eurocan, eh? Decisions like the re-allocation

of timber cutting rights so that the benefit is far greater to the

Crown than it is to the smaller operators who presently operate in the

Cariboo and the Prince George areas.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Plateau sawmills.

MR. SMITH: Plateau sawmills: we should know that name and

what went on up there — decisions like the one which allows the Prince

Rupert Colcel operation to buy chips, No. 1 chips, from the Interior of

the Province of British Columbia for $8 to $10 a cunit, when those

chips are realistically worth $28 a cunit.

These are the kinds of figures, and these are the kinds of facts,

that you failed to mention when you spoke in this debate just previous

to me. Decisions to allow favourable stumping rates for the Crown

corporations when they are compared to others

[ Page 184 ]

operating in like manner in the same field. That will come to be a proven fact before long, Mr. Minister.

As a matter of fact, the only good thing we heard in that whole

dissertation was the fact that there was a new chairman for Canadian

Cellulose.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: B.C. Cellulose.

MR. SMITH: B.C.? You wish that term now rather than Can-Cel?

Oh, he's now the president of B.C. Cellulose? We'll get that right — a

Mr. Jones.

All I can say is that any change would be a change for the better,

and I'm sure that the man will do the job he's there to do, provided

you let him do it, Mr. Minister.

Let's take a look at some of the other things in the budget. You

know, the Premier, who has left his seat along with a number of the

rest of the cabinet Ministers, brought the budget. In the budget, of

course, I presume that the allocation of funds went before the Treasury

Board and that there were a lot of tug-of-wars and pulling and stress

and strain back and forth between each of the cabinet Ministers to see

who would come up with the lion's share of the budget.

Well, it is interesting to look at the comparison and find out who

is No. 1, No. 2 and No. 3 in that list of priorities and who stands

just below the pedestal on which the Premier wishes to place himself,

and who else is going down the line from that position.

Well, it is interesting to note that the person, or the department,

that received the greatest percentage increase in the allocation of

funds is none other than the Attorney-General. Now there may have been

reasons for that (and I see that he's not in the House), but obviously

he talked a better line than some of the other Ministers.

Really, he was not too far ahead of the Minister of Lands, Forests

and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams). He received a substantial

increase, percentage-wise, in the allocation of funds for the

department. So obviously he was able to get the ear of the Minister of

Finance. Hospitals did pretty well too. They were right up there very

close to the Lands, Forests and Water Resources portfolio.

But then we get down to the Minister of Transportation and

Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan), who is also out of the House at the

present time. The Minister didn't do so well. It must be the ICBC

that's got him down, I'd say. Then we get down to the Minister of

Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer). Shame, Mr. Minister; you were

sleeping again — napping when they decided how much of the portfolio,

how much of that pie, they were going to cut up for the Department of

Municipal Affairs.

It is obvious that you came very, very, very close to the bottom of

the ladder! Sleeping again! Well, perhaps the moral of that is that

next time they have a meeting about budgets, for goodness' sake stay

awake until after they have dealt with the Department of Municipal

Affairs. That way you may be able to keep up with the other Members in

the House.

AN HON. MEMBER: There's no one there.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why don't you move adjournment of the House?

MR. SMITH: No one here? Perhaps we'll move adjournment if they are no more interested in the debate than they appear to be.

AN HON. MEMBER: The government's not interested.

Interjections.

MR. SMITH: You know, there was a little valentine in the

paper this morning that's called The Victorian — a little valentine for

the Premier of this province. Since I won't be speaking in the debate

tomorrow, I thought that perhaps I should share with the House the wit

and the valentine as it was illustrated by one John Bryant. I think,

perhaps, it sums up the attitude of the Minister of Finance, when he

presented the budget, as well as anything I could say. This is just a

bit of an advance valentine, and I'm sure, Mr. Speaker, that you will

see that the Premier receives the benefit of these words.

It says:

I take from the rich and I give to the poor,

Equal assessments, takeovers galore.

With my bow and my arrow I feel a bit stupid;

People might possibly take me for Cupid.

In examining the budget, in comparing it with last year, I think one

point is abundantly clear: it is not a forecast of revenue at all. It

simply takes the actual 1973 revenue, adds 10 per cent for inflation

and projects an income of $2,100 million. This is not a forecast. It is

simply a restatement of 1973 revenues, as they turned out to be, with a

correction factor added to take inflation into consideration at the

rate of 10 percent.

If that is so, I must then raise the question: is this revenue

forecast the product of serious examination of both our economy and

conditions in foreign lands where our goods must be sold? Or is it an

inward-looking seat-of-the-pants guess done in 10 minutes?

Well, I'd say that it wasn't a serious forecast, because even the

Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce (Hon. Mr. Lauk),

when reviewing 1974, had this to say — and I'm quoting from the

Vancouver Province :

" 'Strikes and shutdowns in major B.C.

[ Page 185 ]

industries could slow the province's economy to a no-growth

pattern in 1974, ' Industrial Development Minister Gary Lauk said Friday.

'Record growth occurred in 1973, ' Lauk said, 'but this cannot be

expected to continue in 1974 because of the energy shortage that will disrupt

the economies of many of B.C.'s trading partners such as the U.S. and Japan.'

I think he was quite correct in making the statement that we do have

to look at those world markets and project into our budget a reflection

of whether the gross product for the province will improve or shrink

because of shrinking markets in those areas.

