1973 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 30th

Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational

purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 1973

Afternoon Sitting

CONTENTS

Monday, February 19, 1973

Routine proceedings

An Act to Amend the Hospital Insurance Act (Bill No.

89) Mr.

McGeer. Introduction and first reading — 521

The Taxpayer's Protection Act (Bill No. 90) Mr.

Wallace.

Introduction and first reading — 521

The Rural Student Travel Aid Fund Act (Bill No. 91) Mr.

Phillips. Introduction and first reading — 521

Statement

Statement by Mr. Smith on proposed increase of

petroleum and

natural gas royalties and their effect on the petroleum

exploration industry — 522

Routine proceedings

Budget debate (continued)

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 522

Mr. Richter — 534

Mr. Radford — 540

Mr. Kelly — 544

Mr. Lewis — 549

[ Page 521 ]

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 1973

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for North Peace River.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This afternoon seated in the Speaker's gallery is the mayor of

Fort Nelson, His Worship Mayor Harry Clarke and Mrs. Clarke.

They are sitting in for a few minutes on the proceedings before

leaving for a well-deserved holiday. I hope that everyone

will welcome them to this chamber.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Second Member for Vancouver South.

MRS. D. WEBSTER (Vancouver South): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a

matter of privilege to introduce a class of political science

and law students from David Thompson Secondary School in the

district of Vancouver South, who are here today to see the

House in session. They're here with their teacher, Mr. Bob

Ellis.

Introduction of bills.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

HOSPITAL INSURANCE ACT

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

89 intituled

An Act to Amend the

Hospital Insurance

Act .

Motion approved.

Bill No. 89 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 TAXPAYERS' PROTECTION ACT

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

90 intituled The Taxpayers'

Protection Act .

Motion approved.

Bill No. 90 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 RURAL STUDENT TRAVEL AID

FUND ACT

Mr. Phillips moves introduction and first reading of Bill

No. 91 intituled The Rural Student

Travel Aid Fund Act .

Motion approved, Bill No. 91 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.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for North Peace River.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to move the adjournment

of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of

urgent public importance.

The matter is the devastating impact the proposed increase

in petroleum and natural gas royalties has had on the highly

labour-intensive petroleum exploration industry. This is

resulting in a wholesale exodus by exploration and drilling

companies. Hundreds of people have already been laid off.

Unemployment is running rampant. The whole economy of

northeastern British Columbia is in danger of collapse. I

therefore respectfully invite your acceptance of my motion.

MR. SPEAKER: I take it the Hon. Member is referring to a

matter that is before the House — a bill that is before

the House?

MR. SMITH: I am referring, Mr. Speaker, to a matter of

employment of people in a specific industry.

MR. SPEAKER: I would suggest one thing. It's very important

to all Members to know this. It's required that you give a

statement of the matter to the Speaker, not merely orally, but

in writing. All you've done here is that you've asked leave to

move the adjournment of the House.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you that there is a

statement that I just read to the House that I handed to the

Clerk.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sorry. Please take my apologies; I didn't

see it here. I saw only the motion paper. I must apologize.

Now I have to deal with the question of whether it is urgent

and important. I think I've already mentioned to the House

before the rule that binds me — that it must be a matter

that could not be on the order paper for discussion within the

foreseeable future, nor could be got on in time to deal with an

urgent matter that should be debated today.

But this House has already appointed a time for

[ Page 522 ]

the debate of the question of petroleum and natural

gas

royalties. You'll see on your order paper that it's so

appointed. Secondly, we are dealing in the budget. Now, you can

deal with the general economic situation and the incidence of

taxation falling on a

section of the community in the budget

debate.

Principally, I suggest that the House has already appointed

a time and a bill which is before the House to debate the

issue.

Therefore, I would be taking it out of context to the orders

of the House if I said that debate should take place today, or

I should find rather that there is urgency of debate right now

so that we should set aside the normal business of the House

today.

I must find that the House has already settled the question

of when this will be debated. They have left the matter in the

hands of the House Leader to raise at an appropriate time on

orders of the day under the second reading of bills.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, with due respect to what you have

just said, the urgency is now. If we allow this to

be prolonged, so many people are going to be unemployed as a

result of actions taken to cancel out drilling leases, to do

all the other things — and that is irreparable damage,

Sir — it's going to result in hundreds of people being

unemployed and it has already done that.

MR. SPEAKER: I've got this statement from you. You're merely

repeating yourself and, in fact, debating the issue. I've had

to find that this House has already ordered the debate on this

subject and the bill is before the House that deals with the

debate on this subject. How can I then set aside that order of

business decided by the House in order to debate this matter

today? I cannot, in my view of my obligation, do so.

MR. SMITH: Is it not possible, Sir, for you to request

unanimous consent of the House to debate the issue?

MR. SPEAKER: It's still on the order paper and you'd have to

set aside the order paper. I suggest that you could do that on

a motion, but only on a motion.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Unanimous

consent.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): 10 per cent unemployment.

They don't care.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sorry, I must reject the matter as

requiring urgency of debate today.

MR. CHABOT: 10 per cent unemployment and they don't care.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hundreds of people are out of work and they

don't have a debate on it.

Orders of the day.

ON THE BUDGET

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Nanaimo.

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker,

this is really the first time since the election that I have

had an opportunity in formal debate to address you and the

Members of this House. I would like to make the odd general

comment first. People have spoken about what happened on August

30; different Members have placed different

interpretations on

it. Mr. Speaker, I would like to share with you for a moment my

own experiences after August 30.

First, on August 30, itself, I'm not sure about North

Okanagan, but certainly in this area, Mr. Speaker, the sun was

shining on election day. Wonders to behold — the day

after the sun was still shining. Perhaps a little more

brightly, but still shining. Not only that, Mr. Speaker, but I

had occasion to be in Victoria the day after the election,

driving to catch the ferry leaving Swartz Bay to go to

Tsawwassen. There had been highway construction going on during

the election period, as so often has happened in the last 20

years during election periods. But not only that, Mr. Speaker,

as though there hadn't been any election, highway construction

was still going on. The economy was still moving. People were

still working in this area of the province and I assume in

other areas of the province as well.

There's another little incident that I would like to share

with you. It was on the B.C. ferry travelling between Nanaimo

and the mainland — an incident that was told to me by one

of the stewards on one of the ferries. It seems that on the way

over on the morning after the election, he was serving

breakfast to one of the customers in the dining room. The

Premier of the day, Mr. Bennett — I don't know whether he

was on the way to Buenos Aires then or whether that happened

since — but the Premier of the day was not in Nanaimo on

August 31. However, there was a customer travelling who ordered

breakfast and ordered among other things — I hate to

admit this, Mr. Speaker, but it was not B.C. produce, it was a

grapefruit. The grapefruit when it arrived was in such a

deplorable condition that the customer got extremely upset,

told the steward that he had no intention of eating that kind

of garbage, and ordered him to remove it.

The very apologetic and very upset steward

[ Page 523 ]

offered as an alternative apple juice — B.C. apple

juice — and this was accepted, though grudgingly. The

customer was unhappy during the rest of the meal. When it was

over, the steward, while presenting his bill, apologized once

more for the condition of the grapefruit and said that after

all there had been an election — this was the last of the

Social Credit grapefruit. He was sure that on the way back they

would be much better because they would be NDP grapefruit.

The customer was so delighted that he left a tip of $1. And

just to complete the story, Mr. Speaker, the grapefruits on the

way back were indeed much better.

Another thing that has happened since then…

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I hear something about

agricultural presentation. Mr. Speaker, I am speaking here

today first in my capacity as the MLA for Nanaimo, and I intend

to address you along those lines. Secondly, Mr. Speaker, as a

Member of the Government, I intend to discuss the budget to

some extent. Thirdly, Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of

Agriculture, and I intend to deal with that to some extent as

well. So those who want to hear me talk about agriculture will

just have to bear with me and wait until I come to that point

in my programme.

Mr. Speaker, one more thing that happened after that

election — saving the best for the last — one thing

more that happened was that you have been elevated to the

position of Speaker, and I think that is very important. I like

to see you sitting there in that chair. I think you are doing

an extremely good job, and I hope you will be very tolerant of

me from now on after that flattery.

Mr. Speaker, during the election campaign one of the things

that I hoped on behalf of the riding was that there would be

further development of an educational institution that is doing

a tremendous job in that area. That is Malaspina College. I

pledged, as the Member for Nanaimo, that I would do my best to

see that there was financial assistance forthcoming for that

educational institution and that the government would pick up

100 per cent of the capital cost. At that time I had no

expectation that I would be a Member of that Government — I expected a

hard fight to try to convince the government of

the day that this should be done.

Mr. Speaker, the job became

very easy and I think at this

point perhaps the Members would like to join with me in

congratulating, quite on a non-partisan basis, the way in

which the new Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) has

taken hold of her department, the new policies that she

announced, and the way in which she is working to try to

improve education in this province.

This is a field, Mr. Speaker, which has been too long neglected,

certainly for 20 years and perhaps even before that. Too long

neglected. Under the present Minister it is coming more and more to the

fore. New policies are being announced and one of those, I am pleased

to say on behalf of my own riding, is that the Malaspina College will

receive 100 per cent capital contribution from the provincial

government.

There is another issue. I see the Minister of Health (Hon.

Mr. Cocke) is here; I've had some correspondence with him. I

have had several letters from my riding. Again I want to

emphasize, Mr. Speaker, that I'm speaking as the Member for

Nanaimo, not as a Member of the cabinet. Just this — questions about

fluoridation. There was one on my desk this

morning. Mr. Speaker, when this question first came up in

Nanaimo, I took

part in the campaign in favour of fluoridation.

Personally I believe this is one of the areas where we have to

accept the experts.

When I'm sick I go to a doctor. He may not always do the

right thing but the odds are in favour of him doing the right

thing. When I have trouble with my teeth I go to a dentist and

I take my dentist's advice. Again, he may not always do the

right thing, but I think the odds are better that way than any

other way that I can think of. When the dentists and when the

doctors get together and recommend that fluoridation would

reduce the amount of dental decay and would reduce the costs of

this very expensive health care, well then, Mr. Speaker, as the

MLA for Nanaimo, I intend to lend my full support to any

campaign to try to get Nanaimo's water supply fluoridated.

Another question that came up during the campaign was with

regard to Newcastle Island. It is an old one in Nanaimo and an

old one in this House. I've spoken on it before in this House

when I was here previously. It is a question that will come up

again. It came up during the campaign and I told people then

that citizens of Nanaimo were spending in the neighbourhood of

$250,000 to purchase that island and save it for park purposes.

An extremely important park for the citizens of that area and

possibly in the future, for the citizens of a much larger

area.

I spoke of the way in which the park had been allowed to go

downhill since it was sold to the provincial government for the

sum of $1. I raised the question some nine years ago, I believe,

as to whether the provincial government ever did pay that $1. I

didn't get an answer. However, the park has been allowed to go

downhill badly.

I make no apologies at this time for what the government is

planning or isn't planning. I just say this. The present

Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Williams) is

carrying an extremely heavy load in his dual capacity.

Certainly I hope, and again I am speaking as the MLA for

Nanaimo, that one of the things that happens is that his load

will be

[ Page 524 ]

lightened to some extent and that the new Minister

of Parks

and Recreation — if that's the way it goes — will

have some time, some energy and indeed, Mr. Speaker, some

finance, to do something in the way of upgrading facilities at

Newcastle Island.

