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)

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 1974

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

477 ]

CONTENTS

Privilege

Possible interference with the privileges of the Member for Columbia

River. Mr. Chabot — 477

Mr. Speaker — 477

Routine proceeding

An Act to Amend the Labour Code of British Columbia Act (Bill 40).

Mr. McClelland.

Introduction and first reading — 478

The Association of British Columbia Homemakers Services Act (Bill

41). Mr. Wallace.

Introduction and first reading — 478

An Act to Amend the Public Works Fair Employment Act (Bill 42). Mr.

McClelland.

Introduction and first reading — 478

Oral questions

Possible prosecution of uninsured vehicle owners.

Mr. Bennett — 479

Egg Marketing Board claim against Mr. Kovachich.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 479

Victoria Press strike.

Mr. Wallace — 479

Government takeover of cost of administration of justice in municipalities.

Mr. Curtis — 480

Mining royalties.

Mr. Gibson — 480

Suspension of Western Pacific Trust Company.

Mr. Gardom — 480

Possible cancellation of provincial agreement with Greyhound Bus

Lines.

Mr. McClelland — 480

Government purchases of bus lines.

Mr. Morrison — 480

New appointment to Broiler Marketing Board.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 481

Composition of cabinet committee on oil refineries.

Mr. Wallace — 481

Date for implementation of Drivers' Insurance Plan.

Mr. Curtis — 481

Date for meeting re Indian land claims.

Mr. Gardom — 482

Progress of plans re Annacis Island crossing.

Mr. McClelland — 482

Budget debate (continued)

Mr. Gardom — 482

Mr. Chabot — 491

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 501

Division — 507

Committee of supply: Premier's estimates

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 507

Privilege

Reservation of Mr. Speaker's decision. Mr. Chabot — 507

Statement

Withdrawal of offending words. Hon. Mr. Lauk — 508

Mr. Speaker — 508

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 1974

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MS. P.F. YOUNG (Minister of Consumer Services): We have with

us today a class of 35 students from the Lewis and Clark College in

Portland, Oregon, accompanied by Professor Balmer. They are political

science students studying the British parliamentary system in British

Columbia. I had the pleasure of talking to them this morning at some

length, and I assured them that this would be a very interesting

sitting with an interesting question period. I would ask the House to

give them a very warm welcome.

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

Mr. Speaker, the decorations worn in the House today by the Leader of

the Opposition (Mr. Bennett), myself, the Premier and the Minister of

Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) are courtesy of the Lake Cowichan Senior

Secondary model parliament. Oh, Mr. Speaker, I see you have one, too.

This is a tradition of theirs. For over 20 years the school has been

sending their social studies class down to watch us in action. They're

not in the gallery now, but they will be later. I would ask the House

to thank them and welcome them.

HON. L. NICOLSON (Minister of Housing): I'd like the House to join me in welcoming Mr. and Mrs. Hamish Scott, formerly of Kimberley, now living in Creston.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of privilege, and I'd like to state the matter very briefly.

As you so eloquently described in your judgment last Thursday, February 21, as reported in Votes and Proceedings ,

Members' parliamentary privileges includes the right of the Members "to

exercise their responsibilities and to discharge their duties as

Members without undue interference."

Beauchesne defines parliamentary privilege in citation 113 of the fourth edition as interference of any kind with their official duties. Bourinot , on page 306, fourth edition, was eloquently cited by the Speaker again in the February 21, 1974, Votes and Proceedings as follows:

'in order to entitle a question of privilege to precedence over the

orders of the day, it should be some subject which has recently arisen,

and which clearly involves the privileges of the House and calls for

its immediate interposition.'"

Mr. Speaker Dowding also defines a breach of privilege as one which

tends to interfere with a Member's capacity to carry out his or her

duties. May , in

chapter V,

18th edition, describes privileges enjoyed by Members of this assembly

as including (

a) freedom of speech (Page 70) and (

b) freedom from

arrest and molestation (page 89).

It is clear, therefore, that on Friday, February 22, 1974, the

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

interfered with the privileges of the Member for Columbia River (Mr.

Chabot) when he said: "You're going to be in jail." The Minister

threatened the Member for Columbia River with incarceration, and in

reporting the incident the Minister stated that the file was stolen,

leaving the impression that these were stolen by the Member for

Columbia River.

I want to state positively that I was not aware as to where these

documents originated. The fact that these statements were printed in

the Saturday, February 23, 1974 edition of the Vancouver Sun pages 1 and 13, and the fact that the Vancouver Sun agrees that the threat was heard by reporters make the case for an immediate apology even more compelling.

I therefore ask you, Mr. Speaker, to rule accordingly. I have documented this matter by the appropriate authorities from May , Beauchesne , Bourinot and your own judgment of Thursday, February 21, 1974.

MR. SPEAKER: There is one aspect of this that does concern me

now that the Hon. Member has raised it. That is: what is the position

with regard to those events that occur in the corridor after the

session is finished for the day? I am not aware on that point

precisely, and naturally I would want to study that aspect of your

complaint.

Also, because what transpires between Members is, of course, a

serious matter, I would want time to consider it in detail. I think it

is only fair both to the Speaker and to yourself that the matter be

gone into and canvassed — certainly for the Hon. Minister who is, in

effect, involved in the thing too. We have obviously a need for urgent

consideration by the Speaker. I will give that consideration to it as

rapidly as possible.

May I say also that I would like to draw the attention of the

Members to an error that occurred in those three-and-a-half pages in

that very copy of Votes and Proceedings

of February 21, for which I want to apologize on behalf of the...I

don't know whether it was the Clerk's office or the Queen's Printer.

But I note that by inadvertence they fail to show the proper quotation

marks for the lengthy reasons of three-and-a-half pages that were given

in that edition — the quotation marks around the remarks of Mr. Speaker

Lamoureux. Although he'd

[ Page 478 ]

given a 1,200 word decision in the House of Commons

on this whole question of privilege, the printers inadvertently left

out the proper place for the quotation marks, and most of those remarks

are his rather than mine. I would like to correct the record on that,

because I notice that someone in the press has already been attacking

me on those, and they didn't realize they were really attacking Speaker

Lamoureux. I'm sure they wouldn't want to have done that.

At the top of page three of the reasons shown in February 21, at the

end of the second paragraph is where the quotation marks should go.

Actually I can't claim credit for most of the, I think, very fine

reasoning that is implicit in that particular decision of Speaker

Lamoureux. It is well worth all the reading.

I'd like to draw to the attention of the House another point that I think is deplorable. In the same edition of the Sun ,

which had about 1,200 words on this subject, it said, "Speaker Rules

Out Root Retort Probe," as the headline. Then it says: "Speaker Gordon

Dowding ruled Thursday an official of the Insurance Corporation of B.C.

calling a Socred Member a name" — and I won't go into that again — "did

not warrant examination by a legislative committee on privileges."

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

have no knowledge of the document you are reading from, and I wonder

whether we would have the....

MR. SPEAKER: I'll table this in the House.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The procedure we followed last week, I believe, was for a Clerk to read out offending articles from the newspapers.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm reading it out. A Member can read out an offending

article or else the Clerk can do it.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I would just like to ask then, Sir, whether or not this is being read in its entirety.

MR. SPEAKER: No, you can read it in its entirety later. I'm

just going to tell you that it says that the Speaker said that it "did

not warrant examination by a legislative committee on privileges."

I draw to the attention of Members very clearly that it said in my

reasons: "It is not the Speaker's function to decide whether or not the

matter complained of constitutes a breach of privilege or contempt, but

only to determine whether or not the complaint meets the conditions

which justify it taking precedence." That's the whole question.

Now, if the press can't read that properly then obviously they need

reading lessons. It's clear that that is not my duty to decide whether

a probe shall go on or not; it is for the House.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to rise on a point of order. I'd like to refer you to Votes and Proceedings

dated February 22, where it says that I tabled "further documents

relating to the Dunhill Development Corporation." I'd like to say that

the documents I tabled were relating to the government finances, the

question of leaks in cabinet, and the whole deal dealing with

government finances — not Dunhill Development Corporation.

MR. SPEAKER: I agree with the Hon. Member. I checked that this morning when I noted that wording. That will be changed in the Journals ,

because when I looked at the blue copies it appeared clear that you

were relating it to some matter in your speech. That will be cleared up.

Any other points of privilege? Any other matters of privilege? Can we go on with the business of the House?

Introduction of bills.

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE LABOUR CODE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA ACT

On a motion by Mr. McClelland, Bill 40,

An Act to Amend the Labour Code of 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.

THE ASSOCIATION OF

BRITISH COLUMBIA HOMEMAKER SERVICES ACT

On a motion by Mr. Wallace, Bill 41, The Association of British Columbia Homemaker Services 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.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

PUBLIC WORKS FAIR EMPLOYMENT ACT

On a motion by Mr. McClelland, Bill 42,

An Act to Amend the Public Works Fair Employment 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.

POSSIBLE PROSECUTION OF

UNINSURED VEHICLE OWNERS

[ Page 479 ]

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): To the Minister

of Transportation and Communications: in regard to prosecution

procedures against registered vehicle owners who have not purchased

through ICBC as of next Saturday, will they be automatically prosecuted

because they are registered in the broad files of the computer?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Will they be prosecuted simply because they're not recorded in the broad files of the computer?

AN HON. MEMBER: Everything.

MR. BENNETT: Will they be prosecuted as registered vehicle owners, but not having already bought their insurance?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, they may not be driving a car. The

only stipulation is that you have valid insurance — and we didn't pass

that law, it's been enforced for some years — and that you have valid

decals on the car — and we didn't pass that regulation either. That's

the law as it is.

MR. BENNETT: Registered vehicle owners who haven't purchased ICBC insurance, will the RCMP be given lists of these vehicles?

MR. SPEAKER: Order.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: As I said, a person may not wish to

register the car at this time. They may not wish to buy insurance on

the car. You don't have to. Only if you are driving a car on a public

highway then the laws, as they have for many years, state two things:

(1) You must have insurance.

(2) You must have a valid licence plate or

valid decals.

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out to Hon. Members Beauchesne

says at page 147 that questions must not seek a solution to a legal

proposition such as

interpretation of the statutes, or for the purpose

of argument or other reasons ask the government questions that are

really for the law officers.

Are there any other supplementals on that same question?

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, I'd like to direct a supplemental question

to the same Minister. Persons found driving on March 1 who have been

unable to obtain their insurance, will they be prosecuted?

MR. SPEAKER: That applies to the same reasons in Beauchesne; that's for a magistrate not for a Minister.

EGG MARKETING BOARD CLAIM

AGAINST MR. KOVACHICH.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, to the Premier: may I ask the

Premier whether on October 26, 1972, at a meeting in his office, the

British Columbia Egg Marketing Board was asked to substantially reduce

their financial claim against a Mr. Sy Kovachich, an NDP supporter from

Taber Lake in the Fort George constituency, as referred to and

subsequently commented upon by the Premier in the Province newspaper on February 21 and 22.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, they were not asked

or ordered or suggested to be ordered to do anything. I suggested to

them that they were acting like children and it would be far better for

their industry if they got together with their lawyers. They did get

together with their lawyers and settled the matter.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: May I ask the Premier then, Mr. Speaker, a

supplementary: whether he is denying then that he told the Members of

the Egg Marketing Board to draw up an agreement incorporating such

reduced charges against Mr. Kovachich.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I told no one to draft an agreement. I

suggested they get together with their attorneys and come up with some

agreement because they were acting like children, in my opinion.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Speaker, to the Hon. the

Premier: did the Premier in fact suggest to the people in question that

certain quotas should be instituted in the Interior for the growers in

question?

