[ Page 501 ]

FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 1970

The House met at 2 p.m.

BUDGET ADDRESS

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

MR. B.A. CLARK (North Vancouver–Seymour): It is again a privilege for me to take my place in the Budget debate, and this year to be the concluding speaker for our group in this House to comment on the Budget.

I wish, first of all, to comment on some of the things that have been mentioned during the course of the debate as it has gone its two weeks. Particularly I would like to acknowledge the contribution yesterday of the second member from Vancouver South for her addition to our list of words which we must now use with discretion in this House, but sincerely, I would like to thank her for providing a very light-hearted interval to the proceedings, and I think it probably did us all a lot of good. (applause) Having said that Mr. Speaker, I enter with some trepidation into my first subject.

When I spoke in the earlier debate, I raised a topic of considerable concern to a lot of the people in this Province, and that is the topic of the termination of pregnancy, or abortion, and sterilization, and whether or not people in the Province were receiving adequate information pertaining to this, and adequate service. I wish to mention this again because I would like to try and make a point with the House in regard to this, and some other subjects that have come up for discussion in this debate.

Quite often, Mr. Speaker, we can have total agreement from all parties on a subject, but at the same time, because of party differences we are inclined to take sides. I think this is one of the unfortunate aspects of this Assembly and any other democratic Assembly, because when we are in unity I wish we could speak with unity and no party lines at all, and I think on this subject we are in unity. I was very impressed with what the Minister of Health had to say on the topic of abortions yesterday, and he certainly has my support in any effort that he makes to liberalize these laws. He suggested that he thought there was a way that the legal minds of this country could draft legislation so that it was far better than it is now.

The next point, I think, that I would like to make in regard to this subject, and I make no apologies for raising the topic again, is that as the Minister of Health has stated his point of view and issued a warning to the doctors of this Province. I would hope that the Attorney-General perhaps later in this debate, as he concludes debate, would also offer his comment, because it seems to me it would be a pity if any doctor was — perhaps frightened is not the right word but prevented by fear of prosecution from providing what information he knows to his patients on this subject. I would hope that the Attorney-General might be able to choose his words very carefully, and I appreciate his position. I've had some discussion with various lawyers in this House and I get all tangled up in their legal interpretations, but nonetheless I don't particularly care about the problems you may have in drafting the legislation, I don't think that's the point. It's the people who are faced with this problem we have to consider.

I have received many letters, I think as members in this House can appreciate, since my last speech. I mentioned that I received as many as a dozen pleas for assistance before I ever raised the topic in the House. I would just like to read two paragraphs from one. I obviously won't mention the name of the writer, but this is the type of person I am talking about and this is the type of problem. "Mr. Clark, I am now 25 years old, my husband is 30, we have four children, the oldest is six, the youngest are twins eight months old. My husband is unemployed with a Grade 9 education, and a history of nervous disorders. I am now two months pregnant, and desperate. My husband knows, and I know, Mr. Clark, that physically, mentally and financially we cannot handle any more children. Our own family doctor will not help us. My husband was to have had a vasectomy after the twins were born, but because of other illnesses, put it off. Now, as a result, our whole family must pay for this in ways too numerous to mention." This is a typical example and, of course, I had to write the lady back and say there was nothing I could really suggest. Obviously they were not in a financial position to go to any country where this is legal.

I agree with the Minister of Health who said yesterday we must face this problem with understanding, with patience, with consideration, and a great deal of sympathy, and I would hope that we won't let the debates of this House on this subject end now. It seems to me there is an answer, and I bow to the Minister of Health's greater knowledge of the law, but it seems to me the answer is to just simply remove abortions from the Criminal Code. I see no reason why there should be any more restriction regarding this operation than any other operation. I'm perfectly content to leave matters of this sort, the matter of judgment between doctor and patient, and I think this is the only area in which I disagree with the Minister without Portfolio from North Okanagan, and perhaps we don't even disagree on that. But it seems to me that as with any other operation, this is a personal matter between a patient, a doctor and, if the situation warrants, their God, and I'm prepared to leave it there. So I would hope that you won't let it end there, that's all I'm asking. I certainly pledge you my support, and I think I can pledge you the support of all members in our caucus, and anything we can do, gladly.

Turning to another subject that has been discussed in this debate, Mr. Speaker, again raised by the lady Cabinet Minister from North Okanagan, the subject of broadcasting. I sometimes think, though, that the members in this House should avoid discussing subjects pertaining to their own profession, because quite often we can be so close that we don't get an over-all view of what is happening. With having said that, though, I would like to comment on what the Minister said, and you can take it for what it's worth as a broadcaster. The Minister objected to recent Radio and Television Commission decisions to restrict rebroadcasting of American television on Canadian cable, and in that regard I completely support what the Minister had to say. I believe that the actions of the Canadian Radio and Television Commission in this regard come very close to censorship, and I think we should protest them vigorously.

On the other hand, I do not agree with what the Minister said regarding the C.B.C. and, although I am a private broadcaster, I have worked for the C.B.C. on a free lance basis, and happen to believe that in certain areas of broadcasting, the C.B.C. is superb and unbeatable. This is acknowledged by my profession on both sides of the border The tragedy that has occurred in Canada, in my opinion, is that the C.B.C. has tried to become all things to all listeners, and that is impossible for any broadcast media, be it private or public.

Now recently the Canadian Radio and Television Com-

[ Page 502 ]

mission has issued new standards for both radio and television. Their goals are admirable but again, in my opinion, their means are illogical. The Commission has ruled that a greater percentage of our broadcasting shall be done by Canadians or shall include Canadian music or Canadian talent. We now have before us two rulings, therefore, of the Canadian Radio and Television Commission. One regarding cablevision, and one regarding Canadian content, both of which are designed to foster Canadian talent for Canadian culture, and with that, who can disagree. I certainly agree with the objects of these moves but, Mr. Speaker, to suggest that by legislation or regulation we can make Canadians the best in every field of the performing arts is just ludicrous.

There are some areas in United States broadcasting where we have no hope of competing, nor should we try, because we can contribute to their broadcasting. But.to better the American talent in a variety show, with the backing of the financial resources of the American sponsors, is literally impossible. It was tried in Canada and failed miserably, and in that regard I feel that Canadian talent should be encouraged to partake in the American shows, but to suggest that we can come up with our own Ed Sullivan, I think is crazy. Bad choice? Sorry about that.

On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, let me name some fields of entertainment where any American producer will tell you that Canada is far and away ahead. I refer specifically to televised music programmes such as ballet, symphony, opera or operettas. I refer to public affairs programming, I refer to ethnic programming, and perhaps most important of all, the documentary. Any qualified American producer will take off his hat in those fields to Canadian television any time you ask him. I have met in my career a number of American producers that go so far as to hire Canadian television cameramen whenever they are producing a television special, because of the superior skill of the Canadian television craftsman. These are fields that I feel we should support, we should foster them.

We should also, of course; make it possible for Canadians with any specific talent, to develop their talent, but to suggest that by legislation we can make ourselves number one in every field of arts, I just can't buy. That's my only comment on the lady Minister's remarks and I think, really, we agree again.

Now, again, before moving to specific Budget issues, Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the House for the third time, that this is the third year now that I have been off the weed. (applause)

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

MR. CLARK: If that is not considered particularly significant by some, I think more significant is that I repeat my request for this House — and I say this, too as a broadcaster — to ban cigarette advertising. Ban it from radio, from television, from billboards, from newspapers, from magazines. Ban it by any means that encourages young people to take up this habit. So I serve notice to the member from Columbia, Mr. Speaker, that if he wishes to re-introduce his Bill of last year, I will be happy to support it. Those are the nice things, Mr. Speaker. I've reached the hot water section.

There have been other things said during the course of the debate that have bothered me and with which I certainly cannot agree. The first of those involves the subject in which I have been a listener for now some three years. I have not participated in any debates relating to Commonwealth Trust, but with other members of this House, I have sat and listened. Yesterday I heard the Minister of Health, after he made the good part of his speech, somehow try to justify the actions of this Government by blaming it all on the Federal Insurance side of Trust Company operations. I have heard some illogical things in this House, but that one really takes the cake. But what bothered me even more, Mr. Speaker, was to have the Minister's remarks roundly applauded by all the members of the Government because if one thing has been clear in three years of this debate, it is the fact that there are thousands of British Columbia citizens who were sucked into this operation and have lost their life-time savings. Under the supervision of this Government — no one else is to blame. In my opinion, it's like knowing there was typhoid on the Oriana, and you invited people to come aboard.

I've said many times I'm not a lawyer, but I think I am capable of sitting here and judging the debates and knowing when something is just not right,. and if ever there was something that was not right in this Province, it is the Commonwealth debacle, and the fact that members of the Government can applaud a statement like we heard yesterday from the Minister of Health. Again I acknowledge the Minister of Health's far superior knowledge of the law and, Mr. Speaker, through you, I ask him, if he has any real respect for the law, then speak up in Cabinet for the right of all those people who have been injured by the action of this Government so that they may sue this Government in the Courts of the Province.

If there has been one subject that has been mentioned most often in this debate, Mr. Speaker, I think we would all agree it is that of pollution.

AN HON. MEMBER: Bolt has been used.

MR. CLARK: No, I think that pollution has even outdone that one, Mr. Minister, and that is good, too. The Budget states on the question of environmental control — I told you we were going to have to deal with that word very, very carefully from now on (laughter). The Budget states, on the question of environmental control, that the protection of our environment is of great importance both for this and future generations, and who can argue with that statement? The Budget states further that, "The enforcement of sanitary and air and water quality standards by the Health and Pollution Control Branches of the Provincial Government Service is safeguarding the quality of our environment, and these activities will be intensified, as I indicated earlier," quoting from the Budget.

Well, you've been indicating over and over and over again that you were going to do something about pollution control. When is it going to happen, because there is no indication of it in the Budget. It takes more than words. Where is the action? Even members in your own backbenches have joined with members on this side of the House in asking for a Ministry and a Department of Environmental Control. It is quite clear to me, Mr. Speaker, that in the Treasury benches there is no co-ordination on the matter of pollution, and in fact there is no real understanding of the problem.

I don't want to pick just on the Minister of Health, but yesterday the Minister of Health somehow attempted to blame the Federal Government, I think to be more specific the Liberals, for any pollution that might be caused by Neptune Terminals that are located in my riding, the bulk loading terminals that soon will be loading coal. I think what

[ Page 503 ]

the Minister said was that the Liberals were responsible, and we now know just how badly the people were led down the garden path. Well, of course, the Minister didn't even have his timing straight, Mr. Speaker, because it was long after Neptune Coal was a fact that the people in North Vancouver elected not one, not two, but three Liberals back into this House.

The Minister obviously had no consultation with the Minister of Municipal Affairs or his department, and we have here a beautiful example, as I tried to illustrate in the Throne Speech debate, of what lack of co-ordination can do. Because during the fight in North Vancouver to prevent Neptune Coal from coming into the community, or at least prevent Neptune Terminals from undertaking a coal contract, the Department of Municipal Affairs was in touch with the City of North Vancouver. If you look at the North Vancouver Citizen, July 16th of last year, you will find a letter from the Assistant Deputy Minister of Municipal Affairs and I quote, "We do not intend to become involved. As you are well aware the powers of zoning, re-zoning, and regulation of building is a matter entirely within the jurisdiction of the Council which judges cases on their merits and acts accordingly. It is my understanding that the Council has dealt with the question involving Neptune Terminal facilities, and as far as the Department is concerned, that is the end of the matter." Where is Provincial leadership on pollution control in that letter?

But of course it is to be understood, because the point we have been trying to make in this debate is that a single department of Environmental Control would not see such a situation existing where one Minister is saying, "Oh, it's the Federal responsibility," and another Minister is saying, "It's the civic responsibility." You don't talk to each other, and in the meantime who is left with the coal and the coal dust, the people.