I would still say, and again this is an item that has come

up in correspondence, that I would resist any attempt to

construct a bridge between Vancouver Island and Newcastle

Island. I think this would defeat the purposes of that park and

that maintenance of ferry service is what we really want

between Newcastle Island and Vancouver Island rather than a

bridge connection.

Another thing that I spoke about in 1965 — you know,

it's sort of coming back to me, repeating some of the things I

said then, some of the things that were said to no avail, some

of them productive. When I went to see the manager of the B.C.

Ferry Authority, for example, and when he seemed more than a

little concerned at my coming before him when I was first

elected, and when I wondered aloud at his concern he said it

was the first time in his history as general manager of the

B.C. Ferry Authority that an MLA for any party had ever been to

his office to discuss the operations of B.C. ferries.

I discussed several things with him. I was concerned for

example about cheaper fares during mid-week. After some

five or six years, they finally go around to doing it. It took

a long time. I discussed later sailings and some progress, Mr.

Speaker, was made. At the time I spoke, the latest sailing

between Nanaimo and Horseshoe Bay was 9 p.m. By the time I left

this House in 1969, the latest sailing was 11 p.m. However, Mr.

Speaker, I think it's not late enough. I agree with those who

say that there should be later sailings yet.

Interjection by an Hon Member.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Well, the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr.

Strachan) is in his chair and I am talking to him right now.

He's here listening.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. STUPICH: I doubt very much that he's missing

anything. Mr. Speaker, I should think that he's probably

listening more closely than some of the people opposite who are

throwing in the interjections. They're looking for things to

pick fault with. He's looking for advice and listening. He's

been getting precious little of it from the other side of the

House, Mr. Speaker. Not one word so far of late sailings that I

can recall.

However, Mr. Speaker, there is a solution. The problems, as he said,

Mr. Speaker, were the availability of senior staff and the fact that

the latest sailing right now is not being utilized to warrant having

later sailings still. I agree with these problems, Mr. Speaker, but

there is a solution — a solution offered by one of the crew members,

quite simple.

In the case of Nanaimo, the first boat leaves in the morning

at 6:15, the second at 7:15. Why not hold that 7:15 sailing and

start it at 9:30? Surely anybody that wants to go at 7:15 can

either go at 6:15 or go at 8:30 By starting that second ferry

at 9:30 in the morning, it would mean then that the latest

sailing instead of being 11 o'clock in the evening, could be

1:15 — with no increase in staff; no increase in cost;

and I suggest, Mr. Speaker, with an increase in utilization,

because 11 o'clock is just too early to be of any use. You

can't really be in Vancouver attending any function of any kind

and catch an 11 o'clock ferry. You have a choice of either

catching the CPR ferry at 3 o'clock in the morning or waiting

overnight, which makes it much more expensive.

By simply holding that

second boat — missing that 7:15

sailing in Nanaimo or the 8 o'clock one at Swartz — it

would seem to me that late night sailings could be achieved

with no increase in cost and with better utilization. No more

staff required. I would recommend to the Minister that he

consider this again.

I know that the people who operate the ferries are very slow

to pick up good ideas. I advanced several of them in 1964 and

1965. It's still the same staff, but there is a new Minister,

Mr. Speaker, so I'm hoping that now there will be consideration

of new ideas. If there are any new ideas coming from the other

side of the House, I'm sure the Minister would welcome

constructive suggestions.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, another question has come up.

This is with respect to ferries again and the involvement of

Gabriola Island. I know there are questions on the order paper

but I think I can speak on this subject without worrying too

much about that. I don't think the Members opposite will really

be interested in calling me to order.

There were several suggestions. There was one suggestion

that the Minister of Agriculture, representing Nanaimo, has

lost complete contact with the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr.

Strachan). The Minister of Highways is not keeping him

informed. Mr. Speaker, I knew that the Minister of Highways was

going to speak about Gabriola Island when he spoke. I didn't

know what he was going to say, simply because I didn't have the

time to go and check with him beforehand.

Besides, Mr. Speaker, I felt that as Minister of Highways,

as a responsible Minister, he was doing what should be done in

that department and would consider all of the questions

seriously, would consider the answers. I trusted in him to

bring a report to this

[ Page 525 ]

House. I listened very carefully, Mr. Speaker, when

brought that report. Some of the people observed that obviously

I was hearing it for the first time because I seemed to be

listening. Well, I was hearing the detail for the first

time.

I heard for the first time, for example, that the previous

government knew that by 1980 the Departure Bay terminal would

not be able to handle the traffic. Yet they shut their eyes to

this, presumably because the man at the helm in those days

thought that by 1980 even he would still not be at the helm. It

would not be his problem so he was not prepared to face the

political problems and decided not to move on it. What other

explanation is there, Mr. Speaker? I've heard none from the

other side — no excuses for having known that this was

happening. They closed their eyes completely and closed their

ears and did absolutely nothing about it, except have the

highways department do surveys that were then carefully hidden

away.

Mr. Speaker, I said in this House — some of the

Members weren't here then — and I checked the date with

the library just to be sure — March 12, 1965, my second

session in the Legislature. I said then that the increased

utilization of the ferry service between Vancouver Island and

the mainland made it perfectly obvious that the Departure

Bay–Horseshoe Bay route would not be able to deal with

the traffic in the near future, and that the government should

be looking at some alternatives.

I recommended at the time that they look closely at the

possibility of a third route — not an alternate route,

Mr. Speaker, but a third connection possibly involving Gabriola

Island and somewhere in the neighbourhood of Steveston Point. I

still suggest, Mr. Speaker, that by the time we get around to

doing something about this, we will not be looking at an

alternative to the Departure Bay–Horseshoe Bay route. We

will be looking at the need for a third route.

Even with the shorter crossing, there's a limit to how many

ferries you can move in and out of a harbour at one time. I

suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the traffic problems created in that

area would be much less if there were a terminal or if there

were a route north of Nanaimo that would deal with traffic

travelling north from Nanaimo or coming from the north, and if

there were another route south of Nanaimo handling traffic

emanating from the south or heading south. I still think, Mr.

Speaker, that it will be necessary to have a third crossing,

rather than moving the second crossing.

Apart from that, Mr. Speaker, I've been reminded as to what I said

on Gabriola Island. People have said that I told the islanders that I

would not support a bridge unless I were satisfied that 80 per cent of

the people on the island agreed to it. Mr. Speaker, I don't recall

saying those words. I do recall whenever I was questioned on this, on

the island, that I had spoken in the House in 1965 and that I had

recommended Gabriola be part of a third crossing. I was very much aware

of those remarks whenever I was speaking on the island. I kept that in

the back of my mind all the time. I had felt that there was going to be

the need for a third crossing and I was aware of that all of the time.

One of the things I did say on the island, though, Mr.

Speaker, was that the island should be protected. I still feel

that, Mr. Speaker. I still feel that the planning commission

had better get its job done. I'm told that the population of

the island right now is about 1,400. I'm told repeatedly that

the present ferry service just can't handle a population of

1,400. It's not doing an adequate job.

HON. MR. STRACHAN (Minister of Highways): A second ferry

goes on this year.

HON. MR. STUPICH: A second ferry goes on this year — Mr.

Speaker, for 1,400 people — a second ferry.

I'm told that at present on the island there are 3,500 lots.

That might be a quarter of an acre, it might be 200 acres, but

3,500 parcels. If you assume an average of three people living

on one parcel of land, you're dealing with a population right

now — without any further development of any kind — of 10,000. I won't

ask the Minister of Highways at this point

to answer the question but I ask the Members to consider for

one moment: if he has to put a second ferry on to handle a

population of 1,400, how many ferries would he have to have on

to handle a population of 10,000? That is not allowing for one

moment that there will be any further development on the island

at all — just the present potential population.

I travelled on that ferry on Saturday. On the way back I

barely made it, not because I was behind time but because the

ferry was leaving early. The ferry was leaving early, Mr.

Speaker, because there was a heart case being transported to

Nanaimo. If that ferry had left, if it was far enough away so

that it was too late for it to turn back, that individual would

have had to wait perhaps three-quarters of an hour. What

would have happened by then? This is one of the problems.

It's all very well, Mr. Speaker, for an island — an

island even as large as Gabriola Island, with a population of

up to 1,400 that they have now…

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Permanent — plus.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Permanent? 1,400 permanent — and to

say that 1,400 people, living within 25 minutes of Nanaimo by

ferry, want to live in semi-isolation. They're prepared

to accept that.

[ Page 526 ]

Are they prepared, Mr. Speaker, to speak for the

8,500 who

are presently allowed for in the plans? Are they ready to say

that those people will have to wait for adequate ferry service;

will have to line up for ferry service when they want to

travel; will have to line up for ferry service when they want

supplies; will have to line up for ferry service if they need

emergency health treatment?

Now it's one thing to say that 1,400 or 1,500 can live in

semi-isolation. It's another thing to say that 10,000 can

live on an island within 25 minutes of a city as large as

Nanaimo and still pretend that they're living in isolation.

It's an entirely different ballgame, Mr. Speaker. When we're

dealing with a population that large, it's the responsibility

of the Government to provide something more adequate than a

ferry or even than a second ferry.

This is not dealing at all with the other question of

providing transportation between Vancouver Island and the

mainland. It's part of it. I think it's a necessary link and I

think it will come. But I think it's important that the

planning commission on that island act immediately, as quickly

as they can, to provide for the future.

I was told yesterday by someone who was promoting a petition

that she has 500 signatures from adults, permanent residents,

out of what she estimates to be a total of 800 permanent adults

in residence — 500 and she hasn't completed the job yet.

Five hundred in favour of having a bridge connection. That's

not the point, Mr. Speaker. Sure, we're interested in the 1,400

people who live there today, the 800 adults. We're also

concerned, Mr. Speaker, with what's happening.

This, if anything else, is a Government that believes in

planning. We're planning not to deal with the 1,400 or 1,500

who live there now. We have to be cognizant of the fact that

there could be 10,000 there in the near future. This is

something that we have to be very much aware of, something that

we have to plan for.

They presently have the right — a right that was

given

to them, subdivisions that were approved by the previous

Minister of Municipal Affairs. Other subdivisions were

contemplated — one of 500 lots. I'm not talking about

contemplated subdivisions. I'm talking about subdivisions that

were applied for. I'm talking about subdivisions that have

already been completely approved — a population of

10,000. The planning commission, indeed, in looking at the

island, may feel that there could be further development on

some parts of the island and still retain essentially the

quality of life that exists on that island right now.

But every time they create one more parcel of land they're

dealing with another potential of three. If they create 1,000

more parcels, which is entirely possible on an island that

large, they're talking about another 3,000 people. These are

some of the things that the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan)

has to

consider. How can he possibly build up a ferry system that will

supply the needs of the people who already have the authority,

who have had everything approved to live on the island, as well

as those who may get it when the planning commission does its

job?

I don't recall this remark about 80 per cent during the

campaign. But one thing I do recall saying is that the planning

commission should complete its job before there be any

development on the island — whether it be any further

subdivisions of any kind or whether, Mr. Speaker, it be a

bridge connection. I urge the planning commission to hurry and

do that job — not hurry to the extent that they do a bad

job of it, but to get…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. STUPICH: I can't see the headline from here.