If we consider this a serious forecast, then one thing becomes

apparent, and that is that the revenue projected from the forest

industry and the basic resource industries will not return to the Crown

the same type of windfall profits that we enjoyed last year. It

therefore follows that somewhere down the line, next day, next week, or

before this House prorogues, a bill will come before this House

indicating exactly what the intent of the Minister is with regard to

greater imposts, greater royalties and greater stumpage fees. Then and

only then will we really be able to accurately calculate whether this

budget was a sham or not.

In all fairness to the Members of the opposition who sat in this

House and the members of corporations that employ people throughout the

entire Province of British Columbia, the Minister of Finance and his

other Ministers responsible for resource development had an obligation

to bring before this House, at the same time they brought down the

budget, the bills — if such are to be brought down — which will give an

indication of the imposts the Crown intends to put on industry in the

1974-75 fiscal year.

Everyone admits we had a buoyant economy in 1973. It was a result of

heavy worldwide demand for our forest products and our minerals, not

because of something that the NDP, the opposition or anyone else in

this House did. It was one of those facts that we were able, as a

province, to reap windfall profits in a year when the market was strong

and the demand was good.

It's interesting also, Mr. Speaker, to realize that the system of

collection of royalties and stumpage was a system that the previous

government was responsible for instigating some years ago, and that as

the gross demand went up and the price went up, so did the windfall

profits to the government. So it's not realistic for the government to

suggest that in 1974 the revenue generated from stumpage alone will be

in the neighbourhood of $220 million.

What if it falls back to the 1973 level of under $100 million? At

that point the shortfall of revenue will be between $120 and $150

million, minimum. I suggest that it has already been taken into

consideration that that could happen in this province, and that there

will be greater imposts. The only thing that the public does not now

know is when they will be imposed and at what rate.

Of the stumpage generated last year, 80 per cent was generated in

the Interior of the province and 20 per cent from the sale of coastal

timber products. In addition, the industry paid $262 million directly

into the provincial coffers, and at the same time industry paid

corporate profits of about $200 million. These made a major

contribution, a windfall profit, to both the provincial and federal

government which deal respectively in those areas of taxation.

Suppose that we do take an optimistic outlook and say that there

will be no decline in forest revenues in the forthcoming year. If that

is so, then there is no need for greater imposts on industry at this

time, because the same sliding rules that have been in effect for a

number of years will produce revenue in excess of what the budget

indicates. In that case, there would be no need for major tax

adjustments in 1974-75.

As a matter of fact, it would be completely irresponsible for the

Minister of Finance to levy more taxes on our basic industries at a

time when windfall profits were accruing in ever greater amounts to the

province.

The Premier, when he brought the budget down, talked about the fact

that it was a balanced budget. There was a great amount of money in

surplus that he was going to divert to certain special areas to help

the people of the province. And there were no increases in taxation. It

sounded wonderful, except that the budget does not in any way mention

the fields of taxation that we know the people of British Columbia face

in 1974 — the hidden taxes that are not mentioned in the budget.

The first one that comes to mind is the Autoplan, and the premiums

that will have to be paid by people in 1974. Hopefully, many of them

will receive a refund. I am told by reliable authorities that 60 per

cent of the car owners in the Province of British Columbia know that

their premiums will be higher in 1974 than they paid in the previous

year for similar coverage. Is this the way the NDP carry out their

promise for insurance at the lowest cost possible — insurance for $25 a

year?

It was interesting to note, when the Premier spoke about Autoplan,

just in passing, that now the amount of premium income to the province

has been increased from $160 million to $200 million. In other words,

the taxpayers of this province, in his own words, will be ripped off

for $40 million more in insurance premiums and costs than they

estimated just a few short months ago.

Reliable figures told us that the amount of insurance in force last year was about $160 million in

[ Page 186 ]

terms of premium dollars paid to all the insurance companies

operating in the province of British Columbia. The figure was used many

times in this House by Members of the government. But suddenly the $160

million charge that the private corporations were ripping off the

taxpayers in the province for becomes a $200 million charge when the

government operates a monopoly corporation.

Perhaps the Minister who's in charge of that particular fiasco would

like to go out and tell the people just why they have to pay this

increased premium when they have no option but to buy their insurance

from the Province of British Columbia. Not only do they have no option,

but they have no way of comparing whether the premium that they're

being charged is just or unjust, except by comparison with their last

year's premium.

Most people in the province will be forced to pay three premiums,

not one. The first premium will be paid, if everybody buys their

insurance prior to the end of February, when they buy their insurance

and their auto plates for their car.

The second premium, which everyone has temporarily forgotten about

at the present time, is the $10 per year that everyone must have to

insure their driver's licence. And that doesn't mean every car owner;

that means that every individual who owns a driver's licence, whether

he has a vehicle in his own name or not, must pay the $10-per-year

charge.

Then, if they are fortunate enough to have had no points in the last

three years, that's it. But then the other charge will come down, and

for those people who have accumulated points in the last three years

there is a charge equivalent to the square of whatever points they had

on their licence.

Is that the way an efficient government which is so concerned about

people services sets up and operates an efficient insurance plan?

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

At the present time we have a problem as to who is going to be able

to repair cars in the Province of British Columbia, and whether in fact

we will be able to get a car repaired without paying the auto body

dealers a surcharge because of the disagreement between the provincial

government and those people who are in the auto body business in the

Province of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, if plumbers, electricians, carpenters — whatever

vocation they happen to be in are entitled to a fair wage in the

Province of British Columbia, then I suggest to you, by the same

measure, that a person who makes his living repairing cars in the

Province of British Columbia is also entitled to a fair living.