HON. MR. BARRETT: No. I did not suggest certain quotas. I

suggested that they were acting like children and that they should get

together and resolve this problem.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: I think we've had four questions on the one subject. Other members have other questions. Perhaps we could come back later.

VICTORIA PRESS STRIKE

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

Minister of Labour: in view of his eminent success in settling the

engineer-custodian strike in Vancouver, would he please say whether he

[ Page 480 ]

could offer the same kind of service to settle the Victoria Press strike which has now been going on three months in Victoria.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I thank the

Member for his vote of confidence in the effectiveness of the

Department of Labour, but I don't like to speculate on what success we

may achieve should we intervene.

The difference between the two disputes is that one was a very

serious matter in terms of disruption of some 30,000 school children. I

don't think one could hardly say that the situation in the Victoria

Press strike is particularly disruptive to the community at large.

There is a newspaper service.

Similarly, there has been no overture to this department by either

of the parties involved, as there was in the school situation in

Vancouver. So unless I have some indication from the parties that they

want further assistance from the Department of Labour — and I would

point out that we already have a mediation officer — then I'm not

prepared to impose myself.

GOVERNMENT TAKEOVER OF COST

OF ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

IN MUNICIPALITIES

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, a

question to the Premier and Minister of Finance, with a very brief

preamble with your permission. In 1972 the cost of courts to

municipalities in British Columbia — the administering of justice — was

approximately $5.6 million. The revenue from fines in the same year,

Mr. Speaker, was approximately $4.8 million; I don't have the 1973

figures as yet. What action does the Premier and Minister of Finance

intend to take to correct the impression which appeared in this

advertisement in the Vancouver Province ,

February 21? — "As previously announced, the government will be

assuming the costs — $15 million — of administration of justice in

municipalities. These costs were formerly borne by local ratepayers."

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, this matter is presently under

consideration by cabinet in terms of the difference of funds. That's a

report I have from the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald). I missed

the last cabinet meeting when it was discussed.

MR. CURTIS: Well, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the answer: it

doesn't seem to direct itself to the mistaken impression, or the

incorrect impression, given in the newspapers.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'll take that as notice until I get the rest of the information.

MR. CURTIS: A supplementary on the whole question, Mr.

Speaker, with your permission: will fine revenues be transferred in

part or totally to the municipality when this changeover takes place?

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's still under consideration, Mr. Member. I'll take that part as notice too.

MINING ROYALTIES

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): I have a question

for the Minister of Mines: in view of the widespread concern and great

difference in the public estimates of the economic impact of the

proposed mining royalty, would the Minister consider referring Bill 31

to a special committee of the House for the hearing of expert testimony?

MR. SPEAKER: It's really not in order. I don't think it

becomes argumentative as to the solution of the problem. I think you

can ask a question, but I don't think you can suggest a remedy.

SUSPENSION OF

WESTERN PACIFIC TRUST COMPANY

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): To the Minister of

Finance, Mr. Speaker: in the report of the inspector of trust companies

of January 31 of this year it says: "Western Pacific Trust Company is

presently suspended." Why?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'll take it as notice, Mr. Member.

POSSIBLE CANCELLATION OF PROVINCIAL

AGREEMENT WITH GREYHOUND BUS LINES

MR. McCLELLAND: My question is for the Minister of

Transportation and Communications: is your department or any other

department of government making plans to cancel the agreement which

Greyhound Lines of Canada has with the province to operate a

transportation system within provincial boundaries?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'll check on that. I have no knowledge of any such proposal, but I'll check.

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, as a supplementary....

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Was it cancel the Greyhound...?

MR. McCLELLAND: Yes.

[ Page 481 ]

MR. SPEAKER: The Minister is taking it as notice.

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, could I ask a supplementary so he could take the supplementary as notice as well?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: When a question is taken as notice, I don't know how anyone can ask a supplemental until they get the answers.

MR. SPEAKER: This is correct. Actually the supplemental can sit patiently on the sidelines waiting for the answer.

GOVERNMENT PURCHASES

OF BUS LINES

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to

address my question also to the Minister of Transport and

Communications. While he is checking out the last one, would he find

out if they are in the process of negotiating or buying any other bus

lines in the Province of British Columbia?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, I can assure you that I am not in the process of buying any bus lines anywhere in the Province of British Columbia.

NEW APPOINTMENT TO

BROILER MARKETING BOARD

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: To the Minister of Agriculture: in the

case of the Kamloops-Okanagan broiler permits, could I ask the Minister

whether he told representatives of the Broiler Marketing Board that he

was acting on orders from the Premier with respect to the appointment

of an Interior broiler man to the board?

MR. SPEAKER: I think there is a question here as to whether

the advice that is given to any members of the cabinet can be discussed

on the floor of the House. Is there any reference on that, Hon. Member?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Yes, Mr. Speaker. With deference to your

decision, I am not asking for a statement of what happened within

cabinet; I'm asking whether or not I could have confirmation of a

statement made outside cabinet regarding instructions from the Premier

on this point.

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): No.

COMPOSITION OF CABINET

COMMITTEE ON OIL REFINERIES

MR. WALLACE: To the Minister of Education, regarding the

cabinet committee studying oil refineries in British Columbia: how

often has this committee met, who are the cabinet members on the

committee, and when can we expect a report?

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): The cabinet

committee was not specified. When I spoke last night on the mainland I

did not say it specifically was studying oil refineries. I said it was

a cabinet committee that was concerned about the overall petroleum

needs of the province, and I was reporting to that committee on what

was taking place in Burnaby North at this time.

MR. WALLACE: A supplementary. Surely this House is entitled

to ask who the cabinet members are of such an important committee.

Could we know the names of the Ministers?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I'm sorry; I missed that part of your

question. The Members are the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams), the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr.

Macdonald), myself, the Premier and the Minister of Mines and Petroleum

Resources (Hon. Mr. Nimsick).

DATE FOR IMPLEMENTATION

OF DRIVERS' INSURANCE PLAN

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Transport and

Communications: has a date been set yet for full implementation of the

Drivers' Insurance Plan in British Columbia?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Sometime in March the information and the requests and so on will be going out to every driver in the province.

MR. CURTIS: Well, has a date been set on which this will take full effect?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Sometime in March. I'd have to check on the date.

MR. CURTIS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Does that suggest,

then, that within a very few weeks the present drivers' licences will

no longer be valid, and one will have to have the drivers' insurance?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Your licence will still be valid.

MR. CURTIS: I'm speaking of drivers' insurance — the $10 insurance.

[ Page 482 ]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: As I say, it will be within a few weeks — sometime in March.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right after the House prorogues.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Are you guaranteeing the House will prorogue in March? (Laughter.)

MR. CURTIS: A supplementary, then, to the Minister: does the

Minister not agree that many drivers in British Columbia are not yet

aware of that part of the total auto insurance–drivers' insurance

package?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: They will be given adequate time in which

to conform with requirements. I can't imagine anyone in the province

who is not familiar with it, really.

DATE FOR MEETING

RE INDIAN LAND CLAIMS

MR. GARDOM: To the Minister of Human Resources: I gather that

the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs and the federal Minister of Indian

Affairs and Northern Development (Hon. Jean Chretien) are very desirous

of meeting this government concerning the land claims question. Has any

meeting time yet been established?

HON. N. LEVI (Minister of Human Resources): Mr. Speaker,

there have been a number of meetings at which myself and the

Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) have been present, and we are at

present waiting to report to cabinet. I was out of the province last

week and it wasn't possible to do so.

PROGRESS OF PLANS

RE ANNACIS ISLAND CROSSING

MR. McCLELLAND: A question for the Minister of Highways, Mr.

Speaker: would the Minister advise the House at what stage the plans

for a new crossing of the Fraser River at Annacis Island are now?

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): There are no definite plans as to location. I have people looking at different sites.

MR. McCLELLAND: Is the Minister in consultation with local

government members in Delta about this whole problem? I understand

there is some concern in Delta about what is going on.

HON. MR. LEA: It depends which

article you read and which

edition of the newspaper. I have no way of knowing whether the mayor of

Delta is correct in his first remarks to the press or the last.

MR. McCLELLAND: Oh, Mr. Speaker, I asked a simple question. I

asked the Minister whether or not his department was in consultation

with local government officials in Delta.

MR. SPEAKER: You can't take responsibility for the answers, too — just the questions.

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, I would like to ask the question,

again: is the department in consultation with the local government

members in Delta? It is a fairly simple question and requires only a

simple answer.

HON. MR. LEA: My department officials are in constant contact with all of their counterparts, technically, in those communities.

Orders of the day.

ON THE BUDGET

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): You know, we

progressed from prayers today, into points of privilege, points of

order, and then into the question period, and on the whole the House is

still in rather a charming frame of mind. I just wonder why, because

this doesn't usually happen over here.

So often a person's first statement illustrates very clear and

correct observations, Mr. Speaker, as it was with my new colleague, the

Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson), on the very first day

he was on the floor of the House, via the kind invitation of the

Premier (Hon. Mr. Barrett) — and we thank him for that....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Premier does not invite anyone on the floor. I invite them.

MR. GARDOM: Oh, I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker. We thank you then, Mr. Speaker — it was very kind of you. But the Premier took the credit for it.

MR. SPEAKER: That may be a point of privilege. (Laughter.)

MR. GARDOM: However, on the very first day that he was here,

Mr. Speaker, he leaned over to me and his very first words to me were

these: "Is there any time limit on debate?" This, of all things, Mr.

Speaker, when one of our own Members was talking! I thought that was

going a little far.

I would very much like to congratulate the new Member and indeed

wish him well, and say that, notwithstanding the great ideological and

philosophical differences that exist in this chamber,

[ Page 483 ]

all of the Members are trying their level best to

do what they can in the interests of the beliefs that they hold and the

constituencies they represent. I wish him a very fruitful period of

time in the Legislative Assembly of the Province of British Columbia.

I don't really wish to miss this rather golden opportunity, Hon.

Members, to compliment you, Mr. Speaker, because you receive few

compliments, and perhaps deserve less. (Laughter.) However, I wish to

congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, upon the way you have really embroidered

your lifestyle into the history of this province. I'm referring to the

nice jackets you have produced for the Hansard staff, specifically the crest.

You know, that crest is really deserving of a few words of comment,

because it consists, Hon. Members, if you have not taken a look at it,

of four scenarios. At the bottom are the parliament buildings —

Hartley's Halls — with the lights off. (Laughter.) At the middle right

of the crest are the mace and gavel — they are very neatly crossed,

apparently exorcising each other. At the middle left are the scales of

justice, but of all things, Mr. Speaker, they are evenly balanced. I

would tend to think, Hon. Members, that when we are sitting in here 38

to 17, we might have had a little bit of a tilt.

However, at the top is the pice de rsistance. There is something

which purports, Mr. Speaker, to be a Speaker's hat, but if the Hon.

Members would take a very close look at that, by the most remarkable

coincidence it looks surprisingly like a seagull! (Laughter.) All of

which must prove that, either by accident or design, the very dominant

traits of the Member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Mr. Speaker) are not easily

dispelled.

Once again, Mr. Speaker, I have a series of notes and even poems

from interested British Columbians. Here's one and it is signed

"Stranded."

"Spring has sprung,

The grass is riz,

I wonder where

My insurance is."

And here is a letter to Ann Landers:

"When I sleeper, I dreamer. When I dreamer, I Bremer. What

should I do — sleep less, dream less, or Breme less?"

Signed: "Dilly Dally Dailly."

(Laughter.)

And this is the type of wire we might expect from the Agent-General in London:

"ADMIRAL STERLING. AHOY, HORDE!

(That's a naval expression)

BAGS PACKED, PASSAGE BOOKED, TELL ME WHEN. P.S. BEST WISHES TO

BOB AND ANNE."

(Laughter).