But of course it's not unusual for this Government, Mr. Speaker, to be in trouble in my particular riding, but with the newspaper situation in Vancouver these days, the North Shore Citizen, that well-known newspaper, not really too much in favour of Liberals, has been publishing daily, and an issue of the North Shore Citizen is on the streets today that has a very interesting headline, also on the subject of pollution. The headline of the North Shore Citizen today is, "Socred engineer qualities for $250,000 prize."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh ….

MR. CLARK: Headline, North Shore Citizen today. "Peter Robinson, former Social Credit candidate in North Vancouver–Capilano, is the man who is quoted, and Mr. Robinson says that the matter of control of smell from pulp mills has been under investigation for some time, that he has a process which is successful, that the Premier knows about it, that it has been sent to the B.C. Research Council, and they confirm …. can I help you pass a message? …. and they confirm that the process is practical. What does Mr. Peter Robinson say about the $250,000 prize?

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh ….

MR. CLARK: That's not me, that's the former Social Credit candidate in North Vancouver–Capilano, and what does he say further, Mr. Speaker, and I quote, "it puts me in a hell of a position for a Socred."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh ….

MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member cannot use such language in the House, even though he is quoting someone else. He cannot do indirectly what he cannot do directly.

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

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

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

So as I say, Mr. Speaker, it is not unusual for this Government to be in trouble when it comes to pollution in North Vancouver, and as far as the Budget is concerned, there is nothing there that gives me any indication that we are going to see real action to cope with this problem.

The Budget states, Mr. Speaker, that the "Provincial Government policy over a number of years now has recognized the growing needs of the local governments, and generous financial assistance has been provided." Another quote from the Budget. What are the facts in regard to this statement? Well, lovely graphs are included in the Budget document. They all demonstrate to all sorts of things. One thing they demonstrate was indicated by my friend, one of the members from Burnaby, when he said that really what these graphs illustrate is that in some instances Vancouver City has a bigger apple than Winnipeg's orange, and that's really what they do indicate. Such comparisons as shown in the Budget in regard to municipal financing are completely meaningless.

The fact is that the cost of servicing people in the municipalities of British Columbia has been increasing every year. The member from Cowichan-Malahat touched on this earlier in the debate, and I would like to bring up to date some statistics I read to the House every year about the cost of servicing people in one riding, North Vancouver District. Incidentally, this is a very easy procedure for any member to go through, Mr. Speaker, and if you wish to find out what is happening in your own municipality it's a very simple set of statistics to keep and compare. You simply ask your municipal treasurer to separate from his budget the cost of servicing people, and deduct from it any Government grants, and then the result can be compared from year to year. There are a couple of — more than a couple — a number of municipal elected officials in the House in this Session who can confirm how this is done.

Take one figure, the subject of health. Again, one municipality. Go back to 1962 and the cost of health services in North Vancouver was $34,000. In 1967 it had jumped to $66,000. In 1968 it was up to $83,000. In education the story is even more dramatic. In 1962 the costs — now these are municipal costs, Mr. Speaker, I'm not talking about total cost — strictly the cost being applied to land. In 1962 the costs of education in North Vancouver District was $1,759,000. In 1967, $3,693,000. In 1968, $4,460,000. In 1969, $5,127,000. And the story goes on and on, for every people's service in the municipality.

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

[ Page 504 ]

capita costs of these services in your municipality. How much does it cost on a per capita basis to provide the services to people that are paid for from property taxes after all Government grants, home-owner grants, everything have been subtracted. Again, to use my own riding, in 1963 the cost per capita was $47. In 1968, $79. In 1969, $91, and in 1970, $101.29. Mr. Speaker, there is your tax increase. It's been there every year, and for the Premier or the Minister of Finance to say in his Budget there is no tax increase in British Columbia is ridiculous. There has been a tax increase, doubled on a per capita basis since 1963.

There has been discussion in this debate, Mr. Speaker, on housing. Many of the Government speakers, including Ministers, have praised the efforts of the Government in the field of housing. Again, what are the facts, and despite the glowing phrases from the lady Minister without Portfolio from Vancouver-Little Mountain, the facts are simply this, Mr. Speaker, that despite anything you've said or despite anything in the Budget, there are thousands and thousands of British Columbia citizens who can't afford to buy a home. That's the relevant fact, that's the only important thing. Until you've satisfied the need for housing you've failed — so don't give us excuses.

There are still acres and acres of municipally-owned land that is undeveloped in British Columbia in heavy population centres, simply because your Government hasn't provided the funds to put in services. Acres and acres of it. And, Mr. Speaker, when it comes to housing, in the opinion of this member, as long as there is one municipally-owned lot that is not developed because of lack of funds, then this Government has failed.

It has amused me, Mr. Speaker, to hear in the debate some members praise new school developments in their ridings. It has amused me because the so-called new developments that we have heard praise for, and they deserve praise, are the result of the experiments that took place many years ago in the lighthouse or keystone school districts in this Province. These are the results of hard-working school trustees that you, Mr. Minister, may consider to be baloney, but I don't. Hard-working school trustees who have devoted their time and efforts in research to coming up with new and better education programmes.

What is tragic, Mr. Speaker, is that these lighthouse or keystone school districts are the ones that once again are facing gigantic overages in their budgets. North Vancouver school district, three quarters of a million dollars. In West Vancouver school district even more, and yet I have heard members stand up and praise school developments which specifically were the result of work done in school districts such as this.

My own school district, Mr. Speaker, has been progressive, and I am proud of that and the whole Province should be proud of school districts that are progressive. But when school boards and school trustees are told that their entry into fields of experiment are going to be paid 100 per cent by local property taxes, that's a backward step and this Government has certainly taken that step every year.

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

MR. CLARK: Again, Mr. Speaker, I point out that despite anything that's said over there, or despite anything that's said in the Budget, there is really only one fact when it comes to education that is relevant today. Despite all the denials of a school classroom freeze, the fact of the matter is that as the chilly winds blow around such municipalities as Coquitlam, the mothers know their children are on shift classes. So, you can print all the fine phrases about education you want, the fact of the matter is there are children on shifts in British Columbia. There are classroom shortages. There are school construction by-laws being held up. You call it whatever you want, Mr. Speaker. I call it plain and simply school construction freeze, and there is nothing in the Budget I can see to correct it.

There are improvements forecast in the Department of Social Welfare, Mr. Speaker, in the Budget, and I wish to acknowledge some of them. Most important of these is the $5 per capita increase in welfare grants, 20 per cent of which will be paid for by the municipalities. So, it's a $4 increase from the Provincial Government and $1 from the municipalities.

But I fail to see anything in the Budget that is designed to tackle some of the real problems of welfare in the Province. What are the real problems? An over-simplification. Yes, Mr. Speaker, but the real problem is there are too many people on welfare and there are too few social welfare workers, and the only hope in social welfare generally is to make it possible for a person-to-person relationship, so that these people can be given more help than just money.

I heard the Minister's new plans for his Department and I see nothing in them that really encourages me but, more important, I see nothing in the Budget to make it possible for the Minister to carry out any of the things that he said he wished to do. I appreciate the Minister is busy talking to his colleague, however, while that continues I would still like to point out that I see nothing in this Budget, Mr. Speaker, that will assist people like this. A woman in my constituency who is facing a broken marriage but determined to support her three children, she returned to university and on her savings has completed all but two months of her B. A. degree. Reaching that stage, two months to go to graduation, she was up against it financially and went to the social welfare office and was told, No, she wasn't eligible for welfare for two months. That's the sort of thing. Because she appears in Column A, subsection B, she is not eligible for social welfare, yet if ever there was a woman we wanted to help surely it's the woman who has gone out to educate herself so she can support her family. Ironically, she has applied for entrance to Simon Fraser Social Welfare Faculty, and I wish her well. I see nothing in the Budget that is going to help out the situation like this one. I don't necessarily blame the Minister directly for this, Mr. Speaker, but certainly his Department.

Here's a story of real disappointment, the Provincial Businessmen's Alliance which that Minister has been responsible for. Now I appreciate the Minister has been busy on radio stations such as the one I work for, relating all the job opportunities of Canada Manpower, but Mr. Speaker, this story is a 19-year old boy who has been in trouble with the law over and over again, whose parents, in an act of desperation, finally turned him over to the police when they discovered stolen property in his bedroom. That boy appeared before the Courts of this Province, and the Courts in their wisdom determined the best thing they could offer that boy was Haney. He was sent to Haney, where he received some encouragement to apply for a job to get back on his feet to earn a bit of money so he could complete his education. He didn't know where to start, but he'd heard about the Minister's Provincial Businessmen's Alliance, and so he wrote that Alliance. You know what happened, Mr.

[ Page 505 ]

Speaker? They didn't even answer his letter. They didn't even answer his letter, and when he came out of Haney, we found him a job, Mr. Minister, I found him a job.

AN HON. MEMBER: Give me the name.

MR. CLARK: Outside this House I'll give you the full story and names, yes. I'm surprised you don't know, because you received a letter from the mother, too, and so did the Attorney-General.

AN HON. MEMBER: Give the names.

MR. CLARK: I said, Mr. Speaker, that I would give the Minister the names outside this House. I'm not about to embarrass the parents …. (loud noise and Interjections) …. Just calm down, the Minister can check in his files, too, if he's in a hurry ….

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

MR. CLARK: I haven't got the letter with me, Mr. Minister, I have it in my files in my apartment if you would like it. It's a copy of a letter sent to the Minister of, yourself, and to the Minister of, the Attorney-General, pardon me. As a matter of fact, three letters, Mr. Speaker. But that's not the point, the point is you didn't even reply….

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

HON. P.A. GAGLARDI: The point of order, Mr. Speaker — it is the point. I'm being accused of something that I am not guilty of, and I want to have that name!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh ….

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! I'm sure the matter can be resolved elsewhere but in this Chamber. There may be a confidential nature to the name of this individual and it can be passed on later, but I think that the member has a responsibility to pass the name along to the Minister.

MR. CLARK: I will, Mr. Speaker, and I'll be happy to withdraw the accusation of no reply if the Minister can prove to me that their letter was in fact replied to.

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

MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, I think, too, in this Department, of an aging grandmother who phoned me in tears one day because she could not get any help from this same Department for her grandson who has been disowned by his parents, and the confusion of trying to straighten this out in the red tape of the Social Welfare Department. I mention specific examples to only illustrate what happens in one riding, and is there any member in this House who has not had countless similar situations drawn to their attention, that are not solved, in my opinion, by any estimates in this Budget.

Mr. Speaker, the Budget states that the new name for the Social Welfare Department, namely that of the Department of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement, is a designation more reflective of the Government's philosophy of assisting those of the population who are disadvantaged. And there are certain specific benefits outlined here, as I've already mentioned. But I would like to deal for a moment with those relating to our senior citizens. Because, Mr. Speaker, despite all the changes announced in the Budget, the senior citizens of this Province will remain disadvantaged. There is no guarantee, no suggestion in the Budget for provision of chronic care. Senior citizens will again face the horrible and outlandish costs of private nursing homes that quickly will eliminate any savings that they may have.

I think of another woman in my riding who is watching her husband die alone with her in their home at this moment. The doctors have given the gentleman anywhere from three days to a month to live. He's not dying of any particular disease, other than old age, but the husband in this case is still able to converse with some clarity to his wife and he extracted from his wife a promise that she would not put him in a nursing home, so that when he died and as he died, he knew that what estate he had left, as small as it was, would remain for her care. Can anyone blame him for such a wish? So the situation is that this elderly lady in my riding is caring for her husband in his last days, although she is ill-equipped to do so, and the emotional strain, I am sure you can appreciate in this House, is almost unbearable. And, Mr. Speaker, as you look at the glowing phrases again in this Budget, is this the grand society of the 70's that we promised the senior citizens? A society that is still not prepared to accept its responsibilities in a situation like I have just described. What of those of our senior citizens that are still relying on fixed pension income? The Budget doesn't make any mention here of — it does make mention of certain increases that will apply only to those who are eligible.