If that fair living is not paid to them then they have every right

to refuse to repair cars for the provincial government at the price

you're quoting. So there's another surcharge which the people of

British Columbia could very easily be faced with in the next 30 days.

We've seen an extravagant advertising campaign to launch a

corporation which has a monopoly in the field of auto insurance in the

Province of British Columbia. I don't know of anything quite as

ridiculous because there is no question about it: you have no other

carrier to go to in the Province of British Columbia if you desire to

drive a car after February 28 and have it insured without the risk of

becoming involved in a traffic violation or a fine. You must buy your

insurance from the provincial corporation.

Why, then, is it necessary to carry out an extended advertising

campaign throughout the whole Province of British Columbia in every

periodical in the province, including every daily and weekly newspaper,

for weeks on end? It's not little ads that the corporation has bought

and paid for. That's probably one of the smallest I've seen. Not little

ads; ads a full page in size.

"Now you can get auto insurance in just minutes. Later

it will take hours." An indirect way of suggesting to the people that

if they don't get their auto insurance, look out.

There's another good-sized one: "Get off to a good start. See your auto agent now."

There's certainly nothing cheap about the people who are in charge

of the advertising campaign for Autoplan in the Province of British

Columbia. Could it be Dunsky, I wonder?

In any event, the advertising campaign has certainly been

overzealous, particularly when you consider the fact that the people in

the Province of British Columbia have no choice as to where they'll buy

their auto insurance in this province.

How much did it cost? How much are the taxpayers being ripped off

for an advertising campaign of very extensive proportions to advertise

a Crown corporation which has a monopoly and no one could escape from

it if they desired to? That's money for people? That's benefits for

people?

Then, to top it all off, they had to start into the television field

because the newspaper and the radio media were not enough. They had to

hire a man by the name of Bruno Gerussi to do sort of a commercial for

Autoplan. I understand the tab was somewhere in the neighbourhood of

$5,000. Fortunately, I think it's off the electronic media because I

haven't seen it on television in the last few days. It was a junky

commercial. You have a cabinet Minister (Hon. Mr. Lea) in your own

ranks who is a former member of the news media. At least he could have

earned some of his salary by doing the commercials for Autoplan. Then

it would have kept the money at home and you would have been getting

double utility out of the

[ Page 187 ]

cabinet Minister.

What's going to happen when the people who have cars to be repaired

wish to have them repaired after the end of February? So far, the only

claim to fame that the Minister has is the fact that he has spent $7.5

million to acquire property for claim centres; $7.5 million dollars for

13 sites, an average of $500,000 per site for claim centres which have

not as yet been built.

That's sound economics; that's sure defusing the fires of inflation

when you pay half-a-million dollars for a site to operate a claim

centre. Yes, that helps the people of British Columbia and the persons

who are on fixed incomes, that provides a lot more pension for those

who are aged and crippled, doesn't it, Mr. Minister? Seven and one-half

million dollars for 13 sites in the Province of British Columbia; an

average of $500,000 per site to acquire property for claim centres

which are not even going to be in operation, and Lord knows when they

will be in operation.

Everyone talked when the NDP were in opposition about those nasty,

nasty, private insurance companies that ripped off everybody in the

Province of British Columbia and never really put anything back into

the provincial economy. I don't have current figures for what they had

been able to do but I do have a survey conducted in 1971. It's

interesting to note that all the companies collectively collected $113

million in premiums for the sale of auto insurance in that year.

Guess how they spent it? Guess what they did with that money? Well,

they invested $2.5 million in premium tax, taxes paid to the

government; they paid $43,000 in licences; they paid the provincial

government $500,000 in income tax; and they paid $225,000 for

municipal, real estate and business taxes in the Province of British

Columbia.

But not only that, Mr. Speaker. They invested some money in the

province as well, not only from that year's premium income but from

previous years when they had been able to accumulate money that was in

reserve. Do you know what they invested it in? Sixteen million dollars

in provincial bonds; $19 million in municipal bonds; $27 million in

Corporation of the Province of British Columbia bonds; $23 million of

preferred and common stock at market value of Province of British

Columbia corporations, and $14 million in other investments in the

province. These slap-happy people who ripped off the taxpayers

reinvested the money they had available to them in the Province of

British Columbia. Isn't that terrible that they did that? Certainly a

lot better than the irresponsible attitude that has been exemplified by

the people who are in charge of the new Autoplan in the Province of

British Columbia.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Are you against public auto insurance?

MR. SMITH: They're spending money like it was going out of

style for no needful purpose, Mr. Attorney-General (Hon. Mr.

Macdonald), just because it's there. Talk about mismanagement of

provincial income; talk about mismanagement of provincial affairs!

That's going to be the prime example of a corporation which from start

to finish was a complete political boondoggle with mismanagement from

one end to the other on the largest scale this province has ever seen,

wasting the people's money when it should be applied to people services

in the Province of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to spend a few moments, seeing the

Attorney-General is now back in his seat, discussing vote 18 in the

budget. It's entitled vote 18 under the Attorney-General's department:

development of justice systems in the province. Included in that vote,

because of a transfer of responsibility for courts and the judicial

system from the municipalities to the province, is a sum of $15

million. But what we don't have, Mr. Attorney-General, is any clear

statement of policy or intent by your department as to what your

programme really will be in this area.

AN HON. MEMBER: He doesn't know.