…but to get the job done. I've urged them to do this in

correspondence and I've talked to them. I've told them to

consult the Department of Highways. I don't know how far the

plans are advanced at this stage; the feasibility study is

being done. I don't know how far they've gone. But I do urge

the planning commission to get its job done, because it's in

their hands whether or not the island will be properly

protected.

I was told by one of them that there is no way of protecting

an island like that when you put a bridge on it. If I'm going

to accept that, Mr. Speaker, then I have to accept that there's

no way at all that, as Minister of Agriculture, I can bring in

a programme that will save farmland. And at this point, Mr.

Speaker, I am not prepared to admit that.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk briefly about the budget — perhaps

not too briefly. I understand the Whip's having

trouble getting Members of the official Opposition to speak. So

he has asked me to speak for some time to sort of fill things

in here. Apparently the official Opposition can't find anything

in the budget to talk about and they're being very reluctant to

speak in this budget debate.

I don't know why they don't speak, Mr. Speaker. The only

thing I can assume is that they don't have any time — or

that they don't have anything to say.

However, Mr. Speaker, some of them have said some things…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. STUPICH: You did speak, yes. The Hon. Member for

Langley (Mr. McClelland) did speak, and I have some quotations

here from him…I'm sorry, it was the First Member for

Victoria (Mr. Morrison) that spoke first in the budget

debate.

[ Page 527 ]

I'd like, Mr. Speaker, to make reference to some of his

remarks. At one stage he said that the previous government gave

69 per cent of its expenditures to social services generally — education, health and social services. Then he said,

"We come along with this new budget, this new era; it's still

only 69 per cent. What have we done? What's new?" That was his

question.

Mr. Speaker, this 69 per cent is of a budget that is $267

million larger. The same percentage represents an increased

expenditure in these areas of $185 million.

If it were just dollars, Mr. Speaker, it would not be nearly

so important. But I ask you, Mr. Speaker — and I know you

have already listened to some of them — to recall and to

think ahead, but particularly at the moment to recall the

remarks — the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) is

not here today; she's in Ottawa on Government business — about the new

policies that have been advanced with respect to

education.

The Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance (Hon.

Mr. Cocke) spoke in this session — new policies that have

been announced and applauded by some of the Opposition Members

with respect to health services. It's not just that we're

spending more money, Mr. Speaker. But look around the cabinet

and look at the new policies that are being announced by some

of the members of the cabinet. This is the important thing: not

how many dollars we're spending but what we're spending it on;

what we're doing with it; what we're doing with the money that

is available — these are the important things. The same

percentage, true; but an additional $185 million spent, Mr.

Speaker, much more wisely.

A complaint, Mr. Speaker, that we've really hurt…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Well, I didn't expect any at all from you,

so I wasn't disappointed.

There's been the complaint, Mr. Speaker, that we've hurt the

corporations and possibly, through the corporations, the lower

income groups by increasing the corporation tax by 20 per cent.

Now I can only hope that it was not the Minister's own

calculation. I hope he relied on advisers who knew better but

felt that it was a good figure to throw in.

The provincial corporation tax rate from 10 to 12 is 20 per

cent increase, Mr. Speaker. They say that figures don't lie;

but liars figure. I am not suggesting that you did that. As I

said, I think it was your adviser that supplied this

information.

The nearest estimate I can get as to what the average corporation

tax rate in this country is — that is, what it will be for this year — is 47 per cent. The maximum rate is 50 per cent; the minimum rate is 25

per cent; but the average effective rate, according to the information

I was able to get, is 47 per cent.

On the average, Mr. Speaker…we're not talking about 20

per cent. We're talking about 2 per cent on top of 47 per cent

which is, Mr. Speaker, something like 4¼ per cent increase on

the average.

If you consider, Mr. Speaker, only the lowest income

corporations, only the ones that are paying 25 per cent — and they're

paying the 25 per cent; they don't look at it and

say, "I'm only paying 10 to the provincial and it's going up 20

per cent;" they're looking at their total of 25 per cent — now if you

look at the lowest income corporations,

which contribute far less in the total picture, then it's 2 per

cent on top of 25 per cent which in my books, Mr. Speaker,

works out to a maximum of 8 per cent.

Now where, Mr. Speaker, does this 20 per cent come from? I

suggest it must come from his advisers, and I suggest that he

consult his advisers and perhaps even change his advisers. He

might be a good deal better off.

It was also suggested, in the same paragraph in his remarks — the

way it's reported in Hansard

— where

some Member on this side of the House suggested that B.C.

Telephone could very well absorb this extra 4¼ per cent

corporation tax.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Yes. The Hon. Member for Esquimalt (Mr.

Gorst) suggested that — and you were kind of ridiculing

this. Well, the latest profit pictures I've seen from B.C.

Telephone indicate to me that they could very easily absorb an

additional 4¼ per cent corporation tax.

You suggest that they pass this on too easily to the

consumer — and I agree with you in the case of B.C.

Telephone. I think they have much too easy a job when they go

before the Transport Commission trying to get an increase in

rates. And I'm surprised, Mr. Speaker, that the Members who are

complaining about this complain about the ease with which a

corporation like B.C. Telephone passes on this additional

impost. Why don't they suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we take over

the B.C. Telephone so that it will not be passed on to the

consumers?

Talking about the job-creating opportunities in the

budget, Mr. Speaker, he says that in some areas we've simply

sort of gone along with "me too." For example, in the old

Social Credit budget there was a sum of $10 million for park

development — a nice provision, Mr. Speaker. He says this

time we're only putting in another five.

There is a difference, Mr. Speaker. Last year was an

election year; it was an election gimmick. The money was not

spent. A good deal of the money is still available. The

programme was planned so that it would be finished by the end

of September. It was

[ Page 528 ]

heavy expenditures during the election period and

programme for spending since, so that a good deal of the money

is still left. I assure you, Mr. Speaker, the present Minister

will spend that money.

On reforestation: by the end of the calendar year — that is after

some nine months had gone by — less

than half of the $10 million fund that was made available for

accelerated reforestation was spent — less than half. And

that, too, was spent in the election period rather than planned

to be spent after, or planned to be spent before. I assure you,

Mr. Speaker, that this time the difference is that jobs will be

created; the work will be done, because the Minister will spend

the money, I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, there's all the difference in

the world between putting a figure in the estimates and saying

"Look what we might do," and coming before you next year

and saying, "Look what we have indeed accomplished."

With respect to highways, again, I hope it's your advisers

rather than you that are supplying these figures, because you

start comparing apples and oranges. You take the estimates for

the Department of Highways. You say, "Last year there was an

increase in the estimates of $21 million and this year there's

an increase of only $7 million."

You first point out that the estimates for last year were

$21 million higher than the year before. Then you look at this

year and you take the estimate of $179 million. To that you add

the election campaign money — the $35 million. You add

that to the estimates and compare that with the estimates for

this year.

Now, Mr. Speaker, surely, if one is going to compare

estimates for two years, one should also compare estimates for

the next two-year period. When you look at the first

period and say that the increase in estimates was $21 million;

and when you look at the second period, Mr. Speaker, for which

the present Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan) is

responsible, and relate it to estimates, you find that the

increase in estimates is not $7 million, not $21 million, Mr.

Speaker, it's $42 million — double the increase of the

previous period. Surely, if there's any job-creating

ministry, it's the Minister of Highways who is going to create

jobs with that additional money.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. STUPICH: I'm being asked about the ones that I laid

off, Mr. Speaker. I didn't lay anybody off. If you want to ask

questions of the Minister of Highways, Mr. Speaker, I suggest

that those questions might very well be asked when the Minister

himself is presenting his estimates.

I'm sure, Mr. Speaker, if the Opposition can raise itself to ask

some intelligent, penetrating questions, that they'll get intelligent

answers, But, Mr. Speaker, they'd better get another adviser when

they're talking about figures.

The First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr.

McGeer) — the only real suggestion that he had to make

with respect to my department in particular, was that we remove

education tax from farm land.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. STUPICH: All taxes. With respect to all taxes then,

Mr. Speaker. I'm thinking particularly at the moment about

agriculture. You said it would take something like $8 million

to remove all taxes on rural land. Was that the figure?

AN HON. MEMBER: Producing farmland.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Producing farmland. Mr. Speaker, if I

could be sure that this $8 million were going to end up in the

pockets of the farmers, then I think it would be a wonderful

idea. We're working on this; we will have some proposals.

At the moment my concern, Mr. Speaker, is that when a

farmer's costs do come down in some areas such as that, it is

something like…I think the First Member for Victoria (Mr.

Morrison) referred to the purple gas taxation bit as a sop;

well maybe the education tax is just a bigger sop. When you

remove a basic cost like that from farmland, is it really the

farmer that's going to benefit? The farmers want it — this

purple gas thing. I don't think it was very important. It was

something they really wanted. They want the education tax

removed too. We'll work on that and I am quite satisfied that

they will get it.

But in the meantime I'm not at all satisfied that it's going

to put any more money into the pockets of the farmers. Because

what usually happens, Mr. Speaker, is that when the farmer is

able to reduce his costs, as he has been able to do over the

years — he's increased his efficiency, he's reduced the

cost of producing his food per unit of food — all he has

done is put more money into the pockets of the processors and

the retailers and provided cheaper food for the consumer.

I'm concerned, Mr. Speaker, with getting a better way of

life for the farmers. I'm not at all convinced at this point,

Mr. Speaker, that the first step towards doing that is to

remove education tax from farmland. If the First Member for

Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) or if those Members of the official

Opposition who have not yet thought of anything to say have any

specific suggestions, if they have any comments on this

particular proposal, if they can convince me that this indeed

would help the farmers — not in the short run, for in the

short run it would, but in the long run — well then I'll

be able to put a much better argument before the Members of

cabinet. But at this point, it's

[ Page 529 ]

awfully hard for me to argue that this is really

going to

help the farmers, when I question it very seriously myself.

Now there are other Members to speak and perhaps they will

be able. I'll be listening, Perhaps they'll be able to convince

me that this would indeed be a good measure to adopt.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): You supported it

during the election.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Yes. I supported it during the election. I

still do, not just from farmlands, but from residential land

and improvements as well. Not from farmland because it was

going to help the farmers, but because in my mind and in the

minds of those in the party who support this, land and

improvements should not bear the cost of education. I still

think about that, I still believe that.

I was amused by the Hon. First Member for Point Grey (Mr.

McGeer) when he was suggesting that we remove these taxes from

farmland. Then I asked him whether or not in addition to that

he would still leave the farmers completely free to subdivide

their own land. He said: "Well, we'll cross that bridge when we

come to it."

Well, Mr. Speaker, that's the kind of planning that this

Government is not prepared to do. And that is why we're not

prepared at this time to move in that direction. It will be

part of a co-ordinated policy. It will be part of a

co-ordinated policy. There will be action on that, and

I'll be listening carefully to see whether we get any

reasonable suggestions from the Opposition.

The Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) expressed some

concern about the utilized capital tax. Now there are Members

still to speak. He expressed concern about it and said that

this will be applied even though a corporation lose money.

Well, Mr. Speaker, there's only one tax that I can think of

offhand that applies to a corporation only if it makes a

profit, and that is income tax. This is not an income tax — it's one of

the expenses of doing business.

Would you suggest, Mr. Speaker, or would the Members

opposite care to suggest, that if a corporation is losing money

it should also be relieved from paying land and improvement tax

or that it should not have to pay excise taxes on materials

that it's buying?

MR. SPEAKER: Is the Hon. Member talking about a bill before

the House?