Now I ask you, Mr. Speaker, is it just the luck of the draw that the

vote of the Agent-General has increased 30 per cent and is up $40,000

from last year? That's an awful lot of lolly and we perhaps might be

bidding the Hon. Minister of Transport(Hon. Mr. Strachan) bon voyage before too very long.

Here's the final one, and this is signed by "The Miners of B.C." It

is from Forest Lawn Cemetery to the Minister of Mines. "Thanks for

sending us a wreath with your bill." (Laughter.)

I think that's very kind of him to provide that.

Mr. Speaker, without any question of a doubt the most determined

publicist that we have in the Province of British Columbia today is the

Premier — and if you look at it in the plural, the Premier and his

Minister of Finance. "It's the biggest budget ever!" says the Premier,

and "No tax increases!" says the Minister of Finance. He had his blue

suit on, his sincere tie, and all of that. It was a very interesting

production.

And all was well in Hordesville, as witness the Minister of

Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan). Both he and the other

Members of the government side were pounding their backbenches and sort

of quietly humming to themselves — onward to our socialistic Valhalla,

to their Elysian fields of control — designating and regulating and

centralizing and bureaucratizing, all at fabulous cost and enormous

loss to the individual in this province whose occupational and economic

freedoms are being eroded day by day.

I'd say, Mr. Speaker, there is far more than serious threat and

potential fear to free competitive economy in this province for the

restrictions have arrived; they are no longer fiction, no longer fancy

or fallacy and no longer socialistic dreams. They are now cold, hard

bitter socialist facts. And in so many areas and fields of endeavour

self-initiative has either already been curtailed or legislative

enactments have been designated to curtail it. Witness the very

extravagant powers existing in so many of the statutes that have come

into being since this government took over a year and a bit ago: the Land Act , the Energy Act ,

the mining Act, the housing legislation, the labour code, the

development corporation, petroleum corporation and the capital tax Act.

And what a mechanism that one is, the capital tax Act. It provides a

means for almost unlimited taxation. All the government has to do is

snap its fingers to change the rate. At times this indeed makes me

wonder, Mr. Speaker, what has happened to the leaders in our business

and proprietorship community? Have they become spineless, voiceless and

rubberized, or some combination of all three?

I was speaking to some of them just after the budget was handed down

last year. I asked them if they were aware of the resource industry

information Act; and they were not. I explained to them that this was a

part of NDP policy in their campaign materials and it would give the

government the power to totally inquire into the books of any resource

corporation in the Province of British Columbia to determine whether or

not, in the view of the

[ Page 484 ]

government, that resource corporation was paying

its proper share to public revenues. They thought this was a terrible

thing. Indeed so, and they're happy that this was not enacted.

But we got exactly the same thing in the capital tax Act. And they

said, "Oh, well, we can live with the assessment. It's not too big and

no doubt they'll pass it on to the consumer anyway." But, Mr. Speaker,

there are wider powers to snoop and to enforce under the capital tax

Act than we find under the federal Income Tax Act. And without any

question of a doubt it does the complete job of the resource industry

information statute which was proposed and a part of NDP policy.

Interjection.

MR. GARDOM: The Hon. Member for Yale-Lillooet (Hon. Mr.

Hartley) much enjoys that; he likes to have that kind of control and

that is why we

part company philosophically — as I'd like to develop a

little bit more as I carry on with this talk.

Any time this government even selectively, industry by industry or

corporation by corporation, wishes to increase the flow of revenues

under this capital tax Act, it can. And the Hon. Minister and the other

Ministers are nodding their heads and wishing that would happen.

Okay. Then I asked these business leaders, "Well what about car

insurance? You see what's happened to that?" "Well," they said, "car

insurance is sort of like a parking meter; it's never been a hero of

mine anyway." But, Mr. Speaker, the car insurance industry in the

Province of British Columbia was a lawful, needful, taxpaying,

non-polluting industry. It was subject to government control and

government regulation. It was certainly paying its way and doing its

job, and with some competition and with far greater efficiency than

anything yet demonstrated, or ever will be demonstrated by the

administrative catastrophe that we're now seeing at the ICBC.

I'd say without doubt this will produce the greatest administrative

hash in the history of this province. So many business people —

merchants and proprietors, corporate people, property owners — were not

concerned about what happened to the car insurance industry because

they felt it could never happen to them. But now we find these things

have occasioned — in the instance of that, in the instance of the

terrific controls on land, of the fantastic controls in revenue that

will be coming to the government from the mining industry, the

government is actually bleeding it white. And those people who feel

that the direction of this government is not as strong as it was, Mr.

Speaker, have never ever read or accepted the Waffle Manifesto.

That Waffle Manifesto, I recall, Mr. Speaker, was signed by the

Premier (Hon. Mr. Barrett); it was signed by the Attorney-General (Hon.

Mr. Macdonald); it was signed by the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs.

Dailly); it was signed by the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr.

Lorimer); and it was signed by yourself (Mr. Speaker). It's been

followed in principle to the letter in B.C.

Sure, some of these mechanisms are being sugar coated; maybe there's

some sort of intra-party skirmishes to smokescreen away that which is

really happening, but the course of this government is to blind-alley

B.C., essentially isolate it from the economic and philosophical

direction of the rest of the continent, and follow the precepts of what

I consider to be a very dangerous document.

But even more alarming, of even more concern, is the fact the

concepts of this manifesto are considered too mild and too bland and

I'd say too pablum-my to be endorsed by the likes of say, the Hon.

Minister of Lands, Forests and Water (and air) Resources (Hon. R.A.

Williams) or his supporters in the socialistic caucus or the

socialistic party. Those people are not the few; they're not the few,

but the many. They are in abundance. I'd say at this point that the

on-staff, self-proclaimed, professional intellectuals and some of these

socialistic labour leaders who form so well left of Waffle, they belong

to that group. And it's unfortunate that they do.

Here's an interesting letter from Sid Thompson. He's the president

of the International Woodworkers of America. It's dated January 3,

1974. It went to the Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources, and copies went to all Members. It indicates copies to all

B.C. MLAs. He said this:

"Employers and companies have no conscience and are

only concerned with making money. The government would be in a position

through controlling our natural resources in bringing about a different

standard of behaviour among the employers in the forest industry

whether they liked it or not."

And that is the kind of thinking these people have. But I'd say, Mr.

Speaker, thank the Lord for the CCF and NDP workingmen, the business

people, and the proprietors in this particular party — and the trade

unionists, numbers of them, and the landowners, numbers of them, who

are quickly shifting from socialistic ranks and looking for other

political homes where their individual efforts and enterprises are

welcomed and can receive the degree of individual reward that they are

entitled to. Because these people and no end of former NDP voters are

very concerned about a free, competitive economy, providing it is free,

competing and economical. They are concerned about the free competitive

enterprise system disappearing. And those people have very good cause

to be concerned because that seems to be the ultimate goal of this

government: to see free competitive enterprise disappear — it's

certainly the declared and never

[ Page 485 ]

disavowed goal of the self-declared socialistic

moderates who signed this Waffle Manifesto, including the Hon. Premier

who's never renounced it — to have state control.

For anyone to suggest that the extremists in his ranks, who I'd say

are building power bases like the pharaohs built pyramids, for anyone

to suggest they want anything less is absolute nonsense.

A writer said this, and I'd like to paraphrase it: "Free competitive

enterprise system provides choice. It's a system of values and

attitudes and that permits individual motivation, excitement, personal

freedom, variety and a capacity for excellence." But those attributes

do not flourish in a centrally planned, controlled system such as we

have here and such as we're heading more and more into here.

The sales pitch of the socialist is this: We'll direct you. We'll

designate you and design your lifestyle for you. And in exchange for

your freedom, we'll provide you with security at a level and in a

manner selected by us, and by us directing and regulating your efforts

and taking from you as, when and how as we shall determine.

Here's a quotation by Edward Gibbon. He was talking about the

decline and fall of Athens. I think it's most appropriate. "In the end,

more than they wanted freedom, they wanted security. They wanted a

comfortable life and they lost it all — security, comfort and freedom.

When the Athenians finally wanted not to give to society, but for

society to give to them. When the freedom they wished for most was

freedom from responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free." I say

we're not only facing, but practising that kind of escape from freedom

today in British Columbia.

Those people in the province, whose heads are in the sand should

take them out and they've got to shore up their convictions and go to

work to prevent the continuance of policies and do something to prevent

inheriting by default a second and a more ruinous and radical

socialistic term of office than the one B.C. faces at the present time.

As I said, the Premier is a determined publicist and he likes his

work. He's very charming at it, particularly when making fallacies

sound like fact. "No tax increases, " he said. Well, he artfully

ignored the extra moneys the householders got to pay by virtue of this

government once again giving the municipalities the Oliver Twist thin

soup treatment, and they're absolutely two-bucking them out of

existence.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier groans. Here's some interesting figures. In

1970, the per capita grant was $30. In 1970, the provincial revenues

were $1,165 million. In 1973, the grant went up $2. Last year the

revenues went up to $1,722 million. In other words, the revenues went

up 48 per cent. If the per capita grant had kept pace with that, it

should have gone up to $44 from $30, not from $30 to $32.

Now, we find the municipal grant once again just increasing by $2.

But, Mr. Speaker, the provincial revenues are now up to $2,177 million.

That's nearly a 90 per cent increase over the 1970 level of $1,165

million.

So the proper thing to do, obviously, is to tie the municipal grant

into provincial revenues and if that occasioned, the municipalities

today, instead of receiving $34 from this government, would be

receiving what they are entitled to. What's more, Mr. Speaker, what

they absolutely need to operate, they should be receiving $57.

The Premier artfully ignores when he talks about no tax increases

the huge extra sums the landowners are going to have to pay by virtue

of soaring assessments. He ignores the extra revenues from the SS and A

tax by virtue of the price increases on all commodities and the

fantastic amount of money that that will bring in.

He forgets about the extra income from higher charges to domestic

and commercial natural gas users, and it's a very peculiar thing to me,

Mr. Speaker, that this increase is not announced prior to this debate

so it can be discussed properly on the floor of this House, so people

in the province can know just what kind of a tax whack they're going to

expect there.

He artfully ignores talking about the extra dollars the government

will receive from higher insurance rates. Fleet surcharges, for

example, could be doubled at the end of this year. Not too much talk

about this enormous amount of swag from liquor profits. They're swollen

out of all proportion, Mr. Speaker, $97 million profit, but that

doesn't take in the sales tax, another $5 million there — $103 million

net profit.

Higher land registry, court registry, registrar of company charges.

The latter is up over 100 per cent. These kind of services apparently

are no longer to be considered public services by this government but

are becoming revenue sources. And the mining tax. I'm very sorry that I

can't talk about that, but I think it would be most appropriate perhaps

if we had a minute's silence for that industry.

You know, as the late James Butterfield said, Mr. Speaker, "It

doesn't take long for a fallacy handled by a determined publicist to

almost become in the minds of the people a divine revelation."

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

Are you against copper royalties?

MR. GARDOM: Against compromises? Certainly not. Oh, copper

royalties! Oh, yes, within reason, Mr. Minister, certainly within

reason. But not to the extent that you intend to go. Not to the extent

that you intend to go. I think that the people of B.C.

[ Page 486 ]

should be very introspective and examine and take a

very good look at what this so-called fallacy of no tax increase is,

because it's neither divine nor a revelation, and it's just not fact

because B.C. Is facing whopping tax increases this year.

All the while, this government, somewhat following one of the

gospels of the former government continues to soft pedal the enormous

raises in our per capita debt. It continues to soft pedal the red ink

in which Hydro finds itself and the staggering load which we're going

to be sloughing off to future generations.