MR. SMITH: We've heard about a B.C. police commission and we

would certainly like to know how it fits into the picture. We'd

certainly like to know what powers will be bequeathed to this new B.C.

police commission, and when. We would also like to know definitely,

concisely and clearcut if the Attorney-General is thinking about or is

going to establish a B.C. provincial police force in this province. If

he's going to establish it, when? If that is to happen, what is the

position of the RCMP in the Province of British Columbia? What is your

intent with respect to the policing protection they now provide for

this province?

What changes are contemplated in the judicial system, Mr.

Attorney-General? And before these changes are made, even though we do

have a report from the Law Reform Commission, will there be an

opportunity for people who are concerned about the system of law and

law enforcement in this province to have some input and to look at the

type of programme you intend to introduce?

Perhaps the Attorney-General will speak at some point in this debate

and tell the public why the present budget anticipates expenditures of

$15 million because of the transfer of the responsibility of the

judicial system in the courts from the municipalities to the province

without failing to anticipate any revenue from the operation of the

courts. It would seem to me that somewhere in that budget should be

included the amount of money that you anticipate from that source.

There's an amount

[ Page 188 ]

there: it's up $600,000 from the amount shown last year. Yet by the

statements of yourself and other Members of the cabinet, the shortfall

is nothing like $600,000; the shortfall is around $6 million, as I

understand it. So somewhere in the budget, if it requires $15 million

to finance the programme, there should be a figure of $9 million in

revenue.

Perhaps the Attorney-General would be good enough to show us where

that's at in this budget. I've looked for it and I can't find it.

Interjection.

MR. SMITH: It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that if the

expenditures are anticipated on one side of the balance sheet then the

revenues should be anticipated on the other side, unless there is some

new system of bookkeeping that the NDP subscribes to that we're not

aware of on this side of the House.

Interjections.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I don't wish to prolong the debate

but I do want to say a few things about the parliamentary process and

this matter of law and the establishment of it in this province.

I have no idea what the Attorney-General anticipates both with the

police commission and with respect to recommendations that have been

made to him by the Law Reform Commission, But I do say this: if we do

not preserve the distinct and definite demarcation between the

legislative branch of law as we are involved in it here, the judicial

branch as represented by the judges and juries of the courts, and the

enforcement branch, then it would be a step in reverse. That system is

one that has stood the test of time. There should be no doubt in the

minds of the people of this province that it would not be continued. If

you try to meld the legislative arm, the judicial arm and the

enforcement arm of the law under one umbrella then it will be a sorry

day for justice in the Province of British Columbia. That should never

happen.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No chance of that.

MR. SMITH: I'm glad to hear the Attorney-General say that,

and I hope he will reiterate that when he is speaking in the debate in

this House. I take the word of the Attorney-General that the political

arm and politics and the judicial system have to be separate, and I

subscribe to that point of view.

Mr. Speaker, the budget we've had before us was the largest in the

history of this province. But what else was it? It was one that devoted

less money to people and more money to padding than any previous

budget. When the history of this government is written, men will say in

1974 the budget exceeded $2 billion for the first time. But its

presentation disclosed only half-truths and, in fact, some deception

because we still do not know what will happen in many of the areas of

revenue and particularly resource revenue in this province.

It provides no welcome or encouragement for people to invest in this

province. It gives no definitive statement of policy regarding our

basic resources. It reduces the total percentage of revenue for health,

education and human resources. It contains a great deal of rhetoric and

irresponsible bragging about revenue sources and nothing of substance

to show how the revenue will be generated.

In

summary, it is a shallow, shallow document, unbecoming of a

Minister of Finance and a cabinet who had before them the greatest

opportunity ever to show statesmanship and leadership. On both counts

it is a complete bust and regretfully must be viewed in that light by

the official opposition.

MR. P.C. ROLSTON (Dewdney): I found it hard to believe my

ears when I heard those final cynical remarks before that Member for

North Peace River (Mr. Smith) sat down. I just somehow can't get into

the kind of space he's into even if we talk about the integration of

services in social welfare where our Minister is really making

remarkable progress in integrating. Why, I understand in Vancouver

there are 170 different agencies delivering care. And he can make that

kind of comment!

Now, maybe up in North Peace River where things are a little

simpler, where maybe there is a flat earth, where there is a much

simpler, rural society, he can get away with that. But that to me is

just not useful in trying to deal with the budget which I think is a

helpful budget, which is figures and Pictures and expectations of the

people of this province.

I would just like to dwell on this whole idea of having a positive

attitude in this debate before I get into a little more detail. I would

like to think of this being the first real NDP budget which reflects a

group of people who have a sense of confidence, a sense of hope. We're

not going to go away from difficult urban problems, whether integrating

social welfare, dealing with the very great shortage of hospital beds

at various levels of care, looking at a rip-off, disorganized forest

industry which we inherited, or a lack of planning in transit and other

ways of moving people. We are trying to budget and plan for all the

people of B.C.

I appreciate that these are buoyant times. We do give credit to

previous years and the little bit of planning that did go on by the

previous administration. We have inherited a very buoyant economy: an

economy that grows to the extent ours has, an economy that sees a 10

per cent increase in the capital investments in this province. I just

read,

[ Page 189 ]

incidentally, in this morning's paper the full ads by Merrill Lynch

and other large security houses which obviously must still have

confidence in the economy, the increasingly buoyant economy of this

province.