HON. MR. STUPICH: No, Mr. Speaker. Did you think I was?

MR. SPEAKER: Unfortunately I didn't check this…

MR. PHILLIPS: It's O.K. for that side of the House but not

for this side.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I'm soliciting some advice

and I've heard precious little. I've heard precious little on

this matter. I've heard some concern, but I've heard no

suggestion from the other side that there should be some

exemptions. Mr. Speaker, I'm surprised.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. STUPICH: In your remarks? I missed that. I've gone

through your speech, but I might have missed that. However, I

guess that I have to be a little bit careful, in spite of my

flattery. Mr. Speaker's attention has now been drawn to what

I've been saying and I think I'd better be a little bit more

careful.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, you should always object if you've

noticed it, you know.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Well, Mr. Speaker, they're new. You can't

expect them to know that they have the right to object at any

time. They're new, and at least, Mr. Speaker, they are awake. I

do appreciate that.

MR. PHILLIPS: We're alive, too.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Oh, I'm not sure about this business of

being alive, Mr. Speaker. And if I could, maybe I'll draw on

that a little later. But at the moment I'll tell you another

little story, Mr. Speaker.

I was at a meeting in Nanaimo fairly recently, and the head

of one of the largest business concerns in Nanaimo had

organized a meeting in connection with the United Appeal. I had

been asked to come and speak to this meeting. He told me that

in trying to get a broad

section of the community — a

cross

section of the whole community — he had invited

representatives from every type of business in the community,

and he hoped that I wouldn't be concerned about this — he

had also invited representatives from all of the political

parties.

Then he pointed out to so-and-so and said: "He's

here as a Liberal, and the fellow down there is here as the

Conservative Party representative and of course you're here as

the NDP." I looked around and said: "Well, which one is the

Social Credit?" And he said: "By God! I forgot all about them."

(Laughter).

So I'm not sure that they are alive, Mr. Speaker. Certainly

in the minds of the community they're dead. Nothing that has

happened in this session would indicate to anyone that they are

alive, really.

[ Page 530 ]

MR. PHILLIPS: He sure spends most of his speech talking

about us!

HON. MR. STUPICH: Yes, I've got to look at my chart to keep

the Peace River riding separate. The Hon. Member for South

Peace River (Mr. Phillips) said in his remarks when he was

speaking in this debate: "in this I'm sincere." Well now I

thought that was really something, not only that he would be

sincere in anything at all, but that he would emphasize it by

pointing out that in this particular respect he was being

sincere.

But I do believe that the Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr.

Wallace) was sincere in expressing his concern about what the

budget is doing. And in his concern, he did worry about the

fact that the Government intends to go into partnership with

industry. Mr. Speaker, the Government does intend to go into

partnership. I'd like to remind you, Mr. Speaker, that the

budget clearly points that out. It's not just a matter of

dogmatic socialism.

Mr. Speaker, if I may read from the budget: "life has to be more

meaningful for people." That's really what the budget is all about." We

believe it can be, for all people in the province, through

participation along with the provincial government and private industry

in business endeavours. We favour partnership arrangements between

industry, government and employees, rather than subsidies or loans to

industry." That, Mr. Speaker, is our philosophy.

It is, Mr. Speaker, a socialist budget. We make no

apologies, Mr. Speaker, if it sincerely concerns the Members of

the Conservative Party that we intend to go in this direction,

because certainly if we didn't go in this direction, because

certainly if we didn't go in that direction, we would have no

right to be here calling ourselves socialists.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to go on and deal briefly with

some of the items that might be of interest to some of the

Members in the Opposition side of the House, with respect to my

own department.

I'd like to start this out by quoting from a recent Press

release from the B.C. Federation of Agriculture, which I think

outlines a lot of the concern in their minds. Up to this point,

it does not seem to have aroused any concern in the minds of

the Opposition, but it did arouse some concern in the minds of

the B.C. Federation of Agriculture. If I might quote briefly

from this: "With regard to the general operating funds for the

Department of Agriculture, Bernhardt says he was disappointed

that they will remain at the level of .75 per cent of the total

budget." In other words, there has been no real increase with

respect to the estimates, in proportion to the total

expenditures of the whole government.

Now this, Mr. Speaker, is, I think, the best criticism of our budget

with respect to agriculture — better than anything I have heard in this

House. I can't really compare it to everything in the community, but

certainly better than anything that I have heard in this House.

I can only say, Mr. Speaker, there has been some expression

in this House describing this budget but not really dealing

with the budget. You know, Mr. Speaker, if I had been the

person responsible for presenting this budget and had been

looking across and seeing somebody of the calibre of the

Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan), I would have been

worried about presenting this budget. But the calibre of the

Opposition since then certainly gives no cause for anybody to

be concerned about any kind of a budget speech in presenting

it.

It's been called a "tinker-toy budget." What are you

really saying when you call it a tinker-toy budget? Are

you really dealing with the issues raised in that budget? What

are you saying when you say it really is another Social Credit

budget? Are you really dealing with the issues in the budget

when you call it that, or when you call it a socialist

budget?

Mr. Speaker, it is a socialist budget. The socialism is not

all that apparent with a cursory reading of the budget speech

and I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that all it has had from most of

the Members of the Opposition is a very cursory reading and for

that reason they have not been able to deal with it very

effectively in this debate.

The socialism is hidden, Mr. Speaker, in the details of the

various departments. As I said earlier, it is not so much the

dollars, but what we are going to do with the dollar. It is not

just in the budget but in the legislation that is referred to

in the budget — legislation that is still to come before

you, legislation that will come before you in the form of

message bills. Then you will be getting the message, Mr.

Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're bragging.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Bragging, Mr. Speaker? I'm not bragging,

I'm simply telling the House that it…

AN HON. MEMBER: Dragging.

HON. MR. STUPICH: For example, Mr. Speaker, I have said

before and I say now that there will be a message from His

Honour the Lieutenant-Governor telling us about land

preservation. There is socialism in that.

Interjection by an Hon Member.

HON. MR. STUPICH: It's at the printers. I'm not sure what

the timetable is, Mr. Speaker. I have been asked when it might

come in. Depending upon the availability of the

Lieutenant-Governor, I would think Thursday of this

week.

[ Page 531 ]

Mr. Speaker, there will be money provided in that bill. In

addition to the estimates. Reference has been made to the fact

that the estimates are the same percentage as previously. There

is more legislation coming in, Mr. Speaker, and this will be

socialist legislation.

Apart from that there are programmes that have been going on

half-heartedly that will be beefed up. There is, for

example, the B.C. Food Promotion that started last year during

the election campaign and that ran out of money as soon as the

election was over. This is a continuing programme, Mr. Speaker,

and will be picked up, smartened up and used to sell B.C. farm

produce in the years ahead rather than to promote the interests

of any political party.

There will be a beefing up on the market research. While I

said that I have concern about just how much effect on farmers

removal of education tax will have, I do believe, Mr. Speaker,

that one of the things that will help the farmers is to improve

their markets. To that end we will be beefing up the market

research.

Mr. Speaker, earlier in the session there were scoffing

remarks about the 1,000 new jobs promised in one of the

speeches. Those jobs referred only to the beefing up of

existing programmes; they did not relate to the new jobs that

have to do with new programmes. For example, in the Department

of Agriculture, with an increase in staff of 29…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Well, the question has never been asked!

Why don't you ask? I couldn't wait for you to ask so I'm

answering it without you asking. I'm answering it right

now.

MR. SPEAKER: Order.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, there are some 29 new

positions provided in estimates but of those 29 new positions

only 18 are included in the 1,000 figure. The other 11 are for

new programmes. The 1,000 that were talked about were to beef

up services that were there, that were offered to the people,

that were promised to the people but that the Government was

never able to deliver because it didn't have the staff to do

the job.

You all know examples of this. You all have examples of home

acquisition grants being held up because it took too long for

the Government to process them. I'm sure that is one area at

least where you all have examples. Certainly I have had lots of

them. Those areas will be beefed up. Government services

generally.

Crop insurance: The federal government is trying to offer a new deal

in crop insurance. I am not going to say a great deal about the Peace

River situation at this moment. I expect that that may very well come

up during estimates, and I don't want to take the time to go into it

right now. But I will say this. As far as crop insurance is concerned,

if the farmers in the province had made more use of the crop insurance

service that was offered, then the situation in the Peace would not be

nearly as bad as it is.

To improve this insurance the federal government has

suggested that they would take a higher share of the premium

cost, that is, increase their share from 25 per cent to 50 per

cent, if the province would take over the whole of the

administrative cost.

There has been a bill introduced in Ottawa on the order

paper. We don't know whether the Government is going to last

long enough to go through with that bill.

MR. PHILLIPS: Ask Lewis.

HON. MR. STUPICH: We could ask Lewis, and Lewis would

support us. But Lewis has no way of knowing what kind of bills

the Government will introduce in the meantime in order to

perhaps invite the Opposition to throw him out of office so

that he will not have to go ahead with such good bills as the

proposed changes to the Crop

Insurance Act .

In any case, the federal Minister of Agriculture does want

the federal government to assume 50 per cent of the cost of

premiums as opposed to 25 per cent and for the provincial

government to take over the whole of the administrative costs.

In the hope that this actually will go through this year, I

approached cabinet and said, "Will you back me up on this? May

we go ahead on this programme in the hope that it will be

passed in Ottawa?" B.C. right now is writing these crop

insurance policies on that basis.

The federal government is paying half the premium, which

reduces in effect the cost of the crop insurance premium to the

farmer by one-third. There is a question in the order

paper on this subject. The order-in-council will go

before cabinet officially tomorrow, although I have discussed

it. At that time I will be able to answer specifically the

questions on the order paper relating to crop insurance.

However, this is one of the areas where we really can help

farmers. Those who lose their crops, or who fear they may, will

be able to take advantage of these crop insurance programmes.

This is one area where I am satisfied individual farmers will

be helped.

Co-operative services: We said previously — it

is in our programme. I have talked about it for years — co-op services

have been neglected in this province.

There has been machinery to organize co-operatives, but

beyond that the Government has done nothing. Under the

Department of Agriculture we will be doing educational work and

promotional work in the field of cooperatives.

But beyond that, legislation will be introduced

[ Page 532 ]

that will give the Government authority to help

co-operatives financially, either by lending or by

guaranteeing loans to them. I hope that agricultural people in

particular will take advantage of this — either farmers,

groups of farmers, or industrial concerns operated by farmers — and

this assistance will be available to them.

One area again in which I feel the Government can help

farmers — these are things which I think that everybody

would agree with — is in the area of marketing boards.

Marketing boards are really unions of farmers, getting together

to try to manage their own production, in the interests of

helping the individual farmers in those organizations.

Marketing boards have been in existence for some time. There

has been a move more recently to co-ordinate their

activities on a national basis and we have encouraged that. The

new Government has encouraged this. The B.C. Egg Marketing

Board, for example, has signed with the national egg marketing

agency. The B.C. Broiler Board, I understand, is ready to sign.

The turkey people are still looking at it and others are

further behind, but we are moving in that direction. In every

instance we are encouraging the marketing boards to

co-operate not only in the Province of British Columbia

but we are encouraging them to co-operate with the

farmers throughout the Dominion of Canada.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): What about among

themselves?

HON. MR. STUPICH: To farmers co-operating among

themselves? Yes. I mentioned earlier that farmers may get

together, for example in machinery co-ops.