The debt position of the province is growing like Topsy. I say

alarming, not only because it's so high but because it's a runaway

increase. I'm going to inform some of the Hon. Members of five years'

figures here. I want you to listen to the way they escalate.

Again using 1969, '70, '71, '72 and '73. In 1965, Mr. Speaker, the

net debt, after taking off sinking funds and assuming also that all of

these sinking funds are at par, it's rather strange to note, that the

only sinking funds listed as being par in the budget are those ones

which are slightly over. It makes one rather question the silence

concerning the other sinking funds.

However, the net debt in 1965 was $1,459 million; per capita debt,

$816. Hydro during that period, $984 million. In 1969, a whopping jump

in the four years, net debt $2,250 million; the per capita debt, $1,067

and the Hydro net debt of the portion of the net debt of the province

was $1,648 million,

I'll just refer again to these figures in the order that I've been

doing so as not to take up too much of the time of the Members. 1970,

net debt, $2,531 million; per capita, $ 1,111; Hydro's share of the net

debt, $1,761 million. In 1971, net debt, $2,696 million; per capita,

$1,205; Hydro's share, $1,940 million. In 1972, $2,910 million; per

capita, $1,269; Hydro $2,039 million. In 1973, and when we're talking

about that we may as well add in the $500 million that's in front of

the House now. You'll find the net debt essentially, as of January,

1974, $3,629 million. Hydro's portion of that $2,669 million, and the

per capita debt is $1,537.

So from 1965 until now — and true this is not all of this

government's responsibility, but I'm going to talk a little about that

in a moment — the provincial debt rose from 1965 until now, from $1,459

million to $3,629 million, which is nearly 250 per cent, 2.5 times

higher. The Hydro debt rose from $984 million to $2,699 million, about

a 275 per cent increase in nine years. The per capita debt rose from

$816 to $1,537 — nearly doubled in nine years.

You know, Mr. Speaker, at birth a child owes $1,537 in B.C., and I

say what a way that is to start a life. You know, perhaps there should

be tacked onto every crib in every maternity ward in the province these

words, "Congratulations, baby, you owe Dave Barrett $1,537." They

better get their paper route applications in a hurry, I'll tell you

that.

But if you start to take a comparison between the fixed assets and

the debts, it's also pretty darn interesting. Since you took over,

since this government took over, the fixed assets in 1972 were $1,425

million. Now they're up to $1,565 million. So there's been an increase

in the fixed assets of $140 million since this government's taken over.

But the net debt, it's increased from $2,910 million to $3,629

million. So we find an asset increase of $140 million, but we find a

debt increase of $269 million. The per capita increase since you people

have taken over is the most dramatic one of all. In 1972, it was

$1,269, and now it's $1,537, or $268 more during that period of time.

Every NDP day what do we get? A mile deeper into debt. This is over

an $11 per month increase in the per capita debt since you took over.

Now the huge reserves. We hear about these all the time. But is this

government using any portion of those to pay our way or are you just

burdening, saddling the future generations with this very staggering

load. Still, the public, Mr. Speaker, and all the Members of this House

unfortunately, continue to be without proper means to analyse or

inspect the budgetary expenditures and proposals or the economic

direction or performance of the Crown corporations or of the companies

that have been bought over by the NDP.

We don't have in the Province of B.C. any true or proper

accountability in any sense of the word. This is highly disturbing,

particularly in view of the figures that I have related to the Hon.

Members.

In private companies or in public companies, directors have very

well-defined responsibilities and duties. They have responsibilities to

account to their shareholders, not only of what has happened but what

will happen.

Insofar as these government Crown corporations or government

companies are concerned, pretty well all of this is still right under

the rug. It's the people's money, Mr. Speaker, and they have the right

to know before the fact as to how it's going to be spent. I'd just like

to illustrate one point to emphasize that last statement.

On September 19 of last year I placed this question on the order

paper to the Hon. Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr.

Strachan); I asked him this, Mr. Speaker, on September 19 of last year,

and this is very significant: "What are the amounts of capital cost

expenditure expended to date, and for what purpose, by or for the

British Columbia Insurance Corporation — furnishing full particulars;

and also, what are its capital cost expenditures so far estimated or

projected for the future — furnishing all particulars?"

[ Page 487 ]

It's the type of thing the public are entitled to. It's the type of

thing this House is entitled to. It's just common, good-sense business

to have that kind of information.

Day after day that question sat on the order paper, Mr. Speaker. I

then attempted to bring it into question period. In that particular

session you were not quite as close to the gavel as you are in this one

and you permitted the question — somewhat in different terms, perhaps.

But there were no answers; and it was going to be taken as notice, Mr.

Speaker; and then we got into rather a confrontation towards the end of

the session when the Minister was illustrating how he was doing his

level best to give every single, solitary bit of information he could

to the general public about this ICBC.

So he said, "You've got your answer," on the day we prorogued.

"You've got your answer" — and he sat down with a big smile, and what

it was was just political trickery, Mr. Speaker.

I asked him what the capital cost expenditures of this corporation

were, and do you know what the reply was? The Hon. R.M. Strachan

replies as follows — tabled this as an answer on the final day — the

Hon. R.M. Strachan replies as follows: "Annual report to be tabled in

1974."

Now is that an explanation of how public funds are going to be used

or not going to be used? I say to you that it is not. And the thing

that gives me a great deal of....

MR. SPEAKER: May I interrupt the Hon. Member?

MR. GARDOM: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: I just want to say that I don't think, in talking about another Member of the House, we should call it political trickery.

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I said that it involved....

MR. SPEAKER: I'd hate it to involve another committee of

privileges. The Minister is out of his seat. It would seem to me that

it's a little strong.

MR. GARDOM: Well, political humbug...what would you call it?

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I don't know what that means, so we're safe on that one, I guess,

MR. GARDOM: Beauchesne hasn't got the humbug?

MR. SPEAKER: No.

MR. GARDOM: The thing that gives me the greatest of concern

about this, Mr. Speaker, is that car insurance is going to be this

government's plum and panacea to the general public come the next

election. They're going to the public on car insurance only. They are.

They're going to offer the general public cheaper car insurance —

yes siree! They're going to do that. It's odd that they're not even

prepared to applaud about that. I'll tell you the way they're going to

do it. This is something that was sort of — can I use the word snuck in?

Interjection.

MR. GARDOM: Sidled in, Mr. Speaker, towards the end of the

session in the omnibus bill. Aha, what came into the omnibus bill? — a

provision came into the omnibus bill that B.C. Hydro would have to go

under ICBC.

Well, for all practical purposes, Mr. Speaker, British Columbia

Hydro, as you well recall from your lengthy and learned experience in

the practice of law, was for all practical purposes a self-insurer.

Aha, but it an't no mo. That's right. It's got to go under ICBC.

So what happens? The Insurance Corporation is losing money. Big Dave

goes up and says, "How much does it cost to insure a dam? Put up the

premiums on the dam." It's going to be a little like the homeowner

grant. The electric light bulb in the Province of B.C. is going to

subsidize car insurance and make no mistake of it. Make no mistake of

it.

Interjection.

MR. GARDOM: This is a prophecy I'm delighted to stand by, and it will be correct. It will be correct.

I'd like to talk a little bit about the $2,669 million that Hydro is

going to owe — or does owe, I should say — now with that $500 million

loan it's going to get in this session.

Firstly, Mr. Speaker, Hydro has got to pay the interest it owes out

of its earnings. From our electric, light and gas bills — that's their

income — we find there's about $10 million or $20 million left in the

kitty each year for profit. But Hydro has some deficits some years, so

we could well be mortgaged into perpetuity.

Just for purposes of comparison I'm going to say there's an average

of $10 million as a profit. That's on the high side. I understand it's

around $20 million this year and it was about $10 million a couple of

years ago, but an average $10 million would be high. But even if we

used that $10 million profit each year to repay capital, it will only

take, Mr. Speaker, another 266 years — another 266 years! — to

liquidate the indebtedness. That would be the year 2240.

[ Page 488 ]

I'd say that by then Hydro's pyramids — notwithstanding Hydro power — would probably be as dead as a dodo bird.

It's very interesting to note, Mr. Speaker, how this Hydro debt —

which is fantastic — has been labelled over the years. First it was

called "contingent liability." Then it was relabeled "indirect debt" —

then "a self-liquidating asset." Then in 1968, Mr. Speaker, we ran into

the best Clancyism of all and it was called a "self-liquidating

guaranteed investment."

These people criticized poor old Bill, but they call it the same thing now. It seems that he must have done good work for them.

But whether it warms Mr. Clancy's heart, Mr. Speaker, or chills

yours, or vice versa, a debt is still a debt; by any other name it

certainly doesn't smell any sweeter — all fanciful revelations of the

Premier or the old premier notwithstanding.

It's interesting further to take a look at the debt-servicing

expense of Hydro. It too is astronomic. There was $124 million of

interest paid last year — interest alone, $124 million. It boils down

to $10.3 million a month — $340,000 a day for interest — $14,166 an

hour, or $236 a minute. That is what is paid out of B.C. for interest

for Hydro every minute, every hour, 24 hours a day.

I'd like to extend congratulations to the government for some of the

social programmes that they have initiated. Again, unfortunately, I do

wish that they wouldn't continue to overemphasize the centralistic

structure. But I think they're getting too rosy a glow, Mr. Speaker,

when they start talking only of Mincome and Pharmacare and the inquiry

into the forest industry and the Berger commission into the field of

family relations.

All of these were programmes that were enunciated from these desks

over here. I also congratulate them but think again they perhaps are

taking too rosy a glow for the fact that they have improved the

attitudes to education and health. They've come through with pretty

lukewarm performances there.

I don't want them to think, Mr. Speaker — which seems to be

prevalent for them today — that they have made anything like the

strides they should have, because this government is still branded with

just about all of the noes of the former administration: still no

ombudsman, no auditor-general, no proper accountability of Crown

corporations or government companies; no province-wide legal aid; no to

an effective restructuring of the cabinet, having a Premier premiering

and a Minister of Finance financing; still no to a Minister of

Fisheries; still no to a Minister of the Environment; no to civilized

liquor laws and detoxification centres or effective programmes for

rehabilitation; still no to province-wide motor vehicle testing or

province-wide compulsory driver education; still no action — proper

action — to $1-a-day care for the aged and the chronics whose life

savings are being squandered and dissipated; still no to equal and fair

treatment for our Indian people.

We had the annual tough talk from the Member for Atlin (Mr. Calder)

and it was well received. But we need a little more than smoke signals.

Sure, that's been Liberal policy for a long time, what he was

enunciating — it may be Liberal policy. Whatever it may be, it's needed

and it's got to be done. What we need is action there.

Still no to proper recognition of your revenue responsibilities to

municipalities and of their very greatly increased need; still no to

improvements against vicious and arbitrary expropriation laws.

Look at the commissions we've had there. Surely to goodness we're

not going to have to have another commission to have a bill. We had the

Clyne Royal Commission on Expropriation, Mr. Speaker. We had the Law

Reform Commission come out with one of the most excellent reports of

its kind anywhere in the world. And this government, what are they

doing? — nothing.

It's about time they pulled the cork out of that bottle and produced

something. It's pretty miserable kind of mean vinegar that we've

received in that field so far.

They're still not getting with it, Mr. Speaker, and doing an

effective or properly administered and priority job with education and

hospitals. Witness the talk of the leader of the Conservative Party

(Mr. Wallace) and other people in this House. Let's not have more

plans. Just let's get in there with our hammer and saw and get

something started.

Still we don't have a war against violence and big crime, and all of

these are on a fantastic upsurge. Still no to cleaning off the lard in

so many departments of government. Instead, they're increasing it:

3,614 more government employees — an 11.8 per cent increase over last

year. That has nothing to do with the Crown corporations whatsoever.