I wouldn't want to just go for buoyancy and growth just for the sake

of that, but I appreciate that some of us are very fortunate; we just

happen to live in a very fat land. This is not Nova Scotia. This is the

largest budget of any government in Canada which is balanced. We are

appreciative of that; we're very lucky to live in this well-endowed

part of the western world. This is a budget which sees much less of the

percentage of the revenues that we are taking in coming from the

federal government. In the Province of Quebec, for instance, 15 per

cent comes from the federal government through various forms of sharing

and other subsidies.

This is a budget which I think is beginning a planning process to

get more money back from this endowment, this legacy which I believe

the Creator has left to us. This means sharpening our pencils,

sharpening our axes, our chainsaws, or whatever tool we use so that we

can get a better return for all of the people.

I think any government which sees nearly a 70 per cent increase in

the taxes and the royalties on natural resources alone really means

business. We don't mean to put people out of business; we expect them

to be very sharp.

We are now seeking $419 million from the resource industries of B.C.

I don't know if our Minister of Forests (Hon. R.A. Williams) is

conservative in budgeting for $200 million from stumpage, tree farm

royalties and other types of return from the forest. I suggest he

probably is budgeting still low; we will certainly meet that next year.

We seem to have a buoyant economy. We have very buoyant prices in

pulp. Yet, Mr. Speaker, I don't know if you realize that anybody who

has a brown envelope in this building tonight is very lucky because, as

far as our NDP caucus goes, there are no brown envelopes.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): The Minister sent them all out.

MR. ROLSTON: He sent them all out. Well, the lowly

backbenchers can't get their hands on a simple, large brown envelope to

send out the budget. There just are no envelopes. The government has

put in orders and we got a tiny fraction of that order back. It maybe

illustrates some of the demands on some of the forest products which

B.C. is fortunate to be able to sell.

Of course, on the revenue side, we are again, I think,

conservatively estimating for a very large increase in the natural gas

and crude oil returns. I note that we are nowhere near estimating $100

million, which we talk about as the return in natural gas, because if

the federal government is willing, we would like to share some of that

legacy with my brothers and sisters in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick

and other parts of Canada who aren't as well off as far as gas and

crude oil prices as we are in B.C.

So, I'm saying at the outset that this is an "I'm okay, you're okay"

type of fiscal and budgeting outlook for British Columbia. I think it

is responsible and it's positive. It reflects, I think, maybe the first

step in a definite plan to get a more reasonable return.

I hope, in a sense, in demographical terms to maybe reshape much of

the life of B.C. I want later on to get into the whole business that we

must, as we develop British Columbia, encourage and entice and make it

very attractive for people that live beyond the lower mainland and the

lower part of Vancouver Island. I hope we're very conscious, as we sit

in this chamber this afternoon, that we are sitting on the very end of

a peninsula at the bottom end of Vancouver Island, the lowest latitude

in the province. It is many, many hundreds of miles before you get even

halfway through the province.

It's much more than hardware. I appreciate what the Minister said

about pushing the railroad up into Dease Lake and eventually building a

town site somewhere near there and making really a metropolis around

Terrace, and to some extent Smithers and certainly Prince Rupert. These

are very important things, but this is much more than a hardware

discussion. Some of us have lived in some towns where we did the

underground paving, we put in the lovely split-level houses, we had the

recreation centres, and that just did not work; it wasn't simple. It

involves people; people have to live out there.

I hope that this resource budget is not just a dividend in terms of

hardware and in money, but a dividend in the social sense, even in the

spiritual sense, as our children are attracted to live out in the

remoter parts of B.C.

A preponderance of us in this House live in the lower mainland. Even

in my case it is difficult to get professional people to go out and

work in Mission. I'm thinking of lawyers that have been attracted to go

there and yet won't stay there. So I think a great deal has to be done,

and I hope that in this budget debate there will be some creative

suggestions by all of you as we try to populate all of this province.

For instance, I would go on record in hoping that as we develop

towns like Terrace, as the Minister has described, we see a first-rate

community college. We have the makings of a community college there

now, but we should really do a job and expand the vocational school

that's there. Possibly a university should be mooted for some

part in

the north — possibly Prince George — where we go beyond the

[ Page 190 ]

two-year junior college type of thing and get into a university

where we'll be able to plan curricula and programmes to meet the

special needs of the people in the north.

Diefenbaker was right in his dream for the north. Maybe he didn't

work this out in the detail that is certainly needed now by a

sophisticated planning government, but I appeal to you on this. I

appeal to you as you talk about the B.C. Rail and the CNR and the basic

primary extractive industries of the north, that we also talk about

manufacturing in the north. If we need mobile homes, we should be

making mobile homes in the north. Mr. Speaker, in your town of Terrace,

we should really seriously look at the possibility of manufacturing

more and more items that are going to be used in the life up in those

areas.

I know the municipalities must be happy with this budget. We heard

the cynicism of the Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) regarding

the administration of justice and the taking over of the court

programme — not just the taking over the hardware. For instance in my

town, Maple Ridge, there are real problems with the hardware. There

just literally is not enough space for Judge Varcoe and his staff. We

have to redirect some of the space, the hardware.

In some parts of B.C., and I'm thinking particularly of Maple Ridge

and Mission, there is a very heavy institutional legal cost. We have a

lot of institutions in our area. We understand that there are more

federal-provincial jails and prisons in the Fraser Valley per capita

than in any other

part in Canada. It lays a particular kind of emphasis

on a municipality as far as the administration of justice goes.