There are two marketing boards for the vegetable crop. They

want more help from the Government; they want more co-operation. Our

emphasis for the moment has been to

encourage these two groups to get together. They are talking

about it. Their boards are considering it. It is our feeling

that we can assist them and help their members more if they

would form one board that would represent all of the producers

in the province rather than helping them as individual boards,

which to some extent are competing and conflicting with each

other. So we are going slow on doing what they want until we

can get them to co-operate between themselves — the

two groups. There is I think at this time a feeling of great

optimism that that will happen in the relatively…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. STUPICH: The two getting together? Very definitely,

oh yes.

The small farm development programme — there is

nothing new in that. It is a programme co-operating with the federal

government to assist farmers who are trying

to farm units of a size too small to be economic. It is a

programme where the federal government makes money available to

assist farmers in those positions to enlarge their holdings so

they will be able to farm economically. We signed that

agreement in October of last year.

I mentioned very briefly the Peace River situation. I expect

we will be dealing with that during estimates. We are working

on this continually. We did make a programme. I think you will

recall that the provincial government paid out a maximum of $1,000 per

farm. The federal government, which we had hoped

would match this, instead limited its maximum to $400. We are

disappointed in that; we have been in touch with people in the

area; we have urged them to keep up the pressure on Ottawa. We

are putting pressure on Ottawa to try to get them to improve

their offer. We are suggesting new programmes, and we are

hoping that if the farmers in that area and the political

representatives in that area will keep the pressure on Ottawa,

there may be some further assistance to the people in those

areas, if not on a blanket basis at least on an individual

basis.

But I will say this, Mr. Speaker. The Government of British

Columbia, while it did take longer to act in this respect than

I had hoped in the beginning, because it took time to get the

information and it took time to determine the course of action

and to get agreement with Ottawa, nevertheless, although they

got a maximum of $1,000 in B.C., the farmers on the Alberta

side of the border are still waiting for their cheque from

their provincial government.

AN. HON. MEMBER: It was mailed last Wednesday.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mailed last Wednesday. Ours went out very

early in January; theirs went out then something like over a

month later. Of course, goodness only knows when the federal

government payment will come through.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Is that why it took so long? Well, in any

case the New Democratic Party were quick to act. And I think

that's the point I want to make at this time.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, this wasn't a new problem in

the Peace River. This was one of five years of losses in that

area. Now, I don't recall ever seeing or reading or hearing

anything about the Members opposite urging their government to

do anything about this in the previous 4 years. It seems

[ Page 533 ]

to me they were quiet about it.

This year there is a new government. This year there's

action. That's the difference, Mr. Speaker.

Other legislation that will be coming in.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I hear a voice saying "I

wasn't here." And, Mr. Speaker, there are some times when I

wish that voice still wasn't here. But there will be changes to

the…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. STUPICH: When that voice goes on for 2½ hours

late on a Friday afternoon, Mr. Speaker, I think there are 53

other Members of the House who will join with me.

There will be further changes. And again it's a matter, as I

said earlier the only real suggestion I've heard from the other

side of the House — there may be more coming — the

only real suggestion is that we back up from our land

preservation programme and let the land go. And secondly, that

we take the education…

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. STUPICH: …take the education tax off farmland.

Mr. Speaker, I'm not particularly enamoured at either one of

those solutions but there are other things that we can do.

On the books there is an old Farmers

Land Clearing

Assistance Act . It's been used specifically for clearing

land, and for drainage purposes. It is our intention to open

this Act. Really in part to change the name, but more than a

change in name, it's a change in application of this

assistance. Instead of limiting it to drainage and to clearing

we want to make this Act available to those — for example

in the Okanagan country, those who want to renovate their

orchards; who want to take out the old trees and plant new

trees — better varieties of apples. Or people who may

want to change from trees to growing grapes. People who want to

increase and to improve the productivity of their farm — long-range

improvements on farmland, of one kind or

another.

Drainage, but also irrigation. Anything that will in the

long run improve the capability of that individual on that

particular land to improve his financial conditions. This is

one of the areas in which we will be moving, and will be moving

soon.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. STUPICH: It's still coming in under the old Farmers

Land Clearing Assistance Act ; the rules will be the same for the

time

being. We'll get some experience in this in the months ahead and see

how it works, and this too may well be developed and may be changed.

Mr. Speaker, in spite of what I said earlier, I think it's

not necessary for me really to go on much longer. There is one

thing though, that I would like to say.

When I talked about the land

preservation programme, I

introduced a subject very late on a Friday by saying that this

was something I had been trying to…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. STUPICH: I have no intention of talking about that

debate, it would be out of order. It's just to introduce

another subject. But this was something I had been talking

about publicly for some 23 years. There's something else I was

talking about publicly, Mr. Speaker, for 23 years it was my

concern when I was at university when I was studying

agriculture.

There's a lot of research going on in this province, a lot

of research going on in the country and in other countries. But

a lot of research going on in this province. Too often the

research is not co-ordinated. It's done by the

universities, it's done by the federal government, it's done by

the provincial government. And they may co-ordinate it,

they may know what's going on. They write learned papers and

they exchange them. But when does the farmer hear about it?

Now, this is one of the real problems, I think. One of the

points that I tried to make as a student at university was that

there isn't enough effort put in to making sure this

information is available to the producers out in the field. I

was concerned about this. I must be really making a point, Mr.

Speaker, if I can get the Member for South Peace River (Mr.

Phillips) to agree with anything I say. It makes me wonder

whether I'm saying the wrong thing. (Laughter)

However, there will be provision for a demonstration and

applied research programme. We know what's going on — we

have access to this material. We intend to spend a good deal of

effort in the year ahead in making sure, by showing farmers — by

actually doing this; inviting them to come and see.

Showing them what is being done in the research way, what is

being done on experimental farms, or on the provincial

government farms — show them what is being done. Let them

come right out in the field and see it in the hopes, Mr.

Speaker, that they will go back home and apply these new ideas,

these new varieties, new programmes to their own farms.

I suggest, Mr. Speaker, as was discussed in the question of

the whole agricultural land preservation programme, the

emphasis has to be not only on preserving land but on how do we

make farming

[ Page 534 ]

economically viable for the people involved in it.

Mr. Speaker, I've suggested a list of about 10 points that

we're already working on, or that we will be working on. Mr.

Speaker, if anybody on the other side of the House has anything

constructive to add to this, I'd be only too happy to listen to

it. I'll be listening to it during the debate. If I have to

leave the House occasionally, I look at it in Hansard .

And I do want constructive suggestions from the other side of

the House. Really that's my job to make agriculture

economically viable. Any way that I can work towards that — removing of

education taxes is really not that

all-important.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. STUPICH: At Vernon? Well because I don't think

there's anything that we can learn. The Member opposite, Mr.

Speaker, is asking about the possibility of using the Vernon

sewage effluent on vegetable crops, Now, this has been tried

and I don't know that we can learn anything new by it — or from further

experimentation along those lines.

However, we are in touch with the mayor of Vernon. He's been

down to see us. He's been talking about using the

L-and-A Ranch, he's been talking about using other

areas. We've promised him every co-operation in extending

that system so that it will use all the material that is

available for this fertilization — and use it

productively in agriculture pursuits. And whether it be in

vegetables or not, I don't know — but certainly we do

want to co-operate with them. We think this is an

excellent experimental programme. It has been done, Mr.

Speaker, with vegetables. I'm not convinced at this point — I haven't

got a closed mind, and I haven't got closed

ears. I'm not convinced at this point Mr. Speaker, that we can

learn anything worthwhile by going along the lines that the

Hon. Member opposite suggests. But, on the other hand that

doesn't mean that I'm not listening.

Mr. Speaker, I've spoken in this debate because I want to

ask the Members opposite for some constructive, reasonable

suggestions to help the agricultural industry. We'll be

listening, and we'll be reading. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Boundary-Similkameen.

MR. F.X. RICHTER (Boundary-Similkameen): Thank you, Mr.

Speaker, It was interesting to note the cursory coverage that

the previous speaker gave of his own department. I particularly

appreciate his request for suggestions from this side of the

House. I recall when I was Minister of Agriculture that we

didn't get very many suggestions over from the Opposition, but

we certainly got a lot of criticism.

The suggestions we received at that time certainly weren't

within the ballpark anymore than what the Minister has just

indicated to the Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan). They

just weren't in that category.

But I do want to say something, Mr. Minister, through you,

Mr. Speaker, in relation to the statements that were made about

Gabriola Island. Now, I don't want to accuse the Minister of

misleading the House. But, previously in relation to Gabriola

Island an inference was left with this House that certain

approvals were given by the former Minister of Municipal

Affairs (Mr. Campbell) in relation to subdivisions.

Now, this is not so. Because previously — and there

were public hearings — under the appropriate legislation

that has been used for administrative purposes in recent times

by the now Government. And the previous minister made no

commitments in relation to subdivision on Gabriola Island. It

would be my contention at this point that we should be debating

resolution 6 on the order paper. And then we would get the

facts because it was all taped. Now we're talking here, through

the Minister's statements, talking about putting 10,000 people

on Gabriola Island. And the former Minister assured the people

of Gabriola Island that it would remain a rural area.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. RICHTER: Well, it seems to be that I've heard a point

that I haven't heard for a long time. I'm very happy…

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, order please.

MR. RICHTER: I'm very happy that the Minister is here from

the lower part of the building here — down on the first

floor. We welcome you here Mr. Minister, and we're very happy

to have you. We like to hear your voice. (Laughter).

MRS. JORDAN: Instead of feeling the whip all the time.

MR. RICHTER: However, public hearings were held in relation

to Gabriola Island, and I think it's been well documented in

the Press what occurred at those hearings. Today's dissertation

by the Minister left us, I think, somewhat misled because

previously the former Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr.

Campbell) did put a restriction on Saltspring Island and on

Gabriola Island — first of 10 — acre subdivisions and

subsequently of 5-acre subdivisions. This was with the

intent of proper land management — to give an opportunity

for hearings and for public input.

[ Page 535 ]

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. RICHTER: I'm not going to debate that portion any more

because I know that there is a motion on the order paper in

which we can get the facts by way of the tape recordings if the

Government sees fit to permit us to bring the motion to the

floor and to accept it.

The Minister (Hon. Mr. Stupich) gave us a cursory review of

his Department of Agriculture, but most of the time he was

covering the conglomerate of government policy plus other

Ministers' responsibilities.

At this time I would mention the very fact that the Minister

brought up the subject of the percentage of the total budget

that goes into agriculture. I was always criticized on this

point; my successor was criticized. Today you haven't

seen one bit of change. It's the same percentage — a

little bigger budget. Percentagewise there'll be a few more

dollars in the department.

But that is not the point. The point is: How are you going

to spend it? Tell us that. It's not being spelled out in any

legislation we've received to date, although we have been

advised today that additional moneys will be made available for

the socialistic farmland policy that you intend to bring in.

Well, why don't you put it in the budget if you know what it's

going to be?

It's the same as another bill that's before this House. We

don't even know the rates. Give us the facts. This is what we

need. Never mind bringing it in at a later date. Give us the

facts now so that we can properly assess them. We don't want to

be criticizing something that we should be praising you for.

For goodness' sakes, give us the advantage of this at least in

your submission.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. RICHTER: I really appreciate the remarks of my good

friend the Premier and Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett).

You know, I think he's getting fatter by the day and I

certainly don't want to ever have him referred to as a "fat

cat." Let me tell you, he's doing well. I'm sure he's eating

well. I'm sure he's sleeping well.