What are the increases there? Will we ever get to find that out? I

suppose not.

Still no also to the reform of an outdated and outmoded elections

Act, where the vote of one citizen is worth 20 over the vote of

another. I'd certainly dare them to bring in the preferential ballot in

B.C. I'd certainly dare this government to bring in the preferential

ballot in B.C. That would be pretty good times for the Liberal Party if

they did that.

Still no, Mr. Speaker, to any effective rights against the Crown.

I'm not talking about that toothless wonder that was earlier introduced

in this session, which is a proclamation bill.

B.C. people have got to realize that it is still no to this

government recognizing — as well, another very important factor —

assistance to separate schools; still no to any kind of effective or

economic assistance to

[ Page 489 ]

the log-jams of traffic or the muck of pollution;

no to stopping the dragging of an anchor in our research needs. We've

got to stop that.

Instead of these things — instead of "doing" — you are structuring

and you are regulating and you are designating and you are controlling,

but you are not doing. You are building a bureaucratic jungle that

would make a psychedelic experience look like a Sunday school picnic.

What B.C. wants is better government, not more. Your budget and your

philosophies are not providing it; I would say to the contrary.

I think the busiest commission that you are going to have this year is the Boundaries Commission. That is under the Alberta–British Columbia Boundary Maintenance Act .

Oddly enough, the cabinet Minister whose responsibility to carry forth

the provisions of that Act is the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) again.

But the strength of our province, Mr. Speaker, has been that in its

various regions, though in many cases they didn't endure fair or equal

treatment, they consolidated and stuck together and wanted to do so

within the provincial framework. The sense of province was strong, and

the provincial interest was foremost. But the policies of this

government are not advancing that; witness Golden, and Chilliwack we

heard from, and Fernie and Cranbrook and Quesnel. One perhaps wonders

who's next.

It's very disquieting and unfortunate and wrong, but it's the

policies of this government that have brought these secession instincts

to the fore.

We might have Coquitlam wanting to join Latvia, or something or

other. It would be Latvia's loss if the Premier were still the Member.

Or Richmond could secede to Moravia; that would be interesting as well.

I have a couple of other topics that I would like to mention before

I do sit down. One of the biggest and certainly one of the most vicious

businesses we have is big crime; and spawning from big crime, violent

crime.

It is estimated that the drug narcotic traffic business — if you

could use that term, which I'd rather not do for that horrible kind of

endeavour — has a figure of about $175 million a year. Violent crime

and big crime is rampant. There are muggings, there's rape, there's

murder, stabbings and armed robberies. They are all on the up.

It is about time, Mr. Speaker, that we went to war against this. For

that we need an immediate ingestion of funds; we need an increased,

better trained and more specialized staff and the best equipment that

technology can provide. Whatever we are doing has got to be done

immediately — immediately! I say that this is critical. Double the

original cost may be high, but it is nothing compared to the enormous

savings in social damage.

I would also advocate public education and public relations

programmes concerning the meaning and the function of the police and of

their various branches and activities, specifically with a view to

better informing the youngsters in our communities.

We are living today in a time of permissive society. It seems to me

that no end of publicity is always given to these anti-police

situations. I do wish that the media would report a little more of the

day-by-day routine of the police, the assistance they provide, the good

works they do and the help they furnish in attending accidents and

fires, putting cold water on domestic outbreaks and taking care of the

many, many tragedies which are a very infrequent occurrence to the

general public, but are day-by-day routine to the officers. In most

cases it is rather unpleasant and sometimes very highly dangerous work.

They are not looked upon as they should be, as friends of society.

There may be a campaign and maybe there isn't, I don't know, but in one

way or another it seems that they are looked upon as establishment

protectors. They are subject to no end of criticism by many in the

civil liberties field, perhaps justified. But there does not seem to be

any kind of effective or rational counteractive programme.

This is one coming from society as a whole, so I think it perhaps

should come from government or from the force, or at least start there.

We have got to have civil liberty, and the police do a lot to preserve

that very thing. If they transgress the groundrules, they have got to

be stopped and told about that very loudly and clearly. But I think

there should also be very equal emphasis upon their good deeds.

There is an attitude that is very widespread; it is that civil

liberty sometimes is to be construed more as civil licence, with the

right to break all of the mores and the customs of society. Those

extremes are unnecessary and unwanted and unwarranted in B.C. So I

think it would be a very good thing if we had a practical and pleasant

programme of public education in the function and duties and activities

of the police. This could be well prepared with visual aids,

concentrated programmes of lectures in the schools; it could be

interesting; I'm sure it would be well attended and helpful for all

concerned.

Most of us were brought up to believe that the police were good

guys. I think we think they are, but certainly their PR is showing. No

doubt we have got, perhaps, the best forces in the world today, but I

think we should all know exactly how and why.

The last thing I am going to say is a few words about unthinking,

unprepared and unready-to-rectify man. I am going to talk not about the

possibility, but about the probability of death, of people being

asphyxiated, of jumping to the ground from storeys high in the air, and

of being burned.

I'm going to talk about the tragic experiences in

[ Page 490 ]

other areas and about, unfortunately, our own gross

neglect to benefit by these tragic experiences in other areas and, I

would say, of the culpable guilt of politicians in not insisting that

effective precautionary measures be taken. There wouldn't be a hand in

here that would be spotless, Mr. Speaker, unless we not only speak out

but enact safeguards. That is the cost of power: responsibility to act.

It is quite easy for me over here to talk, but I can't put the wheels

in motion. You people over there can and you have got to do it, and you

have got to do it now.

I'd like to mention the most recent.... and there is a very ghastly

headline and story: "Sao Paulo Skyscraper Fire. It gutted a 25-storey

building...nearly 200 deaths. Victims were cooked in billowing

flames...they jumped to their death. Eighty per cent of the lives were

lost because of panic; people were trampled, trapped in their rooms.

Inadequate sprinkling system...fire stairs 11 inches wide...built with

flammable plastic...not enough firemen. Rescue ladders reached only

halfway up."

That might be applicable to many things we could have happen in this

province today. That grisly story could be Vancouver, Victoria or other

centres in B.C. at any time. I would like to ask what has effectively

been done to eliminate the probability of the horror of fire racing

through huge buildings now dominating our skylines. I would say

precious little, if any.

We cannot, as people responsible for initiative, permit this

potential for tragedy to exist unchecked. There must be an unqualified

mandate from this assembly to the municipalities and cities in B.C.

Insisting upon amendments to the Municipal Act and the city charters to

enable all city and municipal authorities to immediately enact and

enforce safety measures for existing highrises, and not permit, under

any circumstances, the construction of any new multi-level building

without contemporary fire precautions being installed.

I am fully aware that this government by order-in-council — I

believe in the fall of last year — enacted that the National Building

Code of 1970 was to be utilized for all new structures. Fine. Thank the

Lord that you did that; it was the correct thing to do.

But I am talking about the existing structures. How many highrises,

how many office buildings, how many of the larger apartment buildings

and hotels in B.C. today can plead guilty to many of the following:

inadequate or no fire escapes; single central staircases; no, or

inadequate, fire extinguishers and sprinkling systems; inadequate or no

secondary back-up alarms and fire and smoke detection devices; locked

fire doors; bound hoses; sealed stairways; inflammable construction

surfaces and substances in furnishings; heat-sensitive elevator

openings; no emergency power systems for communication facilities;

helpless firefighting or lifesaving equipment.

Unless I'm incorrect, I believe the Victoria ladder truck goes up

seven storeys, and the Vancouver one goes up 11. What happens if you

are above that?

No drills! No manuals! No instruction to the tenants or to the occupants or to anybody! What to do if horror does strike?

Some of these buildings, Mr. Speaker, are just glorified furnaces, and ghastly consequences could ensue from fires in them.

As I said, we cannot blame the National Building Code; it does enact

good measures. And I understand that the fire-prevention authorities in

the Province of B.C. feel that is does not go far enough. As I said,

congratulations for bringing that in. But that is of no help at all to

the existing structures.

We have got a very dangerous situation, Mr. Speaker, and this is

what I recommend: we have got to insist that a set of standards be

established for existing structures, and that they be brought into date

— not just up to date, but into date — and kept in continuing and good

order.

In every apartment and hotel or office building in the province

there should be by law an established fire procedure, and it should be

set forth, and people should know about it. It should be printed. It

should be tacked on the walls. It should be kept up to date, and it

should include drills and a rehearsal of procedures in the event of

problems and, as I say, kept current. Keep out of the elevators. Leave

by stairways if you can. If you are trapped, unplug the appliances,

close your door, get on a balcony if you happen to have one. Keep out

of the elevators.

By law we should insist that there be adequate emergency lighting

and adequate alarms and fire detection devices. These must be installed.

I was involved — and fortunately there wasn't any problem at all —

in one of the newer buildings in Vancouver. It was only five years old.

It is a delightful building. A problem happened at B.C. Hydro;

generators went out and all the lights went out, and they blacked out

in most of the buildings in the general area of Georgia, Granville,

Burrard, in Vancouver. This particular building has got fire

extinguishers on the walls — fine and dandy. Sure, it's got electric

elevators, fine and dandy, and it's air conditioned.

There is one way out. You can't work the windows. There's a fire

problem because they open automatically if there's a fire; you would go

down the inner stairwell. It was absolutely coal black — no emergency

lighting at all.

It doesn't take too much for panic to happen under those

circumstances. Today there are no plans, no indications of something

being done, and it is not expensive to install an emergency lighting

procedure.

The local fire departments also, Mr. Speaker, should be more fully

cognizant, if they are not already, as to the preventive and

fire-outbreak

[ Page 491 ]

procedures in every such structure.

Fire safety consciousness includes these things: a complete

sprinkling system; smoke-detection devices; a number of sealed-off fire

zones as the building would increase in height; emergency power for

lighting the interior stairs in escapes and elevators; elevator systems

which can be converted to manual operation so that they don't open

automatically at a fire floor and everybody is immediately asphyxiated;

smoke-free passages and exits; reserve water-storage tanks for

sprinkling and stand pipes.

All of these systems should be monitored and controlled and there

should be some effective drills. And I would say, Mr. Speaker, if there

is a tinderbox situation, which I think there could well be, and we do

nothing about it, that could well be considered criminal.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, in closing, it appears to me that this government's

philosophy is pretty well directed to the absolute control of our

natural resources and elimination of the free, competitive enterprise

system. I don't agree with that philosophy. It seems that this

government's priorities are primarily to that end, and it is missing

the immediate needs of the people of B.C. In the areas that I have

mentioned this afternoon. I would have expected the government's

attitude and the government's philosophy in the first instance, but I

am very sad that it is missing its priority direction, and by virtue of

that I find it not possible to support the budget.

I would like to thank you, Mr. Speaker, and the Hon. Members for

their attention. It has been a pleasure to speak once again for the

constituency of Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): It is again a pleasure for

me to rise in my place and speak on behalf of the people I represent in

that great riding of Columbia River.

It is really unfortunate...I find it rather difficult to speak when

there are only 11 or 12 Members across the way, because I'm accustomed

to a little bit of heckling...

HON. J. RADFORD (Minister of Recreation and Conservation): I'm here.

MR. CHABOT: ...and jeering. I'm glad you are here, Mr.

Minister of Conservation and Recreation. You are one of the few

Ministers who are here.

I want first of all to speak about matters of concern within my

constituency before going on to a detailed analysis of the budget and

its provisions and lack of provisions.