Mr. Speaker, I have another budget to lay before the House. There's been two already. The Minister of Finance's, my colleague the leader of the Liberal party, I would like to table another budget, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh…. no….

MR. CLARK: That's right. I give you the Budget of Nellie Walsh. Nellie Walsh is not the most unfortunate senior citizen in my riding, Mr. Speaker, she lives in the Kiwams Senior Citizens' home. Here's her budget. She's lucky enough to be spending as little as $36 a month for her accommodation. Rent — $36; Food for a month for a maximum of $45; light — $5; telephone — $5.15; payment on her television set — $10; bus pass — $10 yearly; entertainment — $5, which includes her monthly subscription to a Senior Citizens' organization in the area; the Sun Newspaper when it's published — $2.50; hair-dresser — $2. What does it leave, Mr. Speaker? For clothes, for shoes, for any little extras — about $6 a month.

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

MR. CLARK: No, she doesn't have a family. I have several more budgets, Mr. Speaker — I could read them all. They are all the residents of one of the Senior Citizens' Homes in my riding, and they are all the same. Would anyone here want to live on that budget? What's more important — the Minister of Finance's Budget or Nellie Walsh's budget? Mr. Speaker, it is not printed on fine paper and it's not in colour, there are no pictures, there's no grass, and there's no charts, but I can assure you that the budget I just read is more important to Nellie Walsh than anything else in the world. She's got to live within it, and I see nothing in this Budget that we are discussing today that is going to be of

[ Page 506 ]

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

I see the Minister of Health is not in his seat, Mr. Speaker. I wish to deal with the matter of retarded children. He mentioned retarded children yesterday. I wonder if there is anything hidden in the Budget that I couldn't find, to deal with situations like this, and these too can be repeated countless times in the Province. I had occasion to run afoul this past year of the efficiency of that Minister's department. The case, specifically, saw two parents who were facing the common problem, namely of having their retarded child on the waiting list for Woodlands School. The family in question had reached the point where it was virtually impossible to continue providing for the child in their own home. Mother had reached the point of desperation, this is the common story, and at this stage she approached two people, myself and my colleague, Jack Webster. She received the advice that as her child was in hospital at this time with a skin infection, that she should refuse to take him home. This was upsetting to her and her husband, as you can appreciate, but that's the action she took.

The parents were immediately in conflict with the hospital administration, but the family persisted, and some days later the Health Minister was a guest on a talk programme. The mother called in and told him what she had done, and she received the advice from the Minister that she should desert her child in the hospital, that he would do the same thing, and that he sympathized with her and he would look after the matter. The mother was greatly relieved and I think we can all appreciate that, greatly relieved, until she learned many days later nothing had been done. The hospital administration were still demanding that she remove the child — no-one in the Health Department had contacted the hospital. Merely words on a talk programme. The hospital obviously refused to accept the assurance of the mother that the Minister of Health had told her he would look after her child, the family doctor became involved in the middle, and tension increased all around.

The mother attempted to contact the Minister of Health to confirm what he had told her on the radio, without success. The situation stayed that way, Mr. Speaker, for many weeks, but I am happy to report that the child eventually was transferred to Woodlands at the pressure and instigation, I am sure, of the hospital authorities who admittedly had an awkward situation on their hands. What's wrong with that is that a mother shouldn't have to go through that in order to get a retarded child in a hospital in this Province in these glowing days of the 70's…. Are we really supporting a society where you have to phone a radio programme to get your child into hospital?

AN HON. MEMBER: You didn't help.

MR. CLARK: The child's in Woodlands.

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

MR. CLARK: Well, that's a matter of opinion. I am prepared to accept your criticism if I did wrong. I would say that the child is in Woodlands.

The Budget indicates that a short step is being taken to solve this problem, but it's not the big giant stride that's necessary, Mr. Speaker.

There has been discussion in this debate involving recreation and conservation involving Skagit Valley, involving Cypress Bowl, and I wish I could report, Mr. Speaker, that there was something here in this document that indicated we were going to get some kind of recreation plan with a real recreation budget, but I don't see it.

In my own riding, of Mt. Seymour, after so many years still has to have the worst road in the Province, although I can appreciate that might be debated by some of the members in the House. But with 10,000 a weekend, a day, going up there, the road is in deplorable shape, but there is still hope, Mr. Speaker. There are a couple of lakes up in Mt. Seymour and maybe the Minister could arrange to sell them.

Mr. Speaker, page 7 of the Budget says the Government's first policy in this new decade is for people, to make sure increased funds are available for people in education, health, hospitals, medical care, social services and urban growth. If I were voting for words, Mr. Speaker, words such as that, I could perhaps support this motion that we are debating. But it's when you get into the details of the Budget and the dollars that are actually assigned to accomplish what these words say, that you realize they are merely words. Mr. Speaker, I therefore cannot support this Budget, although I appreciate the attention of this House in listening to my point of view.

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

MR. R.A. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to welcome the special representatives we have in the gallery this afternoon from the forest lobby of British Columbia. I would like to welcome the vice-president of MacMillan Bloedel who, I understand, is in the gallery, and I am pleased that they have seen fit to send a representative here. Because it may be that the honourable gentlemen will be hearing a point of view that they don't normally hear on the 28th floor of the executive suite on Georgia in downtown Vancouver …. Anything I have to say about MacMillan Bloedel I'll be glad to say outside the House at any time.

You know, I can't help but think, Mr. Speaker, looking at the long display of backbenchers on the Socred side and the significant majority they have, I can't help but think about Aneurin Bevan's comment in the British House, when he looked over at the Tories. Looking over at the Tories in this House, I can't help but think it is much the same. He said it reminds him of Woolworth's — everything in its place and nothing really worth more than 15 cents, but I won't pursue that.

In my last speech during the Throne Debate, Mr. Speaker, I talked about privilege. I think privilege is what we should be talking about in this House. I started out talking about Cypress Bowl, and the non-performance by the developers in Cypress Bowl, the ruination of the Bowl, and especially the loss of public values. I discussed the forest industry to some extent, Mr. Speaker, and the loss of public values in the forest industry, and how the public is losing a great deal. I think I suggested that by losing the public values in this industry, by losing these great pools of revenue, that are rightfully ours in this Province, that we attract problems. That the Government by doing so, the Government by not tapping its own revenues, is creating its own problems, problems with influence peddlars on the edge of Government. I think the problem, Mr. Speaker, is that we sometimes get diverted from the main issue — the influence peddlars themselves become interesting to us and we sometimes concentrate too much on them rather than on the cause of the problem, and the cause of the problem is the giving away

[ Page 507 ]

of public assets.

I think Lincoln Steffens, who was one of the great early journalists of the United States, a man who was known as a muck-raker, a term that I don't find distasteful at all.

AN HON. MEMBER: You wouldn't.

MR. WILLIAMS: No, I wouldn't. These were the great early journalists of North American that shed light on what was going on behind the scenes in government in association with the robber barons at the turn of the century.

Mr. Steffens wrote a book. He wrote several, but one of them was called, "The Shame of the Cities," and he talked about corruption at the civic level in governments across the United States. This was the time of the boss mayor era in the United States. At any rate, at a meeting in Los Angeles, Mr. Steffens was discussing this, and a minister at the meeting said, "Well, Mr. Steffens, what's the root cause of corruption in our society, in our communities, and in our state government?" So the root cause that Mr. Steffens dealt with the minister, he said, "I guess you want to go right back then, do you?" The minister said, "Yes", and Steffens said, "Well, you know some people say the root cause was the serpent, some people say the root cause was Adam, some say that it was Eve, but I say, I say that it was the apple." That's the problem in our society, Mr. Speaker, — the apple, because the value of our public resources is being dissipated in this Province on a scandalous scale.

If those revenues don't end up in the public purse then the problems of conflict of interest continue to develop within our society, and if the Government faced this one issue, Mr. Speaker, then these kind of problems would simply disappear, but the question that has to be asked is does this Government really want them to disappear? Does this Government want them to disappear?

I don't intend to deal with the liquor industry today, Mr. Speaker, which is an obvious huge area of privilege in this Province. I don't intend to deal with the horse-racing industry, which is also a huge area of privilege in this Province. But the substantial areas of privilege that continue to exist, exist in our basic industry — the forest industry of British Columbia. The forest industry is half of our economy.

It has consistently been so for decades. For the general public, at least, the elements of privilege in the forest industry are somewhat obscure, but the fact is this is where the areas of greatest privilege reside in British Columbia. And it's not surprising, Mr. Speaker, that the forest king of British Columbia, Mr. Clyne, should be disturbed by even a general discussion of these issues.

In my last speech, Mr. Speaker, I stated that Cypress Bowl was a classic case of mismanagement at the hands of the Minister of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources, and we in the lower mainland realize that to a great extent. I think the general public did, because Cypress Bowl is immediate and relevant to all of the people in the lower mainland, and we found in Cypress Bowl that the Minister traded for $10,000 a public asset worth a million dollars.

But comparable in every way though, Mr. Speaker, are the deals that are constantly going over the Minister's desk with respect to the timber industry in British Columbia, and I suggest, Mr. Speaker, the most costly Minister, the most costly Minister in the history of British Columbia is the Minister of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources. I suggest that the losses that the public has suffered at the hands of this Government and Minister are the gains that Mr. Benguet and those interests are receiving. The losses to the public are he gains to MacMillan Bloedel and the man in charge of MacMillan Bloedel. The losses to the public are the gains to Crown Zellerbach, Canadian Forest Products, B.C. Forest Products, and the rest.

Let's first just look at the one element, stumpage rates, with respect to the public's trees in British Columbia, Mr. Speaker. As a guide, I think it's fair to look at the industry in the northwest of the United States. It's a comparable forest resource in Oregon and Washington, comparable to the southwestern part of British Columbia. The Federal Government manages the public forests basically in northwestern United States, Mr. Speaker, and the Bureau of Land Management in the Department of the Interior of the Federal Government down there, I think, manages the forests probably better than any public agency in North America today.

What kind of prices, Mr. Speaker, were they getting for public trees in northwestern United States during the great peak of last winter? The kinds of prices they were getting in northwestern United States ranged — in February the average bid for fir in the northwest was from $93 to $110 a thousand in Oregon and Washington. Now that was at the peak, Mr. Speaker. What's happened since then? The latest figures we have in B.C. are for last November, that is, that are available. What were the figures in the United States in November, Mr. Speaker? The figure for fir, for all species in fact, was $57 per thousand. That was the average figure in the northwest. Let's compare it with some of the sales, Mr. Speaker, in the Vancouver Forest District, which is the richest forest resource in British Columbia. Fir in one sale in the lower mainland area — $5.80 per thousand. That's compared to the average in November for all species, not just fir, in the U.S. of $57. $5.80. The figures vary, Mr. Speaker, but it's clear — it's clear that the difference is very substantial. The average figures in British Columbia are totalled at the end.

It's clear that the public is not getting what the public in the United States is getting, and the irony is that we are competing in exactly the same markets, so that the problem of raising royalties and stumpage in British Columbia is not one that will necessarily affect our markets, so long as people with the same resource south of the line are competing in the same markets and getting a fair return for the public's resource.

I think, Mr. Speaker; the fact that we really don't have effective competition for the public's resource in the industry is the root of the problem. You can look through the Forest Service Report for a month and look at the number of bids where there's been no competition. You thumb through — no competition, no competition, no competition, no competition, — the whole page, no competition for the timber sale, and that's pretty well consistently the case with every sale every month in British Columbia. In fact the figures for November indicate 135 sales in this document, there were five in which there was more than one bidder. That's 95 per cent of the sales this month, and virtually every month, in which there's no competition for the public's greatest resource in terms of natural resources, other than people, in this Province. That's the situation. Ninety-six per cent is at a fixed price or an arranged price in British Columbia.