In the agricultural field, if an animal in a feed lot

doesn't rest well and doesn't eat well, he really doesn't do

well. Our Premier is doing really well. He has a good

conversion factor, as they would refer to.

Mr. Speaker, on an earlier occasion when I spoke in the

throne debate, because of the direction in which the debate had

gone, I purposely did not mention matters pertaining to the

constituency of Boundary-Similkameen which I have the

honour and privilege of representing in this House.

I would like to dwell for a few moments at this time and put before

the government matters which are of grave concern to the electorate and

others of my constituency and in the adjoining areas. Actually my

remarks in relation to the fruit-growing industry could be applicable

to other areas where agriculture is important to the economy.

As a past Minister of Agriculture, I have seen definite

progress in the management of agricultural affairs both at the

local level and in government. However, agriculture still

remains the "poor cousin" of our economy. No matter how hard

local agricultural organizations and local governments work

towards a solution to this problem, they will never accomplish

by themselves their objective of obtaining equitable returns

for their production commensurable with other industries and

professions.

The most recent gleam of hope that I have seen towards

solving this problem — and I hope that the Minister of

Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) will note this — is that

made by the Hon. Eugene Whelan, federal Minister of

Agriculture, who personally recognized the problem and has made

statements to this effect.

However, the solution would have to come from federal

government policy in regard to the unfair competition that our

farmers face by way of subsidized imports. The Hon. Mr.

Whelan's view is to this effect: unless these products, both

seasonal and otherwise, have barriers imposed which would make

them competitive price-wise with the cost of our

production here in Canada, then it is a foregone conclusion

that we will see a continuation of the decline in agriculture

in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, we have many, many areas — and I know we

have to deal in world markets which have subsidized agriculture — in

competition with our own production which is of a

high-cost nature in Canada, and particularly in British

Columbia. It's not possible for the farmer to compete in this

respect.

We will see a continued decline in industry by way of lack

of incentive to the young people of this country to return to

the land — which many of them wish to do but the

questionable viability would not give them the security

commensurable with other occupations. This point of view has

been concurred with by all Ministers of Agriculture across

Canada in their representations made to the federal government.

Unless there is some incentive for the young person to go back

to the farm because of its environment — the healthy

living and so on; unless they can see their way clear to make

an income commensurable with other occupations, there's really

no incentive for them to go back there.

So we must make — as the Minister has indicated his

intention and his desire — agriculture a viable industry

commensurable with other industries. I am very happy that the

Minister mentioned this; I know that he will do his best to

work in this direction.

[ Page 536 ]

Our water resource — a resource which is so important

to the Okanagan because of the nature of our main Okanagan

Valley which has much of its floor covered with water — has been a

subject of an intense study that has been carried

out through the co-operation of the federal and

provincial governments. It is known as the Okanagan Water

Basin Study. This I'm sure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will

interest you because of your profession, in having clean,

potable water for human consumption.

The terms of reference are rather wide and a great deal of

input has been required of the technical people doing this

study. Many facts are being brought to light that will be most

helpful in developing methods of handling our water resources

to bring about a higher quality and to retain such a

quality.

The Minister of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources (Hon.

Mr. R.A. Williams) is deeply involved in this particular phase

and aspect of a technical study. I am sure that he will see

that it is carried on to its ultimate end to get the best

benefits from it.

Mr. Speaker, let me now turn to the all-important

question of highways — and I am sorry the Minister of

Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan) is not in. A continuing programme

has been carried out on improving the main east-west

highway from Hope to the Alberta border in the south. There is

no question that the degree of traffic now using this important

artery that leads in and out of our province requires

substantial improvement, particularly on the part known as the

Hope-Princeton section.

The trend towards truck transportation has increased

many-fold over the past few years and will continue to do

so, both by the multiplicity of vehicles and the increase in

size of trucking units. It is imperative that the government

give high priority to bring Highway 3 up to a higher

standard.

I want to express my appreciation to the Minister of

Highways for his prompt reply to a number of questions which I

placed on the order paper pertaining to the highways within the

constituency I represent. Highway 3, leading to the east

Kootenay, through the southern part of the province, is being

brought up to a standard commensurate with the traffic volume.

However, there are a few short sections that require attention

and I would hope that the Minister will see fit to continue the

projects already underway and implement further improvements so

that the sections not yet receiving attention will receive some

action.

For approximately 20 years I have personally worked with

many organizations as well as the Department of Highways to

gain a bypass route around the City of Penticton west of the

Okanagan flood-control channel. A great deal of advice

was given during the election campaign by the various political

candidates and their supporting speakers.

From a political platform, there was no question as to how

simply this problem could be resolved by obtaining a highway

right-of-way through the Penticton Indian

reservation. Certainly, I do not think any of the civil

service, and particularly the engineering branch of the

Department of Highways, or the regional district planners would

agree, along with myself, that there is any easy solution.

As I have mentioned, Mr. Speaker, I have worked diligently

for 20 years, even carrying the matter to the level of the

federal government and the Minister of Indian Affairs, without

result or encouragement from that high office. It appears to me

at this time, in light of a question answered by the Hon.

Minister of Highways which I had put on the order paper at this

session, that we are not any closer to a solution. This problem

has grown into an impossible situation and must be resolved by

whatever action is necessary.

I'm particularly pleased, Mr. Speaker, that the Hon.

Minister of Highways will be undertaking a programme of

development and improvement of Highway 97 from the

international border at Osoyoos through my constituency to

Trout Creek, near Summerland. The only question that is in my

mind at the moment is that no provision has been made for a new

highway location on the east side of the Okanagan Valley

between Osoyoos and Vaseaux Lake.

I have always advocated that this relatively undeveloped

land, where again we run into possible complications of

crossing Indian reservation land, that the highway should be

located on the east side of the valley to prevent disturbing

existing developments along the present Highway 97 between the

international border and Vaseaux Lake. With the new highway

location, the present highway could be used as a service road

for the present development without any substantial alteration

or expense.

Mr. Speaker, tourist industry, resort and park development

are an extremely important part of the economy of the Okanagan

Valley and are progressively gaining stature. The proximity and

climatic conditions, both winter and summer, and availability

of accommodation make my constituency the proverbial playground

of the great mass of population residing on the lower mainland,

south of the international border and, yes, even Alberta. A

large number of areas are presently set aside for public use,

although they lack in development to some degree. I would

earnestly request the Government and the appropriate department

to give earnest consideration, because of the demand for

facilities, to a continuing programme of development.

A very disturbing situation, Mr. Speaker, has come about due

to the flood disaster that struck the Similkameen Valley this

spring. Of course, Mr. Speaker, this is not the first occasion

that a flood problem has harassed the residents of that area.

[ Page 537 ]

1894 a flood occurred which was remembered by many

people as

probably the "daddy of all floods." However, in 1948 an almost

equally devastating flood occurred and again this year. In my

opinion, probably the worst flood of all occurred in the

Similkameen watershed.

Many of the areas, because of the dikes and other

structures, were not inundated by water as they were in 1894

and 1948. Now very restrictive measures have been brought into

being which affect many people who wish to put in various

installations, namely septic tanks and other services — even

restrictions on buildings on land that was not affected

either this year or in 1948 by way of the high water level.

I've had numerous letters of complaint, which I have taken

up with the department concerned. It would be my

recommendation, Mr. Speaker, to the Government that rather than

employ the regulations on the broad and general aspect of the

area, it should be more definitively applied on the basis of

merit or demerit of the individual application.

We have never had any real pollution problem because of the

general make-up of the soil mass in the floor area of the

Similkameen. The density of population is not great. I would

ask the Government to give their earnest consideration to

applying the regulations in a manner in which those priorities

of merit could be granted the necessary permission to construct

their facilities. Granted there are areas that would have to be

rejected. However, I'm not convinced that all must be rejected

as is presently happening in the unorganized area, while

immediately inside an organized boundary approvals are being

given on a continuing basis.

I know, Mr. Speaker, that a brief has been submitted to the

Department of Health. I'm sorry the Minister of Health Services

and Hospital Insurance (Hon. Mr. Cocke) is not in. This brief

was presented to the health security programme by the

Similkameen Public Health Society. In it was clearly defined

examples of the overload of work the local public health nurse

is attempting to cope with. It goes without saying that the

expanding population of the area and the distances to be

travelled between schools and populated centres make it utterly

impossible for one individual to adequately give the services

required on a part-time basis.

The time available under the present arrangement is nowhere near

sufficient to serve the school pupils, let alone the adult population,

a large majority of whom are retired and elderly people including many

pensioners who have found the area a desirable place to settle. As the

elected representative to this Legislature for the area, I give my full

support to the brief submitted. I'm urging at this time, as I have in

the past, that the Minister and his department take a very serious look

into and take the necessary action to bolster the staff in this

important field of preventive medicine.

Mr. Speaker, this is the twentieth year in which I have

risen in my place on behalf of my constituents to speak in

reply to the budget speech. In these 20 years this is the first

occasion that I have had grave concern as to the implications

of the fiscal policy enunciated in the speech.

It is a speech in which the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr.

Barrett) uses the rhetoric of Social Credit administration, and

I quote: "We believe in maintaining cash reserves whenever

possible as a safeguard against short-term developments

outside the province's control." Yet having examined the

speech, Mr. Speaker, I find it singularly lacking in both the

philosophy and the ability to make it work.

Much of the language of this budget is related to the past

performance of the economy and, as such, is a growing tribute

to the fiscal management of 20 years of Social Credit

government. It admits the success of those policies. Then, in

effect, it goes on to say, "but it was too successful. Now we

must slow it down. We must put the brakes on." This speech is

filled with political hangups of the Fabian socialist

philosophy. You speak of turning attention from quantitative

progress to qualitative measures.

AN HON. MEMBER: Full of clichés.

MR. RICHTER: Mr. Speaker, where is the quality in the 10 per

cent unemployment? Where in this speech is your answer for the

90,000 British Columbians who don't have jobs? I've tried hard

to imagine what was in the mind of the Minister of Finance when

he sat down in the comfort of his home to draft his budget

speech.

Before he put pen to paper, I think he must have stretched

out his arm and scratched the head of his pet Yorkshire terrier

and said, "Now, Ernie, your Fabian friend Harold — what

would he have done in this situation?" I'm sure Ernie must

have told him that his Fabian friend Harold is on record as

having said, "Without an economic base, all talk of social

improvement is folly."

However, with the Minister of Finance's public record of

paranoia in relation to economic expansion and his wild

rhetorical opposition to those who have helped create thousands

of jobs in this province, this was too much for him to swallow.

Instead of accepting this sensible economic premise, he cast

aside the comments of his faithful Fabian friend — and

what do you find in the composition of his speech? Not the

energetic enthusiasm of the Yorkshire terrier but a paltry

portion of Yorkshire pudding. It looks large in size, is

well-coloured but is deadly indigestion.

AN. HON. MEMBER: It's like an oatmeal sandwich.

[ Page 538 ]

MR. RICHTER: This budget, Mr. Speaker, is indeed plain fare

for the people of British Columbia at a time when we need every

impetus in increasing input to keep the wheels of industry

turning for the provision of jobs for our people.