I'm happy that in a sense we are bringing some kind of regular

standards in the accommodation, in the supporting staff and in the

quality of the judges and the magistrates, and that we're picking up

this tab. Obviously it's mainly a cost to us, even though in some

municipalities, I believe, they do actually receive quite a lot in

fees. But I assure you that in my towns, in Dewdney riding, it's

welcome. It's really taking not just the financial burden, but I think

the leadership that we would expect from this new administration of

justice committee that the Attorney-General is developing. It is very

much needed.

Of course, the municipalities in my riding are very happy with the

influx of money from the Parks Branch of Recreation and Conservation.

We received nearly $1 million over the budget last summer for very

creative programmes in our large provincial parks. This has a direct

influence on us and we appreciate that. We are happy about the influx

in recreational grants — $15 million in a sense going to municipalities

to be an incentive to get going with the recreational facilities that

otherwise might be quite a few years away.

We are very happy that in Vancouver and Victoria the social welfare

department is being taken over and administrated. There are already

discussions about the integration of services with local resource

councils in metro areas. I know that the Minister of Human Resources

(Hon. Mr. Levi) has already been out to Abbotsford and has held

meetings with the people in the central Fraser Valley regarding the

integration of services and the picking up of very substantial costs of

this government which are budgeted in this document. I'm thinking of

MSA Community Services — we're talking a lot of money here. At one time

we were talking $1 per capita; we're talking a great deal more than $1

per capita now when we're talking about picking up the core funding for

what we call the professional and lay community services or

resource-centre programmes in about 20 communities in B.C.

We could talk about many other direct things that will help the

municipalities. Municipal Affairs already have assured me that there

will be fast bus service out of Maple Ridge by the end of this year.

The hardware is ready. We were assured in very informal discussions,

even two weeks ago with the CPR, that there are real possibilities in

the next few years of rapid transit out towards my riding.

I'd like to talk about education. I feel as an MLA it should be our

responsibility to get around to the various classrooms and staff rooms

and school board meetings and just hear what is happening in education.

I would hate to think that this Legislature would get bogged down, as

it tended to get bogged down last week, in a bit of a harangue about

class sizes. I'm not going to minimize class sizes. I've read about

what BCTF has said about class sizes. I've discussed this with the

Minister, and I've listened to our Premier and his comments.

I'm sure that obviously a smaller class size is relevant to the

discussion, as it will help in the atmosphere of learning. But I think

that it should be expected of this Legislature that there should be a

discussion on what we are doing in school and what is the purpose of

school. What are the questions about life that must be asked in the

classroom at any age? As we spend 25.5 per cent of the budget — $567

million — we must be asking these things. I think the Legislature can

be doing a little sharing on just how relevant the preparation is from

kindergarten right through to post-secondary education for what we say

are really fast-changing social conditions.

I might just say that our government has spent a great deal of money

in day care, and this right now is under the Department of Human

Resources. But day care is really an educational matter. I think that

sometime our government has got to ask whether day care belongs in

Education rather than under Human Resources.

There were mechanical reasons for it easily starting

[ Page 191 ]

in Human Resources. But basically I see it as part of the

preparatory process — for children as they enter into school — but also

as they simply, as a four-year old and a five-year old, learn how to

interact and learn how to relate and get into a somewhat larger social

experience.

I'm very happy, in my riding, that the fourth day-care centre

actually started yesterday — the fourth day-care centre in Dewdney

riding. That is, four day-care centres since we took office are

starting, and I think this will be a real catalyst to help little

people as they become part of the formal learning process.

MR. CHABOT: That's an NDP riding.

MR. ROLSTON: Oh, talk to other ridings. How about your own

riding? No facilities yet? We're very lucky, and there are many other

day-care centres in other ridings on both sides of the House.

But I would like to ask the House to consider that many of the best

teachers are not people with Bachelor of Education degrees. They are

not people who have certificates. Many of the best teachers are

simply....

MRS. JORDAN: Your Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) just did away with them in kindergarten.

MR. ROLSTON: Well, I would have to check on that, but I

understand that's an exception. That's news to me. I understood that

she made the exception that in kindergarten you didn't have to have....

Interjection.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

MR. ROLSTON: Well, if we can prepare them. But I believe that

right now you needn't be a professional teacher to teach kindergarten

as part of the school system — partly because of the real shortage of

kindergarten teachers.

What I'm appealing to you with is that in the neighbourhood there

are many people who have a great deal to offer in an informal way. I

suppose an MLA coming into a classroom is somebody coming into the

neighbourhood. Whether he comes in just for an hour or so every six

months is beside the point.

I'm appealing for some kind of a neighbourhood interaction with the

school system, where the senior citizens, the people, can experience

taking a class to a mill, to maybe an agency. We have many children

coming to this Legislature. We have many children who can be going to

see tree farms, nurseries, and a host of experiences in the community

which are educational and learning experiences. I would certainly

encourage that. I would hope that there could be more facilities for

that, that busing could be more readily available for that.

If you study the school Act you realize that actually it is quite

against the law to be charging for such a field trip. It would seem

that there is a rather tight tradition in just allowing for school

children and older students to get that kind of experience with the

other teachers in their immediate neighbourhood.

What I'm really trying to say is: if we're spending a quarter of

this budget on education, I'd like to be assured that we are motivating

kids early in their life; that they are excited about the world they

live in; that they are enticed and that they are highly motivated by

the time their basic outlook is formed.

I met a teenager last week who told me he would much rather go to

the Lougheed Mall than go to school because the Lougheed Mall, which in

a sense was the classroom, had in many ways more to offer in learning

experiences — that sophisticated Lougheed shopping mall — than the

junior secondary school he was going to. Now I don't know what that

says. But I think, somehow, it says to me that there are very

informative and yet unprofessional, informal teaching people who could

help us in this educational process.