We should compare that with what they found in the United States, Mr. Speaker, in terms of the effect of competition for the public's resources on the price to be paid for the resource, and I've got a little graph here that indicates it fairly clearly, I think. This graph along this line shows the

[ Page 508 ]

number of bidders, and on this side the percentage increase above upset price when the number of bidders increases. So that what happens is, as the number of bidders increase the price paid to the public also increases, so that when there is one bidder it goes at the upset price. That's what's happening in British Columbia — were down here. In the U.S. northwest, when there's two bidders it goes up 20 per cent, when there's three bidders it goes up 35 per cent, when there's four bidders it goes up 45 per cent, when there's five bidders it's closer to 55 per cent, and when there's six bidders it's 60 per cent. That's the data from Professor Walter Meade, one of the foremost economists on the sawmilling economy of the northwestern part of the United States, a professor of the University of California.

So it's clear that when there is more than one bidder we get genuine competition for the public's resource. That's the problem in British Columbia, Mr. Speaker. There is no competition for what is yours and mine, the forest resource of this Province. It's this degree of gravy that exists within the forest economy of the Province that's causing many of our problems.

The degree of gravy is also shown at a national level in a study done by the Atlantic Development Board, which is the economic group that studies the problems of the Maritime Provinces in eastern Canada. They've looked at the comparative cost of producing wood across Canada, and their study is especially interesting, Mr. Speaker. The comparative costs for producing wood — that's the last census in 1965 — are shown in this bottom graph. In the bottom graph, Mr. Speaker, the average cost per cunit in dollars is at this level across the nation. The average cost per cunit of production in British Columbia is the red bar on the right hand side, and it's clear….

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you count the chips?

MR. WILLIAMS: No, I have a separate graph on wood fibre. This is mill-wood cost. So that the difference in terms of this study at that time done by the Maritime economists indicates something of the level of $22 in B.C., a national average of $31. So it's clear from these graphs that this difference in here between the national average cost of wood production and the British Columbia level of cost is the gravy in the forest industry. The economists, Mr. Speaker, have a nicer term for it. I think the public understands gravy. The economists call it economic rent, economic rent. That's the base value of the resource, and that's where it is.

Let's compare comparative fibre costs across Canada as well, Mr. Speaker, and again, a similar graph indicates the same situation. The bar here — cost per ton is at the 17 level — the cost nationally at the 27 level — in relation to 1965 census data. So again, the economic rent of the resource shows up there between the national level and the bar graph. The economic rent is simply gravy.

These benefits in B.C., Mr. Speaker, could be going to the public. The differences between the cost of production in British Columbia could be going to labour in terms of good wages, and we have reasonably good wages in British Columbia, thanks to an effective trade union and the most democratic union in the western part of North America. But beyond that, beyond that, Mr. Speaker, people like Nellie Walsh, the lady that the honourable member from North Vancouver–Seymour referred to, could be living a better life if this element of gravy was being diverted and being put into the public treasury. That gravy at the moment, Mr. Speaker, goes to the forest kings of British Columbia and not the Nellie Walshes of British Columbia.

Even within the industry, Mr. Speaker, we've been getting indications of the values that we're letting slip out between our fingers, and I mentioned in my last speech the Crestbrook example. With respect to the pulp mill at Skookumchuk, there was a bonus bid offered of some $7,300,000, and if you relate that to the number of pulp mills built or in the building in British Columbia, we're talking about a loss of maybe $200,000,000 in terms of the value of pulp wood that the industry is absorbing. But the interesting question, Mr. Speaker, is — I can understand the Minister not knowing what the value of the resource is, because it's a market process in terms of determining the value. But when knowing people in the market make an offer, an additional offer of $7,300,000, and indicate they're willing to pay even more for the resource, then the Minister should start sharpening his pencil. But did the Minister do that in the Crestbrook case? What was the subsequent memorandum of agreement with respect to the Crestbrook mill in the East Kootenays? It's covered here — an agreement in 1966 — it's good 'til 1978 like most of the pulp agreements in this Province. The agreement that the wood will be available at the basic upset price. The Minister ignored the bids that he got in that particular instance, and turned down $7,300,000 that should have and would have gone into the public treasury if he'd been doing his job.

AN HON. MEMBER: Financial wizard.

MR. WILLIAMS: That might have just been a fluke, Mr. Speaker. Maybe that was a special case in the East Kootenays. But was it? What happened in northern British Columbia when we got some genuine competitive bidding for pulpwood? The case there involved Cattermole timber and Mr. Ginter, Mr. Ginter again. You know, I must thank Mr. Ginter, Mr. Speaker, for pulling back the veil to some extent in terms of showing us what the values of the public resources in British Columbia are, because he did in that case as well. Mr. Ginter, for a 300-ton mill, put in a bonus bid of $12,600,000. In that mill the bonus that they offered $12,600,000, not the $7,300,000 that we saw in the Kootenays, and I might quote from the press of that time, Mr. Speaker, which compares Mr. Ginter's bid with the bid of Cattermole of 340 thousand odd dollars. The adjacent mill in the Peace involving Alexander Forest Industries, a subsidiary of B.C. Forest Products, was a bid with only one competitor for a larger mill, a 400-ton mill, of $460,000.

Now, subsequently, the honourable Minister of Recreation and Conservation commented on the situation since the Minister of Forests was ill, and he said, "Well Cattermole made the first bid and under the legislation they have the first choice and," as he said, "it would take a lot of re-figuring to decide if Cattermole could meet Ginter's bid to pay the Government a bonus of $12,600,000." I think that may be the understatement of that particular year, Mr. Speaker, but re-figure it they did, and in that particular case in the agreement there is included a bonus cost of a $1.70 total per cunit compared with the 20 cents that the Minister would otherwise have been happy with. That's the kind of ratio per 100 cubic feet of wood that they were willing to pay in the north.

Well you know, you wonder, Mr. Speaker, how many lessons the honourable the Minister needs. In that particular case he was willing to live with 20 cents per cunit for the

[ Page 509 ]

salvage material in the Peace. He got a bid of $1.70, and yet the adjacent mill is operating on the 20 cent basis. He has two deals operating in the Peace, one at 20 cents a hundred cubic feet, the other at $1.70 a hundred cubic feet. I don't know what corner store operator would accept a similar situation, Mr. Speaker. I don't even know what peanut stand operator would accept that kind of situation. So we got the indication there, Mr. Speaker, that what we had lost in terms of the value of pulpwood in the Province was not $200,000,000 as we suspected in the East Kootenays, what we had lost was at least $400,000,000. That's what Mr. Ginter showed us in the Peace River country. That's the situation with respect to pulp licences and stumpage, Mr. Speaker.

But let's also talk about the tree farm licences which are probably the greatest concession in timber in British Columbia. A privilege it is, yes. I might just quote from a letter I received, and I might say, Mr. Speaker, that the Honourable J.V. Clyne publicized his letters, and he has access to the media, and he is a man of some influence in this Province. It's unfortunate that the countless citizens that wrote me and agreed with me were unable to get the same kind of coverage for their letters, and I might note that the ratio was about 30 to 1, Mr. Speaker, in terms of the public's response to what I had to say in the last debate.

I might just quote one gentleman here on Vancouver Island who reflects on the situation. He says, "Your statement in the House regarding MacMillan Bloedel and Government privilege was so accurate that it is well worth going into a bit further," and he says, "Anyone travelling throughout Vancouver Island, as I do and have done for the past many years, will certainly agree wholeheartedly. Just one example, from Muchalat Inlet which enters from the west coast of Vancouver Island to Port Hardy on the east coast is 144 miles. B.C. Forest Products, Crown Zellerbach, MacMillan Bloedel control the entire area. Four interests control half of the Island. This includes," he says, "of course the town of Gold River. The Island itself….

AN HON. MEMBER: And Tahsis.

MR. WILLIAMS: Oh, and Tahsis, that's right. "The Island is approximately 300 miles long, so here we have 144 miles in the heart of the Island exclusively under control of one industry. This, of course, is only one area so parcelled off. The same situation exists at Sooke, Port Renfrew, Cowichan Lake, Nitinat, Port Alberni, Kelsey Bay, Nootka, etc. No one may enter into any of these areas without a written permit issued at the discretion of the company. If you want to go north on Vancouver Island, when you immediately get past the town of Gold River you run into a barrier that reminds you of the early frontiers of Europe. You run into the empires controlled by the forest industry, the empires controlled by MacMillan Bloedel, Tahsis, C.F.P., B.C.F.P., Rainier and the rest of them. We turned over the public's resources to these people, and for a pittance." That is what the man in this letter is saying, and that's what the people of this Province are beginning to realize. They get, they get these licences, Mr. Speaker, at one cent an acre a year, one cent an acre a year, and if that isn't privilege, Mr. Speaker, I don't know what is. If Mr. Clyne doesn't think that is a privilege, he should talk to my neighbours, the citizens of Vancouver East, and see if they think it's privilege or not.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about the obligations?

MR. SPEAKER: Order.

MR. WILLIAMS: I'll be glad to talk about the obligations, Mr. Speaker, because the obligations the public have are piling up and up and up, and I'll deal with just one of them in the honourable member's own constituency in a few minutes.

Who else, Mr. Speaker, can get Crown land for one cent an acre in perpetuity? Who else? Now, the honourable the Minister says it's for 21 years, but that is an interesting question that we might cover in a few minutes.

What about the kind of privilege MacMillan Bloedel has with respect to these licences? They've got Tree Farm Licence No. 7, which is 191,000 acres. They've got Tree Farm Licence No. 20, which is 426,000 acres. They've got Tree Farm Licence No. 21, which is 638,000 acres. And they've got one of the last Tree Farm Licences, No. 39, which is 1,108,000 acres in the Vancouver District, and 740,000 acres in the Prince Rupert District. That's a total of over three million acres, Mr. Speaker, that MacMillan Bloedel have in Tree Farm Licences. That's the equivalent of two and a half Prince Edward Islands.

There are 41 of these licences in the Province, Mr. Speaker, and they proudly represent the grandest error in forest management in the history of this Province. Forty-one of them, and they are all going to have to be re-negotiated one of these days, according to what the staff of the Forest Service does. The re-negotiation is going to be a problem, Mr. Speaker, because so many of the contracts say that they are, in fact, for perpetuity. That means forever at that kind of price. The Forest Service staff read the amendments to the legislation differently. They say that the bulk of the licences will terminate in 1979, and it's going to be an interesting period when the Minister and the representatives of MacMillan Bloedel and the other forest giants discuss this question, because the industry, is not yet, as far as I know, unanimously agreed that there is a 21-year termination date to these agreements.

There are 41 of them, Mr. Speaker, and some of them are being re-negotiated now. Tree Farm Licence No. 1 has been re-negotiated, and what's the cost? Tree Farm Licence No. 1 is in Skeena, the area that the honourable member raised a few minutes ago. We face apparently the combination of two of these Tree Farm Licences, both the Cetgar Licence and the Skeena Kraft Licence, which will make it by far the largest Tree Farm Licence in British Columbia, and that licence will be the equivalent of five Prince Edward Islands. I understand the contract is almost ready for signing, Mr. Speaker, but I don't know of any significant public discussion that has taken place here in the capital, or public hearings in the area or in the capital, The question is, Mr. Speaker, will all of the remaining Tree Farm Licences be re-negotiated in the same way as this one, or will they be done entirely in the open and with public hearings'? That is the question.

Because, as it now stands, Mr. Speaker, there is not public access in the daytime in all of northern Vancouver Island. For the 150 miles of northern Vancouver Island there is not free public access in the daytime, and that's true in the other licence areas as well. The irony, Mr. Speaker, is that in fact the main road systems in these Tree Farm Licences are paid for by the public, because they're allowed to deduct the cost of various aspects of management of their operation for the royalities and stumpage that are paid, so the main road through all of northern Vancouver Island which the public does not, in fact, have free access to was, in fact, paid for by the public.