The first matter I want to raise is the question, the controversy,

that exists at this moment on the renaming of a lake in my constituency

— the renaming of Kinbasket Lake to McNaughton Lake by the Minister of

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

There is the feeling within my constituency, and I'm sure within the

community of Revelstoke as well, that this was the action of a callous

and insensitive Minister, a Minister that really has no appreciation

for the preservation of this historical Indian name. I think the

Minister really needs a short lesson in the history of the naming of

this particular lake, and I propose to give it to him at this time,

The lake was named.... Excuse me, I want to welcome the Member for

Vancouver–Little Mountain (Mr. Cummings) back. He was absent for a

couple of days last week. Welcome back, Mr. Member.

The lake was named way back in 1866, 108 years ago, by one Walter

Moberly, a surveyor, who was surveying a route at the time for the

transcontinental railway. One of the provisions that brought British

Columbia into Confederation was the promise by the national government

of establishing a rail link from sea to sea. And Walter Moberly was in

the process of finding that route. He was the man who named the lake

after Kinbasket.

Now we see this historical name being destroyed by the Minister. I

think it is important that we look back and see what Walter Moberly has

to say in his journals about Kinbasket. In his journal he said:

"We crossed the Columbia River and in a short distance

came to a little camp of Shuswap Indians where I met their headman,

Kinbasket. I now negotiated with him for two little canoes made of the

bark of the spruce and for his assistance to take me down river.

Kinbasket was a very good Indian. I found him always reliable. We ran

many rapids and portaged others, and came to a lake which I named

Kinbasket Lake, much to the old chief's delight."

It's a small band of Indians who came up from Adams Lake, way down

there near Salmon Arm, about the turn of the century, about 1800, and

moved into boat encampment and on to Kinbasket Lake. It was a band of

Indians who had suffered tremendous hardships establishing themselves

in that remote and difficult area, difficult as far as weather is

concerned and snow conditions. But they were willing to settle that

part of the province in the early days to help the early settlers. In

recognition of their help they had a lake named after their chief,

which is now being destroyed.

Even the grave of the old chief is along the banks of the Columbia

River, close to the lake that was named after him. We have direct

descendants in my constituency, in the Windemere Valley, of the old

chief.

I want to say, about this particular name

[ Page 492 ]

Kinbasket, that it was back in the late '60s that I

approached the government in the first instance to ensure that they

didn't change the name when the flooding took place behind Mica. I

suggested to the government of the day that the name Kinbasket be

retained, and I'd hoped that it would have been retained, but

apparently it hasn't been.

Yet the Minister set up a committee called the Mica Basin study

group, headed by one Ken Farquarson, to go out and look at the possible

utilization of land surrounding the lake. That was in July of last

year. They held public meetings at places such as Valemount, Revelstoke

and Golden, and they were told at the two meetings, in particular at

Revelstoke and Golden, by a motion of the people, a unanimous motion of

the people, that they should retain this name Kinbasket. It was

unanimous at both places. Yet just one month later, after these public

meetings were held, we find that the Minister, on his own motion,

decided to change the name of the lake to McNaughton Lake.

What is the purpose? What is the objective, then, of sending this

task force out into the field if you are not going to listen to the

opinions expressed by the people at these public meetings? Why waste

the taxpayers' dollars if you are not going to listen? I think the

Minister should have checked with McNaughton to see whether he wanted

his name on that body of water.

In view of the fact that he was an opponent of the Columbia River

treaty, I'm sure it's not doing his name justice by renaming the lake

to McNaughton.

If the Minister has an affection for the name McNaughton, certainly

there must be some unnamed mountains in this province. In fact, I can

think of one body of water that maybe should be named after McNaughton

and that's behind the Libby Reservoir. It's a bastardization of three

names: Kootenay, Canada and USA — Koocanusa Lake. I think that's a

terrible name and I think it was a name brought in by the former

government; a name that should be removed and, instead, put the name of

McNaughton over the Libby pondage. Then the Minister will have

satisfied his whim of naming some body of water by the name of

McNaughton.

I have a letter here from one of my constituents, and I'm sure the

Minister has received many letters on this issue. This one I think

pretty clearly outlines the feeling of the people in the area as to the

renaming of this lake. I think it's important that it go into the

record because it's so clear.

"Dear Mr. Williams:

"I and most of the people in Golden are disappointed

at your refusal to reconsider retaining the name of Kinbasket Lake for

the lake behind Mica Dam. Whatever happened to the NDP slogan that it

listens to the people? The people here want Kinbasket. You and you

alone want McNaughton.

"As one who has known General McNaughton personally,

even if only briefly, I know full well that you're not doing his memory

any favour by ramming his name down the throats of people who prefer

the old historical name for their lake and who will retain the old name

regardless of any decisions you may make to the NDP's detriment and

your own infamy.

"A similar situation prevails in Banff. If one goes

there and asks for the location of Eisenhower Mountain, one gets a

blank stare. 'Oh, you mean Castle Mountain.'"

That pretty clearly describes it. All you have to do is go up the

steps to the dining room right now. There's an etching on the wall.

Just below it there's a little name plate put up by the Speaker's

office or someone through the Speaker's direction. Below it, it says

Castle Mountain. Even they will not recognize the new name of

Eisenhower Mountain, just as the people in the Columbia region will not

recognize the name of McNaughton.

He goes on:

"You evidently don't seem to realize General

McNaughton was against the whole idea of dams on the Columbia as it

benefited no one except the Americans, and for a cut rate at that. Your

attempt to get his blessings second-hand by foisting his name on a part

of the project, and against the wishes of the local population at that,

is sheer insolence on your part.

"Should you not change your mind, then I strongly

recommend that you never show your face in these parts. You'll get a

dunking in Kinbasket Lake which you'll never forget. The mountain

people in this area have their own techniques of handling arrogant

Ministers who get too big for their britches." (Laughter.)

I think that was pretty clearly put by one of my constituents to the

Minister; it clearly describes the feeling within my constituency on

the renaming of Kinbasket Lake to McNaughton Lake. It is quite evident

to me that the Minister has no respect and no feeling for the Indian

people who still live in my constituency and who are direct descendants

of old Chief Kinbasket. It's a pretty callous action, Mr. Speaker.

We've seen the attitude of that government relative to the native

people. It wasn't too long ago that the first native ever was appointed

to the cabinet. He didn't last too long. They kicked him out on his

ear; that's what they did. That's all that government thinks of the

Indian people in this province. Now they're destroying an historical

Indian name. And no justification.

In an attempt to appease the people in the area,

[ Page 493 ]

the Minister has offered a little bit of tokenism.

The Minister has consented to calling one of the arms in the lake

Kinbasket Arm. Tokenism of the worst sort, Mr. Speaker, that's what it

is. It's not good enough.

I want to urge the Minister — and I'm sure he has some people here

who will convey this message to him — that we want that lake changed

back to Kinbasket. We want him to show some respect for the native

people of this province. We want him to show some respect for the

history of this province as well.

The people I represent would consider that the most vicious piece of

legislation which has had the most serious ramifications on the people

of my constituency is Bill 71. I have never in the 11 years that I've

represented my constituency seen such an outcry from the residents

against Bill 71.

Bill 71, of course, stems back to the philosophy of that government

and the philosophy of that party as well. I think that philosophy was

clearly described when the Member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) spoke under

the Land Commission Act in which she said that her party is against the private ownership of land. They're against the private ownership of land.

We see shades of the Land Commission Act

in Bill 71. We see shades of what the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr.

Stupich) has had to say, because the Minister of Agriculture says they

have ways of persuasion by taxation to push people off land. That's

exactly the attempt being made by the implementation of Bill 71. They

want to run people off the land; they want the Crown to control all

land in this province.

We have in my constituency this year 697 appeals against

assessments, assessments that were dramatically increased by the

implementation of Bill 71. When you look at the kind of appeals there

were the previous year in 1973, only 143, you can realize the dramatic

increase, the dramatic concern of the people in my constituency. There

were 554 more opposed to Bill 71.

I have received a whole series of letters on the matter — and I'm

not about to read all the letters — but there are two or three very

short ones which I wanted to comment on. One here is a copy sent to me.

It was sent to the Minister of Finance:

"Dear Sir:

"We are writing to you concerning the assessment made

on this property which has been doubled this year. No improvements

whatever have been done to them, and myself and wife who are on fixed

income (old-age pensioners) feel this is out of line. We do not mind

paying a fair share of land taxes, but to be doubled on unimproved land

is just too much."

I received many letters similar to that from working people. Some

other old-age pensioners have written me as well. It's the little

people who are being hurt in my riding by Bill 71. Here's a small

businessman writing to me:

"We wish to register our request to appeal the 1974 assessment notice for the above-mentioned property."

He's sending me a copy of the letter which he sent to the tax assessor in the Town of Golden.

"We feel the increase of 1,200 per cent from $500 to

$6,000 is not only exorbitant but completely out of reason. We expect

to hear from you as to the time and place that our appeal will be

heard. Thank you for your consideration in this matter."

The third letter is a copy sent to me; letter to the Minister of Finance:

"Speaking on behalf of the Invermere District Curling

Club, we are, to say the least, thunderstruck and speechless as to why

the assessment on our curling club is so outrageous. This is a

community recreation facility and non-profit organization.

"Further, we would like to point out that this is the

only curling rink north of Kimberley that is operating in the east

Kootenays. Taxation based on these assessments will force the closure

of this community recreational facility."

Look at the new assessment they've received. In 1973 it was $1,210

on land. It has been increased to $10,250 — about a 900 per cent

increase. We see the increase on improvements from $6,000 to $16,000,

an increase which they can't possibly pay because they're experiencing

difficulty in paying the tax bill on the previous assessment.

Maybe their only salvation is to suggest to the provincial

government that they take over the operation of this recreational

facility. Turn it over lock, stock and barrel to the provincial

government; that's what they should do. That's what the government

wants: they want to run people out, run them off the land, run them out

of their businesses.

It's clearly evident to me that Bill 71 was intended to get revenge

against the business community of British Columbia. It has hurt the

small landowners, it has hurt the small businessmen in this province,

and in my constituency we've got a lot of small businesses and small

landowners. We have a lot of seasonal and marginal and tourist-oriented

businesses that find it difficult to make a living. We see the Premier

now trying to bail out by blaming the assessors for misinterpreting his

directives or the intent and purpose of Bill 71.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Shame, shame.

MR. CHABOT: It's most shameful — certainly it is — that the Premier has to blame someone else for the shortcomings of his administration.

The vast majority of the business people in my

[ Page 494 ]

constituency who have investments of $100,000 or

$150,000 and who work long hours as well make substantially less than

the Premier of British Columbia does with no investment at all.

I want to suggest to the House, through you, Mr. Speaker, that

deferral, as has been suggested by the government, is really not the

answer. It's really not the answer to the problem that the small people

in this province are facing. Because of its tinkering with the

assessment structure, and its continued tinkering through statements

from the Minister of Finance's office, we find that the whole situation

of equalization of assessments in the province has been shaken, and

shaken very badly.

What we really need, Mr. Speaker, is a moratorium on assessments in

British Columbia at the present time. I think assessments should be

maintained at last year's levels until such time as a full-fledged,

independent survey of how assessments should be structured in this

province takes place. There should be a fully independent survey

carried out of ways and means of bringing in a fair means of assessing

and taxing people in this province. I hope that it will be the

recommendation of the select standing committee as well that there be a

moratorium on assessments at this time, and that there be a complete,

independent, intensive survey of ways and means of assessments and

taxation in this province.

I assure you that Bill 71 has affected a lot more poor people in my

constituency than it has affected what you describe as wealthy ones. We

don't have wealthy people in my constituency. There are none as wealthy

as you are, Mr. Attorney-General — none.

I think you shouldn't attempt to seek revenge. You indicated very

clearly, and I'll point it out later, that the intent and purpose of

Bill 71 was revenge against the business community. You clarified that

point in your statement, Mr. Attorney-General, just a couple of moments

ago, that you want revenge against the people with money and in the

business community as well.