I know that our Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) is aware of

the influence of television shows like the Electric Company, Zoom,

Sesame Street , and a host of other very, very brilliant TV

documentaries which have had a remarkable impact on the educational

attitudes of young children. I would like to see her, in the budget,

budgeting for a great deal more money in film, in VTR, in using the

very best film material and getting it out to the schools, especially

to the remoter schools.

I lived in Tahsis for three years. This is a town which, maybe now

at least, can afford more in the way of very good film. I see no reason

why this government couldn't be doing more in the film industry. It

takes an awful lot of money to make a film; it takes very little money

to print copies of film.

I really can't say I've seen recently a top film on the basic

geography of this province. I can't say I have recently seen a top film

on the geology, on the water. In my riding of Dewdney — we all know

that we'll be talking about dikes a little later — water rights, the

whole engineering of water, is very, very significant. I haven't seen a

film on that.

We rely on the National Film Board and they are very helpful, but I

would like to see this government, this Department of Education, do

much more in film. You know, McLuhan had a few comments on film — on

the non-print ways of motivating people. At times this Legislature

seems the most unmotivating and least-educating experience. At times I

wonder. I think we have to ask just how the educational learning and

sharing process of this Legislature can be enhanced.

[ Page 192 ]

I'd like to make a few further comments on education. I wonder about

school boards. I really wonder whether it is relevant to have a school

board like Agassiz, a tiny little school board all by itself — or

Mission, or Maple Ridge, or Surrey, or maybe some school board way up

in the Interior. We have many school boards, many administrations.

I would like to hear comments from all MLAs on whether, as we deal

with the more sophisticated facts of this province, maybe a more

regional school board would be better — one that can be able to develop

curricula for a regional area and the demands that those young people

are expected to be prepared for in that particular area.

It would seem that administratively it would simplify things. It

would possibly be less expensive. I see it relating to regional library

boards, to regional industries, to regional recreation, to the more

regional needs. I won't elaborate at this time, but you've heard me

before on the need for regional teams of family-life educators to work

through an area, whether it is the central Fraser Valley, whether it is

the Surrey-Delta-Richmond area — but highly skilled teams of people

simply to deal with and help share in the work for the kids in that

region.

I believe that the Department of Education must insist on the basic

skills of composition, of computing, of knowing the scientific methods

of reading; here is one skill that somehow I wish I had picked up much

better: the ability to read and comprehend much faster.

So I'm appealing to this Legislature, and I'm appealing through this

Legislature, through you, Mr. Speaker, to every teacher, every student,

every parent, every school board to, as we say in the Church, be

divinely discontented with your lot. You know, the Church has gone

through a decade of being somewhat dissatisfied with itself, with its

relevancy in this world. It loves itself and yet it is not satisfied

with its lot. I'm appealing to all people in this province, as we look

at this budget — a budget which sees over a quarter to education — to

be divinely discontented, to be part of the cutting edge, part of the

solution as we prepare people for an apocalyptic age, an age of very

great social change.

I'm very happy that there is a real budget increase in vocational

schools and in junior colleges. I think this is obviously necessary.

Sometime we could have a discussion on the real shortage of certain

skills. In Dewdney riding we need shipwrights immediately; we need

welders, we need pipefitters, we need people who are trained in water.

We are told that our Department of Water Rights cannot get trained

water engineers or civil engineers. They just are not available. So

there are just a host of skills that we just must see the vocational

schools, the trade schools and certain universities.... I think our

caucus was most impressed with many of the people who came from UBC

last week, especially the Dean of Engineering, the young Irish dean to

whom the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) referred yesterday in his

speech. Very, very helpful. Very enlightening. Very practical things

that that dean of applied science is getting along with. We must

support and encourage him, and our caucus does support him.

But some of us have also gone through university at times pretty

blind as to where we were going; it was never sure. We were just part

of the great lineup that went there for registration. And I don't think

that's good enough. I think we have to at times look at the university,

look at this business of autonomy on one side — the institutional

academic autonomy — but also the very definite, practical, even

pragmatic, needs of a developing Province of British Columbia.

I'd like to say a few words on health care. Again, I don't

understand the cynicism by Members of the Social Credit and the Leader

of the Opposition, saying, I thought in incredible words, cynical

things about health care. We acknowledge that there is a great shortage

in hospital beds, but we've inherited much of that shortage.

I understand that we are still 1,500 beds short in extended care. We

are building 1,100 beds and that will help. In about a month's time we

will have a 75-bed extended-care facility ready in Maple Ridge, but

it's already well over-subscribed by people that live within that

hospital district.

So we've inherited some real problems. I don't know how many

intermediate or chronic care beds this province needs, but I would

guess that it's well over 4,000 beds — whether in an institution or in

a home. There is a great shortage.

The doctors constantly ask me what alternative there is to take Mrs.

Black out of an acute care bed and into some other facility. Where does

she go? I'm glad at least that we've purchased a second private

hospital which will take some of this load — mostly, I think, extended

care, but possibly some of the chronic-care load off of hospitals.

At least there is $1 million in the budget for home care. At least

right now there are seven health districts that have home care. At

least we have a Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) who has assured me

informally that home care is at the top of the priority list for Maple

Ridge-Pitt Meadows. I find that encouraging. But again, there is a

tremendous pressure on hospitals like the 108-bed acute-care hospital

in Maple Ridge, which is simply jammed most days — so badly that there

is often two days without surgery. That's expensive. That's expensive

in human terms, and obviously in investment terms. We just have got to

have health alternatives.