[ Page 510 ]

Maybe the classic example is that Tree Farm Licence No. 1, again in the Skeena, which I had a question on the Order Paper regarding. The question asked on the Order Paper with regard to Tree Farm Licence No. 1 was, what total figure for road cost has been entered on the road ledger since the inception of the licence? The figure we have in answer today, Mr. Speaker, is $12,066,503. That's the amount that has been credited for road construction at the Tree Farm Licence. And, a further question — what is the latest credit figure available? That is an amount on the ledger that hasn't yet been deducted from our royalties and stumpage, and the amount, $4,287,570, as of the end of December this last year. That's a credit that the company has in relation to the Crown, Mr. Speaker, and that means that the Crown, that the Crown owes the company $4,000,000 in that particular Tree Farm Licence.

You know, the honourable member from Dewdney, Mr. Speaker, a few days ago gave an interesting talk on his own constituency, the Maple Ridge area, and he talked about being saddened by the fact that young people in his riding were unable to freely walk and use the roads in the mountains behind his constituency, and he said he felt that that was a shame. I agree, Mr. Speaker, but that is the situation on all of northern Vancouver Island. That's the situation in every Tree Farm Licence in British Columbia, and these really represent Corporate Banana Republics, and an attitude on the part of the Government that clearly favours the industry rather than the people in the community.

We had a short statement regarding the forest industry from the honourable member from Nanaimo, Mr. Speaker, I think just a day or two ago, and the honourable member gave us, I think, the usual Chamber of Commerce point of view. I don't think that really hurts the Chamber of Commerce or the honourable member, but what he said was that he was happy that there was bread and butter on the table, and that people were employed in the forest industry and that, in fact, there was a payroll. I'm pleased that that's so too, Mr. Speaker, but the very concessions that this Government has given to industry in northern Vancouver Island, an area that obviously concerns the member, are the very concessions that arc now stifling growth on northern Vancouver Island.

Mr. Speaker, this Government is supposed to be the Government that is concerned about individual initiative, but on northern Vancouver Island nobody can show individual initiative because all the land base, the economic base, has been turned over to a single industry. An individual initiative on northern Vancouver Island is simply not allowed to flower, given the kind of legislation and given the kind of one industry approach that the Government has taken. The forest chains and their bureaucratic corporations are able to control the resource, the land resource of northern Vancouver Island and much of the Province and manage it on a single resource basis without considering recreation, without considering tourism, without considering urban needs, and without considering the other industrial growth potentials in those areas, because they are forest companies. All this range of possibility, this range of opportunities in our Province, Mr. Speaker, are thwarted, and no amount of Babbitt type speeches, being thankful for wages, is going to solve the problem.

You know, Mr. Speaker, the industry claims it is the most highly taxed industry in the Province, and yet we should look at the kind of average taxes they pay, like you and I, and most of the citizens of the Province. What kind of real estate taxes does this industry pay, Mr. Speaker? In the Tree Farm Licences, the three million acres that MacMillan Bloedel have, they do not pay a property tax, they don't pay the real estate tax that the average citizen pays on land that he controls. They have virtual fee simple control of these empires, Mr. Speaker. Anybody else that has a 21-year lease in the Province ends up paying property taxes and school taxes. The forest industry in this Province does not.

I might just comment on a letter from a person in the Cariboo that reflects on this problem. This citizen says, "If a rancher or a farmer should decide to grow timber on part of his land he'll have to pay the land tax, the school tax, hospital improvement tax, and other regional district taxes on their land while the timber is growing, and when the timber is cut they pay a royalty of $1.70 a hundred cubic feet," says this rancher in the Cariboo. This is public, and it's available, and I'd be glad to give the member the letter later. But the point is that the major industry in the Cariboo, Mr. Speaker, only pays the royalty of 55 cents for similar materials on the Crown's land, and they pay no property taxes either.

What the honourable the member for Nanaimo forgets, Mr. Speaker, is that this is our land in British Columbia. We actually own it, we actually own the trees. It's not Mr. Clyne, it's not MacMillan Bloedel, it's not Crown Zellerbach or any of the other forest giants. It's our land. In terms of the value of the trees, we're not really talking about taxes — that is really the wrong word — we're talking about a price for the trees. We're not talking about taxes in that sense and the price is abysmally low.

We've talked about these concessions, Mr. Speaker. What's their attitude? You'd think that a company that got these kinds of concessions would be thankful, and you'd think they might, at least, if they weren't thankful, be rather quiet about it, and some people in the industry are quiet about it, and that's understandable, too. Let's deal with the last tree farm licence that MacMillan Bloedel got, Tree Farm Licence Number 39. The Colonist of the day said, "The giant tree farm licence ends the firm's twelve-year wait." What did the Honourable J.V. Clyne say when he and his company — his company rather — got this licence? This is what he said when he received this million acre licence of fine coastal forest in British Columbia. "Company Chairman J.V. Clyne, a former judge of the B.C. Supreme Court, said last night he had not yet been advised of the Government's decision, but he was neither surprised nor particularly elated by the outcome of the twelve year wait. 'This isn't exactly a Christmas present by any means,' said the Honourable Mr. Clyne." And then he said, "We need that damn timber. It's not just a gift from the Government." That's what the Honourable Mr. Clyne said when he got the million acre Tree Farm Licence No. 39.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please. I am not calling the honourable member to order, but the general practice that is becoming prevalent in the House of members reading from newspapers, saying things in that quotation that they couldn't normally say in the House itself. I am referring particularly to doubtful language. As I say, I am not calling the honourable member to order, but I wish the House would refrain from that practice. If they are going to quote from something, make sure that it would be normally parliamentary. Please proceed.

MR. WILLIAMS: I appreciate the point, Mr. Speaker, and I assure you that the other quotes that I have do not include

[ Page 511 ]

similar language, even though they are from the honourable gentleman. I think the public is generally aware, Mr. Speaker, that I received a telegram from the honourable gentleman and that I replied. I received a subsequent reply and the Honourable Mr. Clyne was kind enough to have it delivered by hand to the Legislature. I take it that the socialist postal system is unacceptable. Mr. Clyne, essentially, said in his letter what he said in the telegram, other than that he was unhappy that the telegram was cleverly worded — that is, my reply. It is interesting, Mr. Speaker, that the honourable "gentleman should take this kind of attitude. A copy of his telegram to me was sent to all the lumber-logging camps on Vancouver Island, and I am pleased that they have such a fine corporate communication system. I am pleased that copies of the telegram were slipped under the doors of the union secretaries in the logging camps. I am just disappointed that it is not really a complete dialogue. I am sorry that the people in the logging camps weren't able to get the full benefit of what I had to say as well.

I might just quote, though — I don't want to deal particularly with this area too long — but I would like to quote, Mr. Speaker, from a letter from another citizen, one of the 30-odd that I received along with Mr. Clyne's. This citizen says this, he says, "Please accept my thanks and compliments as merely a private citizen for your courage in using your right of parliamentary immunity to speak out on the appearance of a relationship, "

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, order!

MR. WILLIAMS: I am disappointed, Mr. Speaker, that the honourable the Minister feels this way regarding parliamentary immunity. It is something built over centuries in the British parliamentary tradition….

MR. SPEAKER: Would the House allow the honourable member to proceed.

MR. WILLIAMS: He is speaking out on the appearance of a relationship that has been established between the B.C. Government which is to serve the interest of the citizens as a whole and private industry which merely serves the interest of a small section of the community to which the Government is responsible, and the principle on which you take your stand is surely a vital one, just as a public matter must not only be done, it must be seen to be done. He goes further, Mr. Speaker. He says, "Ministers of the Crown must not only be innocent of having used one's influence but must also be seen to be innocent," and continues in that vein. But I might just quote one more sentence. This citizen says, "You therefore do not have to sue Mr. Clyne privately as was the offer, as Mr. Clyne says, with cheap bravado. They might well be called instead to the bar of the House for daring to interfere with the privilege of the House."

Because let's not forget, Mr. Speaker, the man we are talking about is probably the most powerful man in British Columbia, and if he wants to use the term "coward" that's his prerogative. It is one I cannot accept.

I would like to quote the Honourable Mr. Clyne when he was a judge dealing with an issue involving contempt of court, and the Honourable Mr. Clyne had this to say. He said, "The fact that a public issue is involved does not justify or excuse the application of defamatory words to those discharging public duties." He was discussing people in a jury at that time and he said, "The men and women who serve upon our juries are performing one of the most onerous and important functions in the life of a free society," and so the people of this Legislature might well be said to be doing the same. That particular case, Mr. Speaker, was Regina vs. The Vancouver Province newspaper and Mr. Eric Nicol, who wrote a column against capital punishment.

Now, the honourable member from Burnaby-Edmonds, Mr. Speaker, a few days ago advised the honourable member from Revelstoke-Slocan and the rest of the House about some of the history of parliament, and said that one of the reasons we should be immune is to protect us historically from the king. Similarly, people in this Chamber must be protected from the forest king of British Columbia. The problem, Mr. Speaker, is that when Mr. Clyne says, "We need that blank timber," he was really saying that he sees our heritage, that is the people's heritage of British Columbia as his corporation's private property.

The job we have now, Mr. Speaker, as Government and Legislature, in relation to these forest concessions is to begin re-negotiating. We must begin to re-negotiate with MacMillan Bloedel and all of the other giants in the industry. But there will be difficulties in the negotiation, needless to say. They will be extremely difficult in the case of MacMillan Bloedel. The senior vice-president of MacMillan Bloedel was a former member of the Cabinet in this Legislature for 17 years, or 16 years, so clearly any negotiations that take place between MacMillan Bloedel must take place in public. There must be full public hearings in the re-negotiation of their tree farm licences during the next few years, because it is only this way, Mr. Speaker, that justice can be seen to be done with respect to this forest giant and people of British Columbia. If there is not public discussion and public hearings throughout the Island, on the Coast, in the lower mainland, and in this city, "with respect to the assets — the public assets — that this corporation has, then a cloud will hang over the whole negotiation process.

You know, Mr. Speaker, MacMillan Bloedel has developed into a great giant corporation in British Columbia, in many ways one that has achieved a great deal of success. But they have done so on the public's wealth essentially, and it is the public's wealth, the trees of British Columbia that have allowed MacMillan Bloedel to expand into Spain, as they have done in line past year. It has allowed MacMillan Bloedel to expand further into England, as they have done in the past few years. It has allowed them to expand into Holland, as they have in the last few years. It has allowed them to expand into Alabama, as they have in the last few years.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you against Canadian companies doing well?

MR. WILLIAMS: No, I am not against Canadian companies doing well.

It is the public's wealth, Mr. Speaker, that's building the 27-storey building on West Georgia Street in downtown Vancouver. That building, Mr. Speaker, is the equivalent of 40 new elementary schools in British Columbia, the equivalent of countless hospital beds in British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: There's a good many jobs, too.

MR. WILLIAMS: It's all so simple, you know. That's the same speech we got from the member from Nanaimo. We can have the jobs, Mr. Speaker. We can have all these jobs in British Columbia and, in addition, we can have a much

[ Page 512 ]

greater public revenue that will see to it.

Wouldn't the honourable members on the other side see our children off of shifts rather than this towering building in downtown Vancouver? Because that is the choice that this Government has made, either consciously or unconsciously. And Lord knows how many decisions by that group are unconscious. That's for you to say.

That's the point, Mr. Speaker. We could have all of our schools and classrooms that we need in this Province. We could, Mr. Speaker, have our senior citizens living on something more than subsistence. We could have our retarded children cared for without line-ups at institutions. We could avoid waiting lists in our hospitals in British Columbia. We could avoid the gouging private hospital system that thrives in British Columbia. We could have all these things if we got a fair price for the public resource in British Columbia.