All that this budget does is to impose a increasing burden

on industry at a time when the vagaries of international

finance and foreign markets are casting grave shadows across

the ability of British Columbia producers to compete in the

markets of the world. We do not have a preferred position with

our commodities in world markets. In a recent speech to the

Truck Loggers' Association in Vancouver, Robert Bonner pointed

out that British Columbia only produced 15 per cent of the

world's supply of chemical market pulp, 5.5 per cent of the

world's newsprint production and 6 per cent of the world's

softwood lumber.

I may also point out that all Canada possesses only 3 per

cent of the world's known resources of copper, 13 per cent of

nickel, 20 per cent of zinc and 12 per cent of its iron ore.

Yet these are the very industries which this government is

seeking to destroy in its imposition of increased tax

burdens.

These industries are the very foundation of the British

Columbia economy. Almost every other industry depends upon the

spin-off from these to survive.

Where are the jobs going to come from when you put the

economic thumbscrews to these industries?

The recent drastic devaluation of the American dollar is a

glaring example of the economic uncertainty which faces

the primary industries of this province. While this is not an

entirely new situation for industry in British Columbia, coming

at a time when industry is facing the imposition of increased

provincial tax and the shadow cast by thinly-veiled

threats of legislation to place the industry under increasing

measures of state control, I would suggest to you that unless

this government changes its attitude to industry, the outlook

for the unemployed and many who are at present holding jobs is

extremely poor.

You talk of government partnership in industry. Taking your

public utterances into account, that means putting the

government "fox" in the industrial "henhouse".

Who can believe anything you say? You were socialists; you

are still socialists, and your philosophy remains as being the

ultimate state-ownership of land, capital and the means

of production. You have already implemented the first tenet of

that philosophy in the virtual state control of farmland. If

anyone doubts that you really were socialists when you were

first elected, they have no doubts now.

One of your first actions was to place your political commissars in

control of government departments. We are already seeing the fruits of

that blatant piece of patronage.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Name names.

MR. RICHTER: They are all foreign names from different parts

of the province. You have them in Mines, you have them in any

number of departments.

HON. MR. BARRETT : Don't slander the civil servants.

MR. RICHTER: They're not civil servants, Mr. Premier.

They're not civil servants; they're put in as executive

assistants.

AN. HON. MEMBER: You had one yourself.

MR. RICHTER: I did not! I did not have one, my friend, I

certainly did not. He was a civil servant and he gained his

position by way of competition. That's more than yours did.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. RICHTER: One that I formerly administered…

Interjection by

an Hon. Member.

MR. RICHTER: In the Department of Mines, for one.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. RICHTER: It's quite obvious that they are.

AN HON. MEMBER: Political hacks.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You're attacking the whole civil

service.

MR. RICHTER: I'm not attacking the civil service because the

civil service is not involved. It's the special people. You

brought them in from Saskatchewan, you brought them in from

Manitoba.

In the senior civil service, professionals are being moved

into basement offices.

A perfect example of this Government's understanding of its

role is in the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources' (Hon.

Mr. Nimsick) "popcorn stand" concept of administration.

Mr. Speaker, if the potentials of this budget were not so

tragic from the point of view of the working people of this

province, it would make a perfect script for a comedy — a

comedy of errors and omissions. While Members opposite may

laugh on their way to deposit their increased indemnities in

the bank, the people of this province must face the folly

[ Page 539 ]

of the socialist experiment.

Socialism has not worked, is not working now and will never

work — here in British Columbia nor in any other place

throughout the world. It has trailed the burdens of bureaucracy

in its wake, What the British Columbia economy needs now is

decision-making on the part of the Government. But in

this context, what do you have in this budget? Next to nothing.

The Government is floundering around in a sea of indecision

while the economy, by force of this Government's

non-action, is being made to mark time.

This is a dangerous budget — dangerous in the things

in which it fails to say and do.

AN HON. MEMBER: A "peephole" government.

MR. RICHTER: What are you waiting for? Where is your real

programme? Why are you afraid to tell the people your real

programme?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Car insurance.

MR. RICHTER: That's laughable.

Why are you so afraid to tell the people your real

programme? Are you waiting for the green light from your

partners in the Federation of Labour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Labour party.

MR. RICHTER: The new measures you have taken are all

punitive and retrograde. On page 14 of your speech you describe

these measures as being "minor adjustments to tax measures."

Since when, Mr. Speaker, was a 30 per cent increase in tax a

minor adjustment?

AN HON. MEMBER: What on earth are you reading from?

MR. RICHTER: From the budget debate; I'm quoting from

it.

How can you describe as "a minor adjustment" the 20 per cent

increase in corporation profit tax when a representative

portion of the major industry in this province had an average

return on money invested in a three year period — 1969,

1970, 1971 — of less than 5 per cent?

Add to this the unspecified increase in rural property tax

and its potential impact upon the industries in unorganized

areas, and further to this the tax on employed capital, and

what we have in this so-called "minor adjustment" is what

appears to be a deliberate attempt to destroy the ability of

industry to survive in a competitive framework of international

economics.

AN HON. MEMBER: Time. Time, please.

MR. RICHTER: The potential of our economy is controlled, not

in the limited sales opportunity within British Columbia, but

in the marketplace of the world.

What are the real intentions of the Government? Are these

measures merely the "gloved fist"? If these measures are really

"minor adjustments," is industry to expect further tax

impositions? From the smile on the face of my friend, the

Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Nimsick), I

am sure I can contemplate this with his mining legislation.

MR. CHABOT: The look of brilliance.

MR. RICHTER: Mr. Speaker, this budget bears the hallmark of

state control of our basic industries. Little wonder they are

hesitant and holding back. Someone must feel they were

hoodwinked at the time of the last petroleum rights dispersal;

they just didn't know what was to come.

The tragedy of this Government's attitude to the business

world of the province is that the ones who are suffering and

will suffer are the masses of people who do not have a job now,

and the many more it will rob of the employment they now

have.

I think this is a glaring example: we attempted from this

corner of the House today, to put before this House a very,

very important measure where many, many drilling rigs are

having their contracts cancelled, pipelines are having their

contracts cancelled; and this is reflecting on many,

many hundreds of jobs and will continue to reflect.

AN HON. MEMBER: I don't believe it. Whose pipeline?

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): You'd better wake up, my

friend.

AN HON. MEMBER: Which pipeline?

MR. RICHTER: Where in this budget is there hope for these

people? It appears you have deliberately created an atmosphere

of uncertainty in the very industries which are the lifeline of

job creation.

You know what you have done in the field of petroleum

exploration. If you don't, you will undoubtedly be advised in

short order. As a haven of hope for the working people of this

province this budget and the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr.

Barrett) are an abject failure.

The workingman is being sacrificed at the altar of outdated

and ill-proven socialist theory. You have

[ Page 540 ]

padded the pockets of your political friends, but

you have

thrown the future prospects of the workingman to the wolves.

Admit your socialist theories will not work before it is too

late and thousands more are unemployed in this province.

For the people's sake, do something now to put new life into

the economy and create jobs for the people. Ten per cent

unemployment is completely unacceptable.

Mr. Speaker, I have looked over the galleries of this House

in vain for some sign of the union leaders of this province.

Two years ago, when the unemployment rate was only half of what

it is today, they sat in the galleries while the rabble who

accompanied them from Vancouver were rioting in this chamber.

Where are they today? The answer is obvious: they have achieved

their objective.

AN HON. MEMBER: They can't afford to come across.

MR. RICHTER: They have a government which is helping them

destroy the industrial management of this province with

punitive legislation. They are on their way to the pinnacle of

imperialistic power. That select band of fat cat union bosses

are now calling the shots for their NDP partners of the

Canadian Labour Congress.

I studied some of the speeches of your Minister of Labour.

Again it is the workingman who will suffer the consequences of

the unholy alliance. Another group of people to suffer from

this Government's actions are the farmers of the province. The

land freeze policy is an example of a retrograde measure

imposed by this Government. This action ties the farmer to his

land regardless of its economic viability.

If you had been in earlier, Mr. Premier, I explained it to

the Minister and he gave us the assurance that he was going to

make the farms viable. It should be made available. I'm sure

there isn't one of you who could run a farm. However it might

be well to note that at least the Premier did pluck some

vegetables in his earlier days.

There is no assurance for a farmer that the returns from the

productivity of his land will be sufficient to, pay the taxes,

let alone the provision of a living income. This could well be

due to any number of factors — lack of source of

irrigation water, type of soil, or even adverse climatic

conditions. Every man in agriculture throughout the province is

prone to suffer the vagaries of elemental conditions in a

manner in which no other industry is faced.

Let me assure this Legislature the official Opposition is in

favour of the preservation of farmland, but certainly not at

the expense of the farmer and his family.

The answer to preserving farmland is to assure the farmer of an

adequate income from his land and you will thereby induce the young

people to return to the healthy outdoor life of agricultural industry.

There will no longer be farmland for sale if this should occur or could

be made to occur. During the election many promises were made by the

socialist NDP. Much was said about the removal of education tax from

the land. While at that time they did not really believe that they

would become the Government and have to measure up to their promises,

it was a good catchy vote-getter.

Now they are Government, they are obviously having

difficulty keeping their avowed promises. However within this

budget a pattern is evolving. While the Government is

attempting to sort out their political promises, they will be

collecting additional money — which incidentally the

Minister of Finance has indicated they don't really need — from the

newly imposed business taxes.

In this way they expect to make up the revenue that would

have been collected by way of the education tax when it is

removed in part or in whole. Now, Mr. Speaker, who is taking

out of the taxpayer's right pocket to put it into the left? It

may well look good to some people to see industry carrying an

ever-increasing burden of taxation but in the final

analysis the resultant inflationary trend will strike hardest

at the individual taxpayer.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, this budget speech with its

attack upon industry and its job-creating capabilities,

through its punitive taxation and paradoxical hesitancy in

decision making, may well be likened to the old story of the

old man standing at the execution block.

The executioner was noted for his dexterity in his deadly

art. The victim after many moments of waiting, cried out in

anguish, "Executioner, don't hold me in suspense, do your job

quickly," to which plea the executioner replied, "Sir,

just nod your head."

It is my belief that the punitive measures now taken and the

apparent hesitance to reveal the full intentions of Government

policy may well have already severed the lifeline of the

British Columbia economy. Mr. Speaker, for this reason I cannot

support this budget and fully intend to vote against its

adoption.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the First Member for

Vancouver South.

MR. J. RADFORD (Vancouver South): Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The last speaker, Member for Boundary-Similkameen was the

past Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources and, Mr.

Speaker, earlier today the Hon. Member for North Peace River

(Mr. Smith) asked leave of the House to discuss an emergency

unemployment problem in his constituency caused by the

petroleum royalty increase.

[ Page 541 ]

We just heard from the former Minister of Mines and

Petroleum Resources and he did mention one or two words, or a

one-liner about this concern — about this real

emergency. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, what kind of cheap politics

are they playing over on the other side?

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. RADFORD: Well, it don't cost nothing, Mr. Speaker, it's

low-down politics also.

AN HON. MEMBER: You'll eat those words when you go out to

campaign in the north.

MR. RADFORD: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the budget. I

won't wait till the end to give my opinion on it. I rise to

support the budget. However, I do have reservations and

criticisms in one area that I will discuss later on in my

speech.

Mr. Speaker, the budget that has been presented to this

province will provide jobs and work opportunities for all those

seeking employment. This is truly a people's budget.

Let us examine some of the job-producing programmes of

the budget. Let's examine the $33 million provided for the

Department of Highways This will bring jobs into the province.