Say what you like, the Foulkes Report has at least started

discussion. I've never met the man, but he seems to create expectations

in people, which surely

[ Page 193 ]

is useful. He's a catalyst. I'm sure there are many things that we

disagree with in what he's saying, but at least he's starting a

discussion in what is the biggest budgetary item in this document on

health care.

It's frightening when you look at the increase in health care — if I

can find the page here. It's a great deal of money. I believe it's

somewhere around $551.4 million. I have the total somewhere. But it is

absolutely amazing, the total increase in health care costs; social

welfare, education and health care are making up somewhere around 69

per cent of that budget.

I'd like to see the Minister talk a little more about preventive

health care. I'd like to hear much more on nutrition. I'd like to hear

much more on creative film on television. We saw a reasonably okay film

on the big, fat, obese fellow that was on television, and I think we

have one or two anti-smoking films. I'd like to see more on nutrition,

more on smoking.

I think also it's the responsibility of this government, if we take

a $108 million profit in liquor, to spend some money in film and

preventive education on alcohol. This brings up the whole need under

Health to have a real, good programme on education to deal with any

addiction but specifically alcohol, which is still probably the No. 1

addiction and killer.

We must start a careful, clinical, rehabilitative programme. We have

various attempts; we have attempts like the Alouette River unit out in

Maple Ridge — which is a jail. Let's face it, it's a jail. There's no

treatment really at that place. With all respect to the warden, who I

think is an excellent person, it's just not, in a preventive and

rehabilitative way, doing much for those people.

So I'd like to see health care in a preventive way — dental

preventive programmes through public health. Hopefully, we'll

eventually get enough dentists to get into a preventive dental

programme — maybe drill-and-fill technicians. Perhaps the universities

will be able to gear up and provide enough skilled people in preventive

dentistry and preventive health care.

I'm glad to see $5 million for physical fitness. I really feel that

this is most important. It's going to take an awful lot more than just

pushups on our desk to get us and all the people in this province

consistently in good physical shape. I'm glad that nearly 300,000

people are on Pharmacare; they greatly appreciate this. I again feel

that this is part of the legacy that's due the people of this very

wealthy province.

Housing: I understand that there was a 45 per cent drop in housing

starts in the United States last year. I understand that 60,000 people

have moved into the lower mainland last year. That is frightening. Of

course, the statistics of the post-war children now married, now with

enough money to make what was at one time a decent down payment — that

statistic is frightening. The vicious inflationary trend in land and in

residential property is frightening.

I feel very uncomfortable discussing this. I feel very uncomfortable

as I think of people — out in my riding and, I'm sure, many lower

mainland ridings — who, attracted by real estate industry, just went

out and grabbed land, took options on land, picked up land — not for

housing, not for them to move on to and build a house, but simply to

have that land as an investment. It bothers me that many people see

that as the only worthwhile investment as they hedge the inflationary

trend that all of us take seriously and with which we must, with the

federal government, deal.

That bothers me — that hoarding of land, of buying several houses

and fixing them up, but not increasing the number of houses — just

simply buying and selling. Of course, every time you buy and sell you

have to refinance. Every time you refinance that means higher rentals

for other people.

If you look at apartments in Vancouver: at one time, with the

financing of 15 years ago, those rents weren't so bad. But to build or

to refinance an apartment today, it really is bad. It is so bad that

last year there were only 450 new apartment starts in metro Vancouver,

compared to 11,000 apartments in 1969. So housing is really bad. It's

really inflationary. Something has got to be done with it.

MRS. JORDAN: I'm glad you admit it.

MR. ROLSTON: Well, we've admitted it long before this speech,

and we're buying as much as we can. But what I'm trying to say is that

I think it's a misuse of investment, a misuse of land. A person should

be able to buy some property and put a house on it. That is dealing

with the problem. But an awful lot of people have been adding to the

problem by simply promoting and increasing that price. Related to the

subject is the fact that if you get into institutions — if you look at

what is happening to the price and the refinancing, the resale, of rest

homes....

Let's talk about Maple Ridge, if we can be specific. There are

certain occurrences there where people would come in — sometimes with

money from Hong Kong, Japan — buy a rest home at an alarmingly high

price — and, of course, that rest home is refinanced at a higher

interest rate and eventually the costs, which often are borne by the

Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi) or by the Minister of

Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke), go up and up and up. One really wonders if one

can really operate a rest home viably with those kinds of financial

loads.

I'm told that 60 per cent of the Canadian people today could not get

into the most minimal housing: condominiums, duplexes or single housing

— 60 per cent! It's very bad in Ontario. I was there for four

[ Page 194 ]

weeks last August; it's just as bad there. It's a North American

problem, but probably is especially bad by the inflationary grabbing of

land in this lower mainland of British Columbia.

Now socialists try to deal with the problem. That's the problem; we

try to plan for that problem. We're now bringing in resource people.

We've infused an immense amount of money into this budget to deal with

that problem. Quite frankly, I haven't heard enough — we heard very

little from the Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) — and the

tremendous infusion of nearly $120 million into housing. Along with

that, that has an accelerating effect into the rest of the economy.

We're going to spend $50 million in land assembly — landbanking. You

talk about Dunhill; you make cynical comments about Dunhill. Dunhill is

the largest landholder in Mission, owning probably the most prestigious