With this target, Mr. Speaker, progress with this Budget, progress in the public sector, has virtually come to a standstill, and yet the forest king and the major corporations have never done better. This Budget shows, Mr. Speaker, that we are not masters in our own house in British Columbia, and it shows that the Government is devoid of new ideas and the Budget shows, really, who is in the driver's seat in British Columbia.

The honourable members could say it is a Budget fit for a king. It is a Budget fit for a forest king. This is not a Budget for the people, Mr. Speaker. That is why we will vote against it.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Attorney-General.

HON. L.R. PETERSON: Well, Mr. Speaker, there is very little time now before the honourable members of this Assembly will have their names recorded as to how they vote for posterity in terms of this Budget and the motion now before us. In winding up this debate I am not going to take too long, but I want to give the honourable members opposite just a little time to reconsider their position before their names are so recorded.

The member who has just preceded me in this debate spent some time quoting a man who was on the Bench, a very distinguished jurist of the Supreme Court, a very distinguished jurist, and those who have had the privilege of appearing before him would say the same thing, Mr. Speaker. I think we should also recognize we have another distinguished jurist who is still on the Bench in our Chamber today, and I know the members would want to welcome him, a former member of this House, His Honour Judge Morrow. I am sure the service that he is, I presume, still performing will be the topic of discussion, I would hope, before the Session is over.

You know, just before the second member for Vancouver East completed his speech I was advised by my colleague, the Minister of Municipal Affairs, that this was the very same speech he made on forestry in Port Alice before the election. In Port Alice. And what are the voters of Port Alice? They all are workers in the forest industry. You know, Mr. Speaker, here are the results at Port Alice. Our Social Credit candidate 235 votes. N.D.P., 119. 119. That's what the people who are in the industry and know something about forestry thought of his remarks. More than double his majority in this election, '69, over the previous election in 1966.

The member for Vancouver East started his remarks today and I must say that there was, I think, some improvement over the previous speech that he gave in this House. I don't know whether to give the credit to him or to his future mother-in-law and her daughter who are in the House, but I think for the benefit of his political future they should be here whenever he speaks, because it was an improvement today. Even the Leader says it is an improvement today — even the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Speaker. Well, you know, in the press, in the news media, after his remarks, when he declined to accept the challenges that were thrown by the Honourable Mr. Clyne and the former Attorney-General, he came out really heralding what he was going to say today. The real tiger — he's going to be on the attack today in the Legislature. Some tiger!

AN HON. MEMBER: A little pussycat!

MR. PETERSON: I think the Churchillian phrase would be more appropriate of, "A sheep in a sheep's clothing," Mr. Speaker. He started out saying about muck-raking — that he had no objection to the phrase of muck-raking. He finds nothing distasteful about it at all, nothing distasteful about it at all. Those of us who have listened to him in this House can well understand why.

He talks about privilege, and indeed his whole speech in this, the Budget debate, was on privilege. The privileges granted by the Crown to people in industry and business. Why can he make such a statement, Mr. Speaker? Because this is the first Government in the Province of British Columbia that regards all the natural resources as owned by the people of the Province of British Columbia. Unlike the Liberals, when they were in power in this Province, when they gave those resources away, when they gave Crown grants of mines, forestry resources. We do not do that. We make performance covenants, Mr. Speaker. Privileges, yes — but equal treatment to all, Mr. Speaker, and special privileges to none.

It would have been better for that member to give this detailed analysis — at least his analysis, and he's entitled to do so, I don't take any objection there — in the forestry industry, and the figures and the statistics, when the Minister's Estimates were before the House, so he could correct them immediately, because half of those were misleading and many of them false. He will find, when the Estimates come before this House, and he has an opportunity of repeating some of those statements, he'll get this answer then.

He referred to this Minister as the most costly Minister of Lands and Forests in history. I want to tell you that he is the best investment and the best Minister of Lands and Forests this Province has ever had, and it will take more than his insinuations, his innuendos, and his general allegations to besmirch the reputation of that man, and he will be in this House long after that member leaves, Mr. Speaker, long after that member leaves.

What a prophet of despair, what a prophet of gloom was that member in his address today, closing the address for the N.D.P. on this Budget for the next fiscal year for the people of the Province of British Columbia. You know, I tell you, your party's whole tone in this debate is the colour of your shirt — blue. Blue — depressing. Why, even the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Speaker, when he led off on this debate lie wore a very deep blue shirt, too, and I thought that resembled his remarks, because why was he blue? How could he attack the best Budget that has been presented by any Province in Canada?

You know, in the election campaign, the member who's so anxious to talk now and said so little when he had the

[ Page 513 ]

opportunity, went about the Province and tried to convince the voters what a wonderful Utopia this Province of British Columbia would be if only they were entrusted with the responsibility of Government. They talked about Budget, and they talked about the fiscal programme, and you know, before the year was out, Mr. Speaker — and this is why the Leader of the Opposition was so blue — we discovered, and the public discovered, that they couldn't even run their own affairs in the N.D.P., not even run their own affairs. Listen to this. Last December the press reported that the New Democratic Party had launched an austerity programme including staff cuts, retrenchment in many directions, massive unemployment, Mr. Speaker. According to the reports, the party's finances are in poor shape and there's substantial debt. You know, he was talking about dead-weight debt. That's where he got it — his own party. In an effort to reverse the growing party debt, according to the report ….

They don't want to listen, and I don't blame them for not wanting to listen. This hurts, Mr. Speaker. This hurts. Because this shows that they can't even run their own affairs, let alone the affairs of the people of this Province. I tell you, it they were ever entrusted with Government, our credit rating wouldn't be as the Premier and Minister of Finance reported in his Budget, it would be zero as far as the N.D.P. are concerned, minus economy on the rocks, Mr. Speaker. No wonder the tone of the whole debate and their contributions to this Budget debate resembles the blue shirt. They have a lot to be blue about.

You know, I'm sorry the member from Vancouver-Seymour has left his place, but of course he's entitled to, but I did notice, as well, that the tone of the Liberals was matched by the shirt that the Liberal leader wore when he entered this debate a week or so ago. The tone of their debate — that's right — he wore a very bright red shirt, and it was obvious ….

AN HON. MEMBER: It was magenta!

MR. PETERSON: What was it? Well, I'm sorry, it was red to me, Mr. Speaker, it was red to me. Because I didn't even notice the colour of his shirt, though, until he got nearly through his address, and that's when he was presenting his budget. He gave the figures upon which his budget was based and then the Premier challenged him on his figures and he declined the challenge, and his face was then as red as his shirt, and I noticed it then. Furthermore, the budget he presented would put the people of this Province into the red, Mr. Speaker, into the red. Deficit financing would be the budget, but the budget crumbled — the Liberal budget he presented — and I was amazed that he didn't get any support from any of the other members in his party. Well I didn't hear the honourable members elaborating on this tremendous Liberal budget he presented. I even asked, when he presented it, for a break-down on the figures that he was relating to my department, and you know to this day I haven't had that break-down. Their budget crumbled, crumbled. The Liberal member who closed the debate today didn't have one kind word to say about the leader of the Liberal party's proposals for the finances of this Province over the next fiscal year, not one word.

The member had something to say about Commonwealth Trust, Mr. Speaker, and I don't intend to deal with it at length today, and especially in some aspects which are, as the legal members will understand, before the Courts and sub judice. But I do want to refer, and I must say that I'm somewhat surprised at the new status or the new angle that these members are now taking. Because what are they saying, the N.D.P. as well as the Liberals, joining together, what are they saying? They are now saying that they want the people who lost money, who made investments and lost money, to be repaid by the taxpayers of this Province. That's apparently their policy. They want them to sue, they want them to…. Oh, Mr. Speaker, are you advocating that people should sue and not recover? Do you want to put them through the expense of paying your big bills? And not have them recover anything? Mr. Speaker, that may be his policy, it's not ours.

I want to say this, there's some relevant dates here, and certainly at one stage the Trust Company, the Commonwealth Trust Company was in difficulties and that was in 1963 and '64. Following that, however, there was an examination, which has also already been referred to by my colleague the Minister of Health, by the Federal Government's auditors, on the basis of which they were granted insurance on the deposits made in the Trust Company. It's — (some interjection)…. well — they investigated. The auditors investigated and found that this was all right for the Federal Government to guarantee the deposits, and that decision was reached in April of 1967.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Federal Act says you have to have that approval by letter.

MR. PETERSON: What is a letter compared to an audit, Mr. Speaker, what is a letter compared to an audit?…. You've had some things to say, now listen and you might learn a little today.

Now then, the next relevant date is January 5th, 1968, when a report was made by the Inspector of Trust Companies to the Minister of Finance and the Attorney-General, and that is precisely the action making certain recommendations, and we as a Government acted on those recommendations, Mr. Speaker.

Now the Liberals complain about secrecy, that these orders should be made public. I want to tell the House today that both Governments agreed that the orders would be kept confidential, for to do otherwise would have resulted in a run on the fully-insured deposits, and would have worsened the company's position at that time, when all the efforts of both the Federal and Provincial Governments were to restore the company to a sound financial position. Then I could detail other actions that were taken, extraordinary actions, greater intervention here than any place else, Mr. Speaker, in respect to a private company. The loss suffered by the shareholders and other investors of Commonwealth Trust, is — I want to underline this — not in respect to any shares or securities issued by the Trust Company subsequent to the date that I mentioned of February 12, 1968.

As far as recovery from the taxpayers — that the taxpayers are going to pay the bill for people who invest in public companies — the answer is No. The answer is No. When was an investment in a public company guaranteed to be successful? Is that the policy of the N.D.P.? Is that the policy of the Liberal party, that the taxpayers should come along and pick up the tab where people invest in a public company, and that company does not make a profit and goes into bankruptcy? Is that the policy of the N.D.P.? I tell you that the C.C.F.'ers today would be turning over in their graves if they knew the attitude of this party.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! We're getting tedious

[ Page 514 ]

repetition.

MR. PETERSON: You know, Mr. Speaker, I think it has been fairly obvious from this debate that there is a very basic difference in philosophy between the members of the Opposition and those who sit in support of the Government. That difference in philosophy — and I appreciate the applause from the member who spoke before me — was very obvious today, because to them private enterprise, profits, these are all dirty words, dirty words, Mr. Speaker. That's their whole philosophy. It was even obvious when the former Leader of the party spoke in this House, and when he was criticizing us, what did he say? "That's your system — your free enterprise system — not us." But what did they say during the recent election campaign? "Oh — we're the great free enterprisers, the Premier's building a false issue — socialism versus free enterprise." False issue? Nonsense. They're simply socialists and let the public forever remember it. (applause) There, they are applauding, let the record show that the N.D.P. are applauding that statement. They recognize that they are socialists, Mr. Speaker, and they couldn't hoodwink the voters in the last election on that score.

When the Leader of the N.D.P. spoke, I asked him to file the Watkins Report, this report which marked a sharp turn left for the N.D.P. He hasn't filed it. I asked him to file it here and I thought he said he would. I haven't even seen the report, just the newspaper coverage given to it, Mr. Speaker, but after that statement someone came along and presented me with a copy and I am grateful for it and here are just a few brief passages which I think….

AN HON. MEMBER: It was voted down and you know it.

MR. PETERSON: It was signed by the Leader of the N.D.P. It was endorsed by the Leader of the N.D.P., but it was too far to the left for Mr. Berger who was defeated — too far to the left, and what did it say? "Our aim as democratic socialists is to build an independent socialist Canada." That was what they said and then it went on, "The major threat to Canadian survival today is American control of the Canadian economy. The major issue of our times is not national unity, but national survival. The fundamental threat is external, not internal." The old Yankee Go Home slogan. That's the N.D.P. And here it goes on, Mr. Speaker, "An independent movement based on substituting Canadian capitalists, or on a public policy to make foreign corporations behave as if they were Canadian corporations cannot be our final objective. Capitalism must be replaced by socialism, by national planning of investment, by the public ownership of the means of production, in the interest of the Canadian people as a whole." That's their policy, so let's make it clear and let's not have them come forward and deny it once they have an opportunity to place their case before the people again.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, Hear.