When the Minister of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources (Hon. R.A.

Williams) was speaking, he talked very briefly about a study that was

underway in my constituency some time ago last year, in which it's

rumoured that there's going to be established a very massive wilderness

park, extending from the community of Kimberley northwards to possibly

the Bugaboo mountain range, which is a distance of 150 miles, covering

thousands of square miles of the constituency.

The Minister in speaking didn't really define too much as to what

his intentions are, but he did say that he wants to protect the

drainages in the west Kootenays of Fry Creek, Carney Creek and Hamill

Creek. Then on the other side, in the east Kootenays, he wants to

protect the Skookumchuck River, Findlay Creek, Dutch Creek and Toby

Creek.

In asking him a question during the question period the same day

that he spoke, I asked him if he was going to table the Purcell Range

study. The Minister said that he would, in due course. However, the

report's been in the Minister's hands for some considerable time. In

view of the fact that it's of growing concern to the people in my

constituency — not only the report but the application of the report

and the government's intentions on this study — I think it's important

that the Minister file this study as quickly as possible. He's had the

study since last September and nothing's happened.

In fact, he was accused just last December by one of the biologists of sitting on the report. The biologist said:

"'I'm very unhappy with the situation and so are a lot

of other people around here,' Harvey Hadresak said in an interview here

Saturday. He was referring to a report finished in September which

resulted from the biggest resource study ever undertaken in B.C. 'I

understand that it is now being duplicated for distribution to the

study participants, but it probably won't get to them for three weeks

or maybe a month."'

He made that statement on December 4. This is almost two months

later and the report hasn't seen the light of day. The Minister is

unwilling to release this report even though he's had it for some

considerable time. I think he should release it so that we can

establish really what he's talking about. Is he talking about

single-use purpose land in the Purcells — these thousands of square

miles — or is it going to be multi-use, a fully integrated use of land

in the Purcell Range? Certainly there is concern as to where the

boundaries will be on this Purcell Range programme.

There is concern about existing jobs in the constituency as well.

I'm not going to suggest that there's not a need for protection of

these creek drainages. There certainly is, but I don't think that it's

absolutely necessary to throw a blanket wilderness park over the entire

Purcell Range from Kimberley north to the Bugaboo Provincial Park.

There is a need for an integrated use of this land. There's a need for

a programme of range improvement in the Purcells which would help in

turn the agricultural base and also big game populations in the area.

There is, in my constituency, a substantial number of parks already.

We have three national parks — Glacier National Park, Yoho and

Kootenay. We also have three large class A provincial parks — the

Assiniboine, the Bugaboo and Hamber provincial parks. We have an

abundance of parks. Really, if the government makes the entire Purcells

from the upper St. Mary's River through northwards a distance of 100 to

150 miles a park, they might as well change the name of my constituency

from Columbia River to

[ Page 495 ]

Parks constituency, B.C., because we'll have all the parks in the province.

I think that there's a genuine concern and a genuine need for some

specific statements from the Minister concerned as to his intentions,

in what regions, or whether it's going to be a blanket establishment of

a wilderness park along the Purcell Range, because there is concern

that jobs might disappear if this is made an entirely wilderness area.

I think there's room for integrated land use in the Purcells.

There's room for agriculture. There's room for mining. There's room for

logging. There's room for wildlife and there's room for recreation as

well. I think the government should clarify its position and stop

keeping the people in suspense on their intentions as to the

establishment of this wilderness park.

The Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips), when he was

speaking in the Legislature not too many days ago, suggested that the

cabinet was leaking. He suggested that there were cabinet leaks.

Now, if there are cabinet leaks — and it appears there are — I think

it is important that we remind those cabinet Ministers that they've

taken an oath of secrecy. They have a responsibility to uphold that

oath of office. They appear to be falling down or forgetting that oath

of secrecy that was bestowed on them by the Lieutenant-Governor of this

province.

It wasn't too long ago we read in an eastern investment newsletter,

almost detail by detail, the full implications of the new royalty tax

bill which was introduced by the Minister against mines. We read it

about three weeks before the bill was introduced in this Legislature.

Mr. Speaker, that is a very serious breach of privilege: a message

bill, a money bill being distributed in the investment world and the

investment houses of Toronto and New York before the Members of this

Legislative Assembly have an opportunity of seeing the legislation.

That's a serious breach. Ministers have resigned for less.

I think the sad situation about this is that with these kind of

leaks it gives certain individuals an opportunity to take advantage of

a situation. I think that's most unfair. I just want to remind the

cabinet to pay heed to that oath of secrecy they took when they became

Ministers.

The Member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) herself admits that the caucus

has leaks and that she is going to attempt to plug the leaks in her

caucus. If she was here this afternoon, she would be in her place

nodding her head and agreeing with me when I say there are cabinet

leaks; she would agree with me wholeheartedly because she knows that

there are leaks in the caucus as well. Don't only plug the leaks in

your caucus; plug the leaks in your cabinet as well.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): A very leaky bunch.

MR. CHABOT: That's right. The Minister of Public Works (Hon.

Mr. Hartley) distributed some pretty elaborate pieces of photography

just last session, I believe it was, showing the efforts the government

was taking to plug the leaks in the roof of this building. It's a

pretty leaky place when you have a leaky roof, a leaky caucus and a

leaky cabinet as well. There's a need for changes.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): It's a leaky ship.

MR. CHABOT: I want to speak very briefly about Plateau Mills:

it hasn't been discussed too much of late. The one point that comes to

mind, of course, in relationship to the takeover of Plateau Mills was a

statement made by the now Minister of Transportation and Communications

(Hon. Mr. Strachan) in which he levelled a very serious accusation

against the forest industry of this province because of the prices they

were charging for lumber in British Columbia. He said the forest

industry of British Columbia is criminally irresponsible by gouging the

public to the extent they are, by charging the same price for lumber in

British Columbia as they charge on the international market.

I asked him at the time the government was in the process of taking

over Col-Cel: if they did take over the sawmill, would they in turn

give a break to the people of British Columbia on lumber prices? All I

received in answer was silence. "We'll take it under consideration."

Now that they've been operating Plateau Mills, are they going to be

charged by the Minister of Transportation and Communications of being

criminally irresponsible by gouging the consumers of British Columbia,

by charging international prices on the domestic market? If they are,

in view of this serious charge made by the Minister, I think there is a

need for an investigation by the Minister of Consumer Services (Hon.

Ms. Young) to see whether the Government of British Columbia is ripping

off the taxpayers on lumber prices. I assure you they are.

They are a government of double standards. They can hurl accusations

at other people; they can say, don't do as I do but do as I say.

I think they have a responsibility, if they really believe lumber

prices are too high in British Columbia, to set the example. They've

got the vehicle to do so.

We all remember very well the kind of pressure tactics, the kind of

strong-arm tactics used in the takeover of Plateau Mills: $2 million

less than what they could receive on the open market. The small

shareholders in Vanderhoof were ripped off by that government.

MR. D.T. KELLY (Omineca): They were happy. What are you talking about?

[ Page 496 ]

MR. CHABOT: Strong-arm tactics by big brother government.

Now we see the same kind of strong-arm tactics being utilized by the

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

regarding the B.C. Research Council. Instead of grants, when they give

them money now, they want a piece of the action. They want a piece of

Tech West; a piece of the action. It doesn't want to maintain a free

and independent research organization in this province. The government

wants to control....

AN HON. MEMBER: Why do they want that?

MR. CHABOT: I'll tell you why they want it. It was very

clearly stated when one reads the statements from the Member for

Alberni (Mr. Skelly). This is what he has to say: "If new technology or

marketing information becomes available through the efforts of

government-sponsored research, that technology and that information

should be made available exclusively to publicly-owned industries."

Now we can see why the government wants a piece of the action. New

technology and new procedure could be adopted or adapted into a pulp

mill enterprise or into a logging show or into a sawmill operation. The

government wants it for its exclusive use and its own sawmills and its

own logging operations and its own pulp mills. They want to exclude

private industry from the benefits of the research being done by the

B.C. Research and Tech West. More strong-arm tactics by that government.

I was rather interested in an

article that appeared in the Vancouver Sun , the Premier's favourite newspaper, on January 29, 1974.

MR. PHILLIPS: He's going to take it over.

MR. CHABOT: Oh, he has the power to take it over, certainly; he's got the power. The Department of Transportation and Communications Act gives you the power.

I was interested in an

article dealing with Brannan Lake School. I

remember that school being debated in this House on numerous occasions.

There were some terrible, terrible charges made. But I think the key to

this is the headline: "Brannan Lake — The horror stories were never

true." That is quite an extensive

article and researched by one Paul

Musgrove, the Sun staff reporter. He did quite a thorough study of conditions at Brannan Lake.

When he says, "...where never true," I look back at some of the

statements made by some of the former Members of the CCF Party, the

NDP. One social worker who was the welfare critic is now the Premier:

Barrett. "Barrett, his party's critic on welfare services, charged the

government is not providing any plan for mentally disturbed children

other than sending them to jail." He suggested that Brannan Lake was a

jail.

That great freedom fighter from Grand Forks also used to speak on

Brannan Lake. It says: "Brannan Lake boys' industrial school has

seriously contributed to B.C. juvenile delinquency, the Legislature was

told Thursday, Mrs. Lois Haggen, the CCF MLA for Grand Forks–Greenwood,

said the problem results from overcrowding and inadequate treatment."

Of course, the Minister against mines (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) lashed Brannan

Lake too. The Minister against mines lambasted Brannan Lake School.

It is pretty interesting to see this article. I'm not going to read you the entire article; it's all good stuff.

Interjection.

MR. CHABOT: "The halls are wide, well lit and painted a

variety of bright colours." I'm not going to suggest to you, Mr.

Premier, that there was not overcrowding in Brannan Lake. I'm not going

to suggest that at all, because I agree that there was overcrowding at

one stage.

"One stairwell is so gaudy it causes the unwary visitor to miss a step. In fact, it looks almost like a high school. Really.

"For many years, the name Brannan Lake has been one to

conjure with youth in trouble with the law. Stories of brutal guards,

beatings, overcrowding, and violent inmates were passed from one young

wrongdoer to the next. Of course, the worst stories are always told by

the neighbourhood hero who had been there.

"The stories in one form or another are still around.

But the staff of the Island Youth Centre, formerly known as Brannan

Lake School for Boys, says it never was like that."

It never was like that — overcrowding, yes, but mistreatment, no.

There was no mistreatment. The Member from Kootenay (Hon. Mr. Nimsick),

the Minister against mines, used to charge brutality in his statements

about Brannan Lake and its administration, certainly. But now you've

made him a Minister against mines for his statements on Brannan Lake

school.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): Where's your clipping on that?

MR. CHABOT: Do you want me to table them? I have some.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Brutality? When did the Minister charge brutality? When did anyone ever charge brutality? Come on!

MR. CHABOT: I'll table them. (Laughter.)

[ Page 497 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Apologize!

MR. CHABOT: No, I won't apologize at all, because I have

clippings. I have several more clippings. I have about 20-25 clippings

on the attacks that you and your Minister against mines and Miss Lois

Haggen have made on Brannan Lake School.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member please address the Chair?

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, there is one aspect of this budget which is not likely to be lost sight of by the people of British Columbia.

It is the traditional and normal feelings on the part of the

taxpayers that their contributions to government will be designed to

deliver people services. I think that a government has a primary

responsibility of taking only that amount of taxation which is required

for people services. If it is a prudent government it establishes some

portion of its income in reserve accounts.

Certainly, Mr. Speaker, the revenue picture in British Columbia has

been exceedingly bright, because of the world market prices on lumber

and on metal as well, and because of the impact of inflationary trends

on such tax sources as sales tax, the income tax, the land tax and the

corporation tax.