Five million dollars added to the accelerated parks development

for jobs. This additive will be good for future leisure time

that many of the working people will have in this province.

Five million dollars added to the accelerated reforestation

fund for jobs. This will bring more jobs into the province. Ten

million dollars set up as a community recreational facility

fund for the province to share in jointly-financed community

construction projects. This will be shared one-third by the

province. This will also bring new jobs into the province.

Also, Mr. Speaker, $5 million set up for the provincial

research and economic studies fund for research assignments as

required by the provincial government. This is a beginning for

new innovations in the province where a ready source of

research on specific projects can be made available from the

private and educational sector. This will also bring in new

jobs.

Fifty million dollars has been added to the provincial home

acquisition fund to continue the home grant and second

mortgages programme. This will aid citizens of B.C. to acquire

their own homes and this also will create new jobs in the

construction industry.

It should be realized, Mr. Speaker, that as a result of the

jobs created from this programme that we just mentioned, that a

spin-off for a multiplying factor is created to form more

jobs.

Mr. Speaker, the infusion of a one year increase of $45 million into

our educational system will provide our young people with the skills

and abilities to face the problems of the modern world. A country's

ability to prosper and progress is built on the cornerstone of its

educational system.

Mr. Speaker, there has been an increase of over $3 million

to recreation and conservation. Of this amount $1.2 million has

been added to last year's budget of $2.9 million to the fish

and wildlife branch. This is an approximately 43.9 per cent

increase. Even though this is a very significant increase, the

fishing and hunting sportsmen of B.C. are still being

shortchanged by the lack of concern and the lack of awareness

of the economic values generated by the most natural of all

natural resources, our fish and wildlife.

Recent studies completed for the Fish and Wildlife Branch

like Pearse-Bowden were mentioned the other day by the

Member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson). These studies

show that our fish and wildlife in the Province of B.C. brought

about a direct expenditure to our province in the amount of

$103 million annually or per season. Yet, Mr. Speaker, here we

are attempting to manage this valuable resource on a budget of

$4.1 million. It also should be recognized that over $3 million

of the $4.1 million budget is derived directly from licenses

and tags and fees from the fishermen and hunters. So it is

really amazing that the input to manage a valuable resource of

$103 million annually is costing less than $1 million.

154,000 resident hunters in the 1970-71 season, and

that is only one season, spent $40 million on hunting

activities in B.C. This is an average of approximately $290 per

hunter per year or $21.50 per day. The value of the

non-resident hunter to B.C. was $10 million. This is the

non-resident hunter, To calculate these figures I have

just mentioned, the study evaluated the cost of transportation,

guns, ammunition, license, tag fees, food, lodging, meat

processing, guides, taxidermists and so on.

Also, Mr. Speaker, I think it should be realized that these

are not all the inputs. I would like to read to you from the

Pearse-Bowden report some of the things that are left out

of this study. It says:

"The study deals only with the province's game

resources and

the value they create through recreation provided to hunters.

They do not encompass the sustenance value of fish and game as

a source of food for some persons, particularly native people,

nor are they concerned with the values of the province's many

non-game species of wildlife.

"Also over-looked are the values of the wildlife

resource in terms of non-consumptive recreation and in

many cultural, aesthetic and scientific values. Thus while

these reports for this study reflect a major facet of the use

and value of British

[ Page 542 ]

Columbia's game resources, it must be

emphasized that

other significant values are not discussed and the values estimated are

by no means all-encompassing."

In other words the study that was done does not encompass

all the values. The study that we are talking about is just

concerned with hunters and fishermen per day on the money that

they used to carry on this recreation.

During the season of 1969-70, 203,000 residents of

B.C. obtained fishing licenses. Added to this was 96,000

licenses for non-residents. So the total resident and

non-resident licenses for that season totaled 299,000

people. Resident and non-resident anglers spent a total

of $53 million in B.C. during the season of 1969-70, and

we should remember I am talking about one season and this is

annually. This is for fresh water fishing only and does not

include salt water fishing. We are also not discussing here

non-licensed fishermen who amount to quite a few — these are the

people under 18 years of age. They are not taken

into consideration in this study.

Resident fishermen spent $41

million in that season that I'm

discussing and non-resident fishermen spent $12 million — this

brings it to the total of $53 million. The largest

share of resident anglers' expenditures went for the purchase

of boats, motors and other major equipment items. Food and

lodging were secondary in importance, followed by the travel

costs and fishing tackle purchased. For non-residents

food and lodging and travel expenses accounted for 75 per cent

of their total expenditures.

There was also an employment study done on

non-resident fishermen only. In this employment study on

the effects on the non-resident fishermen in B.C., it

showed that 938 people were employed in the service industries

and 644 people in retail jobs for a total of 1,582

full-time jobs created. During summer months this amount

increased significantly. So we can see just in this one small

area on non-resident hunters the effects on the

employment situation in B.C.

Mr. Speaker, the capitalized value of our residential

hunting resource has been calculated at better than $255

million. The capitalized value of our fresh water sports

fishery has been estimated at $395 million. The fish and

wildlife resource has suffered in the past from a lack of

recognition from government of its worth and importance to the

economy and people of B.C. In the past there has been an

absence of information and study concerning the value of

wildlife resources. It was difficult for those who must

allocate public funds to determine what level of expenditures

was adequate for wildlife management and development.

It is quite apparent that there are serious problems in the

management of wildlife resources in B.C. today. Those

responsible for protection and management of wildlife find it difficult

to substantiate what they

feel are justifiable budget requirements. Until recently the

abundance of game relative to the number of hunters in B.C.

made it possible to satisfy the demands of hunters with modest

annual budgets. But these fortunate circumstances can no longer

be relied on and game managers are under increasing strain as

they attempt to meet the demands of hunters and fishermen with

the budgets which are proving inadequate.

AN HON. MEMBER: The wolves are getting them all.

MR. RADFORD: The past provincial budget for fish and

wildlife management last year was under $3 million — which was most

inadequate; so inadequate, in fact, that before

the last election they added $4,000 to that department. There

was a persistent feeling that the legitimate needs of wildlife

resources are overshadowed by the demands for public funds,

particularly those demands which can more readily and easily

demonstrate a monetary means of visible benefit.

Probably one of the greatest reasons fish and wildlife

resources and other outdoor recreations have received only a

token consideration in over-all resource management

planning is particularly where they have come in conflict with

the other resource uses such as mining, forestry practices,

water resources and others.

The Fish and Wildlife Branch in the past has not received

adequate tools to do their job. They have been understaffed,

overworked and frustrated. The conservation officers and others

of that branch have been more than dedicated to put up with

what they had to in the past.

Mr. Speaker, it's quite enlightening to notice that in 1966,

there were 75 conservation officers employed by that branch.

Last year the amount dropped down to 68 conservation officers.

Lo and behold, we find that the amount of resident licenses

sold in 1966 were 134,000 and last year they went up to

somewhere in the neighbourhood of 155,000. So, with the

increase of hunters we had a decrease of conservation officers.

The number of licensed hunters has more than doubled since

1950, rising from 68,000 at that time to 154,000 today.

We have an area, they call it region seven, eight and nine.

If you drew a straight line across from Quesnel, Valemount

right out to the coast, this would make up region seven, eight

and nine. In that area there are 260,000 square miles; and 13

conservation officers are supposed to handle that area. This is

joke, Mr. Speaker. It's a joke.

In the past the abundance of our wildlife was taken for granted. The

abundance that we once had is not now visible. Management over wildlife

has been

[ Page 543 ]

confined largely to attempts to manipulate

the size of harvest

by manipulating bag limits and the closure of certain areas.

Hunters and fishermen are concerned about the quality of

hunting in B.C. In a survey taken, 78,000 hunters and fishermen

in B.C. felt that hunting and fishing quality was declining

rapidly in B.C. Some of the reasons given, Mr. Speaker, were

that there was a great increase of hunters, which I just

mentioned, and fishermen. An increase of hunters and a decrease

of game can only lead to one thing, and that is the lack of

quality.

Poor land use was another area which was given for declining

hunting. We have the situation in the lower mainland of the

urban sprawl. Not too long ago we could hunt for pheasant and

ducks and other species in the lower mainland without any

trouble. But because of urban sprawl we now find ourselves, and

myself included, going to provinces like Alberta to hunt for

pheasants and other upland game birds. I would like to say, Mr.

Speaker, at this time, that the majority of sportsmen of B.C.

are extremely happy with the Agricultural

Land Use Act ,

especially those sportsmen who have hunted and are presently

hunting in the lower mainland.

The future looks bright because of the land use programme,

Mr. Speaker. A programme is now underway by which the farmers

in the lower mainland and the Fraser Valley will use their land

for pheasants and other game purposes. A programme is underway

where clubs can be formed and hunters can be allowed on the

property under the guidance of the farmer. The farmer is only

too happy to have this happen. In many instances the farmer

will derive some extra benefits and money from this

programme.

It's also mentioned, Mr. Speaker, that the sportsmen of the

lower mainland would like to see a pheasant hatchery come into

being in the lower mainland. I think this is possible now that

we know that most of the land will be saved for agricultural

purposes. When we're talking about hatcheries, Mr. Speaker, I

think it's sad that we should talk about artificial means of

producing our game and wildlife.

Hatcheries are a last resort. I think they're an admission

of defeat, really. It's a shame that we have to go to these

ends to bring back some of the species that are

disappearing.

Also, Mr. Speaker, opening of access is another problem. We

have more roads in B.C. We have more availability to go into a

lot of these areas and get into herds that we've never been

able to reach before. Poor management, as I've mentioned

before, is another lack of concern. This really revolves around

the area of lack of funds and concern by governments in this

area.

Habitat is the key to the survival of wildlife. Far more

animals and birds have been destroyed through the loss of

living space than hunters will ever take. Moose, deer, elk and other

animals are particularly reliant

upon wintering areas that are critical to their survival. These

areas are usually not too extensive but in many instances have

been denied use by wildlife because of man's intrusion with

industry, settlement, grazing and other incompatible uses. It

is for these reasons, Mr. Speaker, that legislation is required

to ensure that any developer, whether it be a Crown corporation

or a private agency, who intends to change or transform the

environment to any significant degree must fund studies to

prove or disprove the net benefit to the environment of a

proposed development.

If we wish to retain wildlife and other natural values

throughout our province, we must integrate the management with

the development of our other resources. The rights of wildlife

with equal status to other resources should be recognized.

Wildlife management requires a great output of public funds. In

contrast to other common property resources, wildlife receives

virtually no contributions towards its management from the

private economic sector. The contributions of licence fees, tag

fees, et cetera, are not sufficient in themselves to maintain

the resource, even though hunters and fishermen would pay more

if guaranteed that their money would be returned to wildlife

management.

A study was done on this, Mr. Speaker. Most hunters — I think it was

in the area of 78 per cent — indicated they

would be in favour of paying more for a general hunting licence

if the money were spent on game management. At the present

time, a general hunting licence is $4. In this survey that was

taken, they asked many hunters what they would be willing to

pay to hunt certain species. When all those amounts were added

up, Mr. Speaker, it came to $14.5 million. This shows, Mr.

Speaker, that the hunters and fishermen of B.C. are willing to

pay more for their resource.

Non-hunters or other citizens who desire to retain

wildlife as a part of the B.C. landscape must and should be

prepared to contribute to its upkeep out of general taxation,

just as we all contribute to the upkeep and management of

highways, hospitals, parks, schools and other things of general

social benefit.