MR. PETERSON: Is it any wonder, when that is their basic philosophy, that they should find it difficult to endorse the policies and programmes of this Budget, Mr. Speaker?

Before I deal with the Budget, I want to touch on a couple of matters which have been topics of discussion. I think probably — and I have listened to all of the contributions in this debate — the most talked about subjects were, right from the beginning of the debate to the close, were pollution and inflation…. Pardon? …and people. Yes, I'll have something to say about people too, but believe me, pollution affects people. Pollution affects people, and probably with the exception of war, pollution is the greatest threat that we have to the continued survival of people.

I'm not faulting anyone for taking time to talk on pollution and I am going to be very brief on the subject today. But as I've listened to the comments and the contributions, I have got the feeling that many people were talking as though pollution was someone else's problem, not an individual responsibility in any sense of the word, although I think the first member for Vancouver-Burrard got us back on the track in that respect the other day when he spoke in this House. But certainly we are inclined to think of it as something remote, as responsibility of Government, and when in our daily routine we dispose of our garbage in a bag, and a truck comes along and takes it away, or we drain stuff down the sink and this sort of thing, and we don't know what happens to it from there. We buy our food in the stores nicely packaged — this sort of thing — we don't see the pollution we are causing. Or the members of this Chamber who come in here and talk about pollution, and they go out in the halls and pollute it with cigars and pipes and cigarettes. I didn't used to be able to give this speech — I'm happy to announce that I can today. But the point is that, Mr. Speaker, our personal attitudes must change as well as our policies if we're going to tackle pollution. The Government has been giving leadership and doesn't deny its responsibility in pollution control. But the people must accept certain priorities and must determine certain priorities, and when they have the opportunity to voice their concern, not to accept curbs and gutters in place of sewers, or underground wiring and things that are nice to have, but placing priorities where they should be, and health priorities and pollution priorities first.

The Government is, in this Session, establishing major policies in terms of environmental management. My colleague, the Minister of Lands and Forests, in his address to the House last week outlined some major steps — the enforcement of permit controls on coastal pulp mills, the extension of the Pollution Control Act in terms of air pollution, and the announcement as well, which I think is significant, of $250,000 in prize money as an incentive for the development of odour control units for Kraft mills.

But these are still not all. There will be additional steps taken at this Session, one of which will be a legislative attempt to partially meet the problem of air pollution from motor vehicles. This is a difficult area, of course, but we propose to present legislation at this Session, the details of which can best be discussed once that legislation is brought forward.

Now I want to devote some time to the most publicized subject I think, in the U.S. and the Canadian news media today, and that is inflation. A problem that is a threat to Canada, a problem that is a threat to our economic growth, and a problem that we face now and will be facing during this next fiscal year that we are budgeting for and talking about. It's not an easy battle against inflation, because one of the difficulties, of course, is our close economic ties with the United States in terms of the inflation that they have had there, last year being the worst year in history. Six per cent increase in the consumer price index in the United States, which is the largest since the year of 1951, and in Canada it was 4.3 per cent in 1969, which shows you the difference there and, of course, different conditions prevailing. The major thing contributing to it in the United States is the war

[ Page 515 ]

in Vietnam and the excessive levels of spending in connection with that. But there has been a transmission, as one would expect, to this country of some of the same inflationary forces.

I think a good deal of the time in the discussions here have been in more or less diagnosing the disease, and that is the easiest part. I think the more difficult part is the cure. The suggestion has been made and is often made by economists of the relationship between employment and inflation, and to those who suggest that the cure for inflation is unemployment, this is an answer that is not acceptable to the Province of British Columbia, and that point has been made very clear. There is a school of thought, Mr. Speaker, of economic thought, that full employment and price stability are not compatible, that there has been a significant amount of unemployment in order to stabilize the value of our currency. But we say that in this age this is an irresponsible policy, because it must be obvious that with the cost of living increasing with a depreciating dollar, who in our society are hardest hit by inflation? Surely it's those who haven't a job, who are unemployed. It's those who are on fixed incomes, and how can they be used as a weapon to battle administration?

Therefore the point I want to make today, and this point is reflected in the Budget that we're debating, and that is that unemployment and a sound dollar are both economic goals of this administration, and they are reflected in the Budget that was presented by the Minister of Finance.

…Far more than lip service, my friend, and I can show you that if you wish. You talk about lip service? You talk about lip service, when here in the Times is shown the Federal figures of the increase in employment in this Province from January 1969 to January '70, compared with all of the rest of Canada, with the.prairie region, Ontario, Quebec, the Atlantic — a one year period? This is…. I'm sorry if I didn't make it clear. This is increase in workforce, the increase in jobs in one year, and do you know, the increase in British Columbia is larger than the combination of the prairie region, Ontario, Quebec and the Atlantic regions? All the others put together. The increase, according to these figures put out by the Federal Government, is greater in British Columbia in new jobs for people, new jobs for people in one year than the rest of Canada. And you talk about lip service?

Who in Canada are providing the jobs if it's not the Province of British Columbia? The unemployment figure is too high? It's 7.3 per cent, the last figures produced, too high. Too high, because they're flocking here from the rest of Canada, Mr. Speaker, that's why, and you have the temerity to suggest that we're giving it lip service. We have not only been providing employment opportunities which would not have been provided if we'd listened to the N.D.P., if we'd listened to the N.D.P. criticizing every move this Government makes, whether it's our hydro policy to develop jobs, or other matters, Mr. Speaker.

But we've also been critical of some of the Federal policies in regard to inflation, because the Federal policies of tight money and high interest rates have not led to reduced expenditures significantly or reduction in consumption. They've led to higher prices, adding to the cost escalation in the country, and these prices are passed on to the consumers and perpetuate what is trying to be attacked in this kind of inflation — a wage, cost, profit inflation — not the type of inflation of too much money chasing too few goods in the traditional concept.

I've no easy answers, of course, but I would like to remind the members of the position put forward by the Premier and Minister of Finance earlier this week when the Premiers of all the Provinces and the Prime Minister met in Ottawa. Certainly, as I say, there is no easy answer because of our economic well-being, which is not only dependent on our neighbour to the south but other countries with whom we trade, such as Japan and other countries, too, where there is inflation as well, but one of the first steps that we suggest and have suggested over a period of time is the stabilization of interest rates.

Our trade policies should be reviewed with a view to creating a Common Market on this continent. Now with Great Britain considering entering the European Common Market, I think the time is ripe for Canada and the United States to consider a Common Market in this area of the world. And the first step that can be taken in that trade relationship, in a review of the trade relationship, is a reduction in tariffs, and the Premier advocated at this Conference a 25 per cent immediate reduction in tariffs.

We have been advocating a free trade policy. That has been the position of this Social Credit administration…. Well, what have the Liberals been advocating? Who's in power? Who has the authority to reduce tariffs today if it's not the Liberals? Free trade policy has been advocated, and this is more important now in the inflationary setting that we're in, Mr. Speaker, because this would provide straight price competition between our nations. A reduction now would result immediately in a cost reduction for Canadian business, especially in the western part of Canada, and this would improve the competitive position of our industries.

Now what was the other positive proposal put forward by the Minister of Finance and Premier for this Province? The immediate removal of the Federal Government indirect 12 per cent sales tax.

AN HON. MEMBER: Pyramided tax.

MR. PETERSON: A pyramided tax when you add the profit of the wholesalers, the retailers, and then it comes up to 20 per cent — quite different from the direct sales tax. With the projections for the future of the surpluses of the Federal administration compared to the position of the provinces across Canada, by their own figures produced by the Federal Government, this is a move that should be taken and should be taken now. This would result in an immediate reduction of taxes because, as the Premier pointed out, they would have to immediately reduce stock in order to get in stock at the reduced prices, and it would result in an immediate reduction in prices. If that is — the objective of the exercise here are two ways in which not only to keep prices from rising, Mr. Speaker, but to actually reduce prices below what they are today.

Mr. Speaker, I can understand the Liberals being agitated because here they sit, the apologists for the Liberal administration in Ottawa who have responsibility in this field. I don't know how these proposals were received by their Liberal friends and Liberal colleagues in Ottawa, but those of you who heard the C.B.C. radio programme, I think it was Tuesday night at midnight, would have heard the speakers from the Provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan, Premier Thatcher from Saskatchewan, Premier Strom from Alberta, certainly endorse this position. And the surprising thing was that Prime Minister John Robarts, of the Province of Ontario, did not register objection to the proposals. After all, these

[ Page 516 ]

tariff policies primarily benefit the manufacturers in central Canada and particularly in the Province of Ontario, and so I think that is certainly welcome news, and I hope action will be taken in this respect.

If we need further evidence — and this has already been quoted but I think it's worth quoting again — the Economic Council of Canada's Report, in it's Sixth Annual Review, because its warnings are clearly directed at Ottawa when they state, and I quote, "Further fiscal and monetary restraint could conceivably result in higher rates of unemployment and economic slack, with no more than marginal effects on the current rates of increase in prices and costs." The unemployment rate that I've quoted for this Province, the unemployment rates that exist in the other parts of Canada, is evidence that there is a slack in the economy today.

So tackle the problem of high interest rates, take the pressure off prices and costs in Canada, reduce tariffs, take off this indirect sales tax, and not only will prices be sharply reduced, but it will improve the competitive position of business and industry on the markets of the world, enable them to expand and provide greater employment for our people, and that, after all, must be our objective.

Another, I think, appropriate reference in this respect is in terms of deficit financing, since we're discussing the Budget today and we'll be voting on this Budget shortly, and here the members have a rather unique opportunity in Canada to vote in support of a balanced Budget — not deficit financing — a balanced Budget. Balancing your budget is following not an economic road to inflation, it's following the economic road to deflation rather than inflation, and if all governments in Canada balanced their budgets, both in terms of current and capital expenditure, as we do in the Province of British Columbia, this in itself would have a tremendous impact on inflation.

The members of the Opposition, both in the N.D.P. and the Liberal ranks, had a lot to say on debt. The Leader of the Opposition, when he criticized this Budget, referred to the dead-weight debt of the Provincial Government. Little does he recall, perhaps, that this dead-weight debt was paid off in 1960, or fully secured by sinking funds, and there is no dead-weight debt in British Columbia today. No dead-weight debt. That's the tactic of the N.D.P. They keep repeating that we are in debt with the hope that the people will believe them, but you know, you don't have to take just our Budget. You don't have to take our Budget. The sinking fund fully offsets, fully offsets the amount of the debt. In here — here it is — $59,964,964, and offset fully by the same amount of sinking funds and contingent liabilities. Also listed in this book here, if you don't want to go to the Budget. It covers every problem — 1969 — put out by the Bank of Montreal, "Funded Direct and Guaranteed Debts of the Federal and Provincial Governments."

Let's go to the Province of Manitoba, and it'll be interesting to see, now that the N.D.P. are in power in the Province of Manitoba, when they sit in this House here and criticize the fact that certain guarantees are listed as contingent liabilities, it'll be interesting to see whether the N.D.P. In the Province of Manitoba change this practice. Here they are, this is Manitoba now. Not debt — guarantees, contingent liabilities — precisely the terminology that's used in this Province.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT: They're going to double them in Hydro.

MR. PETERSON: Manitoba Hydro Electric Boards, and they list them. Hundreds of millions of dollars, hundreds of millions of dollars. Manitoba Telephone System — $131,500,000 of contingent liabilities there. The University of Manitoba — even that's a contingent liability…. Well, is the N.D.P. going to change this? Is the N.D.P. going to change this? Are they no longer going to continue school bonds as contingent liabilities? School capital financing authority — $35,000,000. Water Supply Board, Agriculture Credit Corporation, Miscellaneous, Hydro. Mr. Speaker, we will be able to tell whether they really mean what they say when they start talking about debt. The fact is that this is a debt-free Budget and it is recognized as such right across Canada.