As we've moved into the taxation year of 1973 it became obvious that

there was a tremendous forward thrust established in the economy as the

result of previous decisions in both the private and public sectors.

Tax revenues from the forest industry increased by over $100 million.

The sales tax quickly reflected the price situation and by March, 1973,

it increased by over $30 million from the previous year. By the end of

the third quarter the 14 per cent average increase in industrial wages

was reflected in an upward lift on income taxes which by March 31,

1973, were up by $55 million.

However, this government has made no attempt whatsoever to reduce

taxes. More important, this increased revenue is being drained off by

the government and is not reflected in an increased level of services

within British Columbia.

Last year new highway construction ground to a halt. The vocational

schools slated for the Fraser Valley and the east Kootenays — where are

they? They're still on the drawing board. They've been cancelled out by

this government when they came into office.

MR. PHILLIPS: Frozen.

MR. CHABOT: Now the Minister, after her friends have been

touring the east Kootenays and the west Kootenays for some considerable

time, came up with the answer at last. I told her just last spring

while speaking in this Legislature as to where the vocational school in

the east Kootenays should be located. I told her it should be located

in the vicinity of Cranbrook and Kimberley because it's the focal

centre of the east Kootenays. Yet the Minister stood in her place and

argued that there was a need for an integration between the southern

Alberta Institute of Technology and a vocational school in the east

Kootenays and that it was more desirable to be placed in the vicinity

of Fernie.

I told her at that time that I concurred with the decision and the

research put out by the former government. They had stated that there

was a need for a vocational school in the east Kootenays and that its

location would be in the vicinity of Cranbrook and Kimberley.

Now you've been given a report, after the spending of thousands of

taxpayers' dollars, which confirms what I tried to tell you about a

year ago about the location of the vocational school.

There has been all this delay. There has been all this inaction while the matter was researched by a task force of friends.

Where is the hospital construction that was promised for Cumberland?

Where is the promised hospital for the north Saanich area? These two

programmes were cancelled as well. There's no construction there.

We see the expenditure of Public Works almost entirely devoted to

the renovation of this building and for housing of the army of civil

servants that have been engaged since this government came to office.

An army of 8,000 have been hired. You need a lot of rooms to house

8,000 civil servants. That's where the budget of the Minister of Public

Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley) is going at this particular time.

The government has applied in an extravagant way the revenues which

it enjoys for the purpose of ventures into the business community. Its

allocations are almost entirely the result of order-in-council

authorizations.

This Legislature is denied the right to vote significant amounts of

supply for the operation of the Crown. For example, in this current

fiscal year the government has allocated from general funds a

commitment to business of $44.2 million, and is negotiating a further

$28.6 million of general funds for business experiments.

In short, since this government last met in the Legislature, $72.8

million in tax revenues have been diverted from people services to

experiments with business. In addition, new Crown corporations have had

advanced to them a total of $25 million. Icky-Bicky (ICBC) got $20.5

million; Ocean Falls Corporation got $3 million; the alfalfa cubing

plant, I

[ Page 498 ]

believe it is, got $1.5 million.

These investment loans, advances or whatever in a single year

represent an allocation of $97.8 million of public funds outside the

control of this Legislature. The shocking thing about all these funds

is that the elected representatives of people cannot express their

opinions and cannot get answers from the government as to justification

for the allocation and the spending of these tax dollars — the people's

dollars. Mr. Premier, they're not your dollars, they're not the

cabinet's dollars — they're people dollars!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Do you want us to cancel one of the alfalfa cubing plants? No? Why don't you get one of your leaders over there?

MR. CHABOT: Icky-Bicky was advanced $20.5 million. Why

couldn't Icky-Bicky have gone out on the open market like all other

institutions to borrow its own money? Instead of that you've loaned

them cheap taxpayer dollars.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Don't call the taxpayers' dollars cheap!

MR. CHABOT: I'm not calling them cheap. You've loaned it in

cheap interest, Mr. Premier. Had Icky-Bicky gone on the open market,

you would have paid substantially more interest than what you're

charging them.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Shame! Calling the taxpayers dollars' cheap.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Shame!

MR. CHABOT: You can attempt to twist all you want, Mr.

Premier. You're very capable in that respect, I have to admit. You're a

great twister of the facts.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member please address the Chair?

MR. CHABOT: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I'll press on.

Mr. Speaker, this massive use of tax revenues for other than

services to people was certainly vigorously opposed by Members of our

party. There is no evidence either that the government understands the

further principle of managing tax dollars which are, in fact, trust

moneys. That's what they are.

The government has a responsibility to manage the economy such that

commitments made by parliament will not over the long run destroy the

ability of future parliaments to deliver a high level of services to

the people of this province. There is every evidence that decisions

made by this government, in fact, will seriously affect the ongoing

ability of this province to enjoy what it has always enjoyed for the

past 20 years — the highest level of per capita spending on people

services that existed anywhere in this nation.

During the past 12 months, three very basic industries in the

province have been devastated by indecision, by uncertainty as to the

tax loads they will be called upon to bear and, indeed, by the basic

philosophical attitude of the government on the private ownership of

land and the means of production.

Mining activity has been severely struck down. I think the Member

for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) very clearly described what has

happened to the mining industry in his talk.

There were no new major initiatives in the forest industry. Our

number one industry in this province had no new initiatives in 1973,

and nothing is apparent in 1974. And the reason for that is the

indecision and the constant threat of that government that they have

over the industry of threatening to extract more taxes from the

industry. It is the indecision of bringing down clear-cut policies that

would allow the business community to forge on and create new jobs and

expand the economy of British Columbia for the benefit of British

Columbians.

The implications for the future revenue prospects of this province,

looking at '75, '76, '77 and '78, are very disturbing. The lead time

required for massive investment in each of three critical areas —

forestry, mining and housing — is extremely important, because these

things are not built overnight. In all these areas there is a

fundamental lack of decision-making on the part of the government.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot escape the notice of the people of this

province that in 1973, and going on to 1974, we have had a wiped out

year as far as mining expansion, forestry expansion, and housing as

well. This wipe out of capital investment in these three areas will

reflect itself in budgets of the future — the budget of '76, the budget

of '77 and the budget of '78.

Now, I ask you: where is the expertise which the government has

engaged in taking over Dunhill? Where are these great experts who have

been retained for a period of two years — the people who are going to

advise the government in ways and means of establishing low-cost

housing in British Columbia?

We saw their first move just a few days ago. Just a few days ago

they attempted to take over an unfinished large housing project. And

they were scooped, they were out-manoeuvred, they were out-negotiated

by one of the private development companies in British Columbia. They

fumbled, and they fumbled badly.

Interjection.

[ Page 499 ]

MR. CHABOT: Yes, as my colleague said, they took over the wrong one.

You've engaged these people at elaborate salaries and expense

accounts for the next two years, and in their first attempt to do

something about housing in British Columbia they fumbled, and they

fumbled badly.

Mr. Speaker, when I look at this budget, I have to ask myself: where

is that open government? Where is that government that has told the

people so many times — they've forgotten that slogan, though — "trust

us." That slogan is out of the Premier's vocabulary now. He doesn't

repeat that one.

Another word that's slowly disappearing from his vocabulary is "open

government." That's not an open government. It was clearly demonstrated

last fall when they refused to answer questions put on the order paper.

Never in the history of this parliament have so many written questions

remained unanswered. Forty questions unanswered — is that an

indication, Mr. Speaker, of an open government? Or is that an

indication of a government that is unwilling to provide answers to the

people of this province?

Now, I wonder, is that a government that is anti-Interior of British

Columbia? The B.C. Energy Commission not too long ago authorized a 30

per cent increase in the rates on natural gas in the Interior of

British Columbia.

Interjection.

MR. CHABOT: Thirty per cent.

AN HON. MEMBER: How much did it go up in Vancouver?

MR. CHABOT: And I understand at the moment that the Interior

is looking forward to a 30 per cent increase in natural gas rates at

this very time. I'm watching very carefully to see the kind of

percentage increase that government's going to apply in the Vancouver

area, because I've heard it's in the neighbourhood of 15 per cent. It's

in the neighbourhood of 15 per cent.

Now, the government has a responsibility to ensure fair treatment to

the taxpayers of this province and not to show bias against the

Interior of British Columbia by allowing cheaper gas rates in the

Vancouver area.

Mr. Speaker, when we look at the budget, it's impressive, as far as figures are concerned. It has very impressive figures.

There's a lot of political trash in it, though, that should never be

seen in a budget. The budget fails to tackle the number one problem in

this province and in this country, and that is inflation. That budget

is probably the most inflationary budget that will ever be introduced

anywhere in this nation. It is an inflationary budget; it is a budget

that tells nothing; it is a budget that is not in the best long-term

interests of people of British Columbia.

The Government of Manitoba just a few days ago brought down what I

consider to be a responsible budget — a budget in the neighbourhood of

15 to 16 per cent increase in projected expenditures. That's a

responsible budget. But a 28 per cent increase, Mr. Speaker, is an

inflationary budget.

The government should have decreased taxes — they have ample

opportunity and ample revenues to do so. That government and all

governments, in fact, in Canada have a responsibility to show direction

by their actions, by their initiatives, to counteract inflationary

spirals that exist, not only in Canada, but to a greater degree in

British Columbia.

The inflationary spiral in British Columbia is greater today and

will be in 1974 than in any other economic region in this country. This

is the budget that does little for health, education, and welfare.

The budget of 1972-73 for health, education and welfare contributed

73.7 per cent for people's services. We find that this budget is

contributing only 66 per cent. What a drastic fall in the allocation of

dollars.

We see the same thing with education. The former government's last

budget showed a contribution of 30.37 per cent for education. And we

were severely condemned in that election by the B.C. Federation of

Teachers as a government for our inadequate allocation of the

percentage of the budget towards education. Yet in two years we see the

decrease here to 25.48 per cent of the budget only directed towards

education.

Are we really discussing a budget at this time? I want to tell you

that this budget is a hollow document. It is hollow, indeed, because

come next fiscal year you won't even recognize the allocation of public

funds by what has been set down in the estimates in this Legislature,

because the government has a new approach to finance. They tell the

school districts, they tell the universities: "Oh, we'll give you

bucks. Come begging. Come to the door. Come knocking on the door and

we'll discuss it, we'll give you a few bucks, and then you go away and

say we're great guys."

That's the kind of fiscal actions that we see in British Columbia

today. They want everybody to come knocking on the door, beg a little,

we'll give you a little. That's no way to show fiscal responsibility,

Mr. Minister of Finance.

MR. PHILLIPS: Tin cup.

MR. CHABOT: That's right. They used to talk about tin cup

Medicare. I remember that very well, and now they have twisted it a

little bit. They want everybody to come in with their tin cup, as the

[ Page 500 ]

Member for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy) suggested.

The way the budget should be handled in British Columbia is by

people appealing to the government for assistance, not by clear-cut,

fair lines, by clear-cut allocations that are fair to all regions.

MR. PHILLIPS: Special privileges.

MR. CHABOT: It is the squeaking wheels that get the grease,

and that's not the way budgetary allocations should be made in British

Columbia. I certainly hope that is not the attitude of that government

over there.

We're waiting, Mr. Premier. There's nothing in that budget that

tells us where that steel mill is going to be located. I remember when

you took that fancy, elaborate trip over to Europe. You were wined and

dined in the best restaurants — Buckingham Palace....

HON. MR. BARRETT: Attacking the Queen and her guests! (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you take your Chargex?

MR. CHABOT: He didn't even need a Chargex card. But he came

back, I remember, from Britain and Europe. I don't remember if he went

to Williams Lake first or after — I really don't know, but that's

immateria