Having been somewhat critical of some of the steps proposed by the Federal Government, I want to say that we are sympathetic with the efforts that they've put forward in the establishment of the Prices and Incomes Commission. In recent days we've noticed that the Commission has had meetings and has asked business to hold back prices to a prestated level and, if necessary, they would look at companies' books to see that profits are not being raised through price increases and this sort of thing, and we welcome this step by the Federal Government. I'm sorry to say that the labour movement at this date has shown little cooperation with the Commission's meetings. They have not made an effort, as yet, at this time in a co-ordinated fight against inflation in this country, and certainly it's our hope that there will be a more rational approach in respect to wage restraint, and we hope that that will be indicated in the near future. If I understood some of the members opposite correct, in the N.D.P. they were supporting compulsory price and wage controls.

AN HON. MEMBER: Profit controls.

MR. PETERSON: Yes, they wanted everything controlled, and one can understand why, because that's part of the socialist philosophy. Bureaucracy and socialism go hand in hand, bureaucracy and socialism go hand in hand, and we would hope, Mr. Speaker, we would hope that it would not be necessary to establish that kind of compulsory controls. We would like to see wage negotiations arrived at by free negotiations between labour and management. Inevitably this will lead to some strikes, some lockouts, but it's our hope that neither business nor labour will, in the long run, jeopardize their economic position. We call upon business and industry not to accept financially ruinous wage demands, and unions not to financially jeopardize their livelihood by unreasonable requests, because both parties and including all of us are really consumers.

I think, too, on this question, before I leave the subject of inflation it's worthy of mention that each of us can do our own bit as consumers to combat inflation. Becoming more price-conscious in terms of shopping, balancing our own personal budgets instead of spending beyond our income, and really it is a problem today the extensive credit arrangements that are available to consumers, to encourage them to five beyond their means, to buy beyond their means. At the last Session I reviewed some of the provisions, the main provisions of the Consumer Protection Act which is administered by the Attorney-General's Department, and which contains a substantial bundle of rights for consumers in the Province of British Columbia, and for the borrowers of money as well.

[ Page 517 ]

An extension of those rights took place last year, when we put on the statute books a provision prohibiting the practice of referral selling. A further step was taken just at the close of this year, with the establishment of a Consumer Affairs Officer, occupied now for the first time by a Mr. Hansen who has had extensive experience in Great Britain in this way. Certainly this will be a means of distributing and disseminating more consumer information, on the basis that an informed customer is a wiser customer, and really that's the philosophy underlying the approach of this Government and the approach of our legislation.

It's undesirable, we think, for Government intervention in the market place to be such that we have inspectors looking after inspectors and Government officials looking over the shoulder of buyer and seller every time a transaction takes place. We want to make the statutory rights available, make them known to the public in meaningful terms, and allow themselves, the consumer, to assert his rights under that legislation, and that is what is happening today.

There are two new areas that we intend to move in, and announcements that I want to make today in this respect. The first relates to the problem of the over-committed debtor, and it's one which is coming to the fore with increasing frequency at this time, and we feel the remedy in this respect is in the Federal Government's Bankruptcy Act, Part 10, which is intituled, "Orderly Payment of Debt." This comes into force in the Province only on the request being made, and it provides a comparatively simple and inexpensive procedure, whereby certain debtors who are unable to meet their obligations as they become due may apply to the Clerk of the Court, a Court designated by the Province to fix the amounts to be paid into Court, and then it is distributed on a pro rata basis among the creditors.

The big advantage is that once this is done and the consolidation order made, it bears interest not at the rate of the contractual obligation in the first place, but it bears interest at the same rate as a judgment, which is now 5 per cent. A case was brought to me by my colleague from Vancouver–Little Mountain, and she has been very active in this area, but she brought a case in which the original debt to a finance company, a chap borrowed sixteen hundred odd dollars. Over a period of years he paid over $1,000 — four years I think it was — over $1,000, and you know, at the end of that four-year period the principal owing was still over $1,500. Less than $100 paid on the principal of that debt and that's because, even after the pooling arrangement was entered into, that the high interest rate of 21 per cent continued. Now this is going to reduce it to the 5 per cent level if the debtor takes advantage of it.

I suggest that this should also have the effect, when we are talking in the broad sense of inflation, have the effect of making our people just a little more careful and selective in the extension of credit. It also, of course, helps those who are faced with garnishing orders and other warrants of execution, etc., because these no longer apply once the pooling arrangement is made.

Now the other area in which action will be taken this year relates to the wholesale distribution of credit cards, encouraging people to take advantage of the credit facilities, and the distribution of credit cards through the mail. Of course the mails, etc., in most of this area is not under Provincial jurisdiction, it's under Federal jurisdiction. Nonetheless, we are going to bring in legislation which is designed to stop this undesirable practice, and not only with reference to credit cards but also with reference to unsolicited goods, where people can send you something through the mail and they say, "You keep it so long on a trial basis. If we don't get it back, we'll bill you." Well, why should the people of the Province be put under that obligation? So this would prohibit the practice of distributing unsolicited goods as well. I had a case the other day. I was meeting with all of the Chiefs of Police in the Province, and they brought forward afterwards an incident where unsolicited goods were mailed, sent back, and the people still billed, still billed, which happens too frequently. Therefore, this practice is undesirable and you will be asked to consider legislation to prohibit it.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's a matter of computers, and they'll just keep on rolling.

MR. PETERSON: Well, when you find out the means which we are taking, I think the computers won't keep on rolling, I think the computers won't keep on rolling as far as British Columbia is concerned, in this respect.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the Budget we are going to be called upon to approve within fifteen minutes or so is a record Budget, a debt-free Budget, as I've said, a services to people Budget. A fantastic accomplishment for the people of this Province. One billion, one hundred and sixty-five million, and you know, the surprising thing is, that even this large figure doesn't include all of the expenditures that will be made for the benefit of people and services to people in this next fiscal year, and what I'm referring to here are the perpetual funds.

MR. D. BARRETT: No problems!

MR. PETERSON: The Leader of the Opposition is right. There are no problems on this side but we know he has problems on his side, Mr. Speaker, he has problems on his side. And all of the comments across the floor will not create the kind of enmity that has existed in the ranks of the N.D.P. that caused two members to stab your former Leader in the back.

But what I'm referring to now is something that the members across the way haven't been talking much about, and that is the perpetual funds. The $25,000,000 fund for the first citizens of the Province. A Provincial Major Disaster Fund, in the same amount. The $5,000,000 Agricultural Aid Fund that the Minister of Agriculture spoke about the other day and made certain announcements. The $10,000,000 Physical Fitness and Amateur Sports Fund….

That is information up to the end of December. I'm going to give you a little more information in that respect, Mr. former Leader, and I'm glad to see that you are still on the job and reading the questions and answers, and I would hope that the present Leader would take a little more interest in the answers, too.

But on this Physical Fitness Fund, that table goes up to the end of December. The actual figure now of grants made, and this is since the 1st of April, is $434,692 in grants, $434,692 in grants. In January of this year, for example, over $110,000 in grants, and this is a major vehicle now, Mr. Speaker, in ensuring that our athletes are given an opportunity to compete and prepare for competition in Provincial and National and International competitions, as well as to encourage sports and physical fitness on abroad basis and on a mass basis in the Province of British Columbia. We've had the advice and the assistance of some of the great athletes of the Province, those who have organized the sport, and

[ Page 518 ]

one of the provisions of the fund is that all of the revenue has to go out in grants. It can't go for administrative expenses of the Committee or of our Advisory Council in terms of the meetings that we hold, all to be distributed in grants.

While the fund only came into existence in April, April the 1st of last year, the first distributions were made, you have some of the details and you can have more of the details, but I'd like to just read you one of the responses that we've received in this respect. It's from a grant that was made to the Canadian Amateur Swimming Association that enabled them to compete, and they took the first place in the out-of-state competition and second over-all in one of the events, and comes from Mr. Tom Ross of that Association. "I'm writing to express the thanks of many thousands of youngsters who are now benefiting from the Physical Fitness and Amateur Sports Fund. They might not be completely aware of how much this fund is doing for them, but those of us who are involved in administering and programming know that this is the one single concept of this decade that will influence their sport more than anything else ever has." I said I can understand the Liberals not talking about these funds because they tried to stop us from establishing them. They voted against it.

Here's another statement. Dr. Hindmarch, President of the B.C. Sports Federation. "Establishment of an Amateur Sports and Fitness Fund by the Provincial Government is the greatest thing that has ever happened to amateur sport in Canada." In Canada. "No other province has anything like it, and few places in the world have such an imaginative method of financing amateur sports."

Mr. Speaker, the outstanding achievements of this administration have been made possible by the sound financial proposals that have been put forward not only in this Budget, not only in this Budget, but each and every Budget that's been presented to this Legislature each year by the Minister of Finance. And fortunate we are to have a man with business sense, coupled with a faith in the future of the Province to serve in that capacity. I tell you, British Columbia is fortunate in having the most experienced and the most capable Minister of Finance in all of Canada, and you know that's true, you know that's true. (applause)

I say, too, that this Budget, Mr. Speaker, deserves the support of every member who wants to build a better British Columbia, every member who wants to build a better British Columbia. Those of you who have spoken against inflation should support him because it's an anti-inflationary Budget. You should support it because it's a balanced Budget, balanced by revenue income and that revenue income is based on low tax rates, low tax rates and no borrowing. Those who want the thrust in this new decade, that we are entered into now in the 70's, to be on services to people should support this Budget. You should support this Budget. Thirty-six per cent of the total Budget to Health and Welfare, 31 per cent to education. The member for Vancouver-Seymour had something to say on education, he had something to say on school freeze, Mr. Speaker — some freeze. If I can find the figure. My colleague has them so nicely wrapped here, that I've lost the figure, but I did have the figure — $66,000,000 — $66,000,000 school construction in 1969. Some freeze!

You were talking about freeze in the election campaign when you were going around predicting the great victory for the Liberals, the great victory for the Liberals, and your predictions were as accurate then as your predictions about this Budget! Four million more dollars, four million more dollars since November in school construction. Two million authorized yesterday, two million authorized yesterday! Some freeze! Some freeze!

You talked about lighthouse and keystone districts. What does that mean when you strip it from the fancy words, Mr. Speaker? It means that the wealthier areas in the Province should be able to provide every conceivable thing for the education of their youth and the poor areas would have a lower standard. We don't buy that. We don't buy that. We believe in equal educational opportunity for all our children wherever they live, wherever they live. We don't buy the Liberal policy of special schools for the rich man and poorer schools for the poor man. That's not our policy. Our policy is equal educational opportunity, and that's the objective of the formula which, as far as the school construction, is concerned, it's certainly the most generous in Canada, and those who believe in strong local government should certainly support this Budget, should certainly support this Budget.

AN HON. MEMBER: And, he says that with a, straight face!

MR. PETERSON: I can say that with a straight face because nowhere in Canada, nowhere in Canada are municipal governments treated as well as they are by the Provincial Government of this Province. (applause) And the member for Vancouver-Capilano has had a challenge put out to him. The Minister of Municipal Affairs offered to resign his seat if you could prove that wasn't so. Why haven't you? Why haven't you? Put up or shut up. Put up or shut up. Where are the challengers? Where are the challengers now? Just a lot of talk from that side of the House, Mr. Speaker.

Those who want to encourage home ownership, Mr. Speaker, will support this Budget, those who want to encourage home ownership. They all talk about home ownership, you know. They all talk about it, what a wonderful thing, and how many more homes we need. But here you have an opportunity, and an additional $25,000,000 poured in, that's what this Budget provides, and once you own the home, then the Government pays the first $160 of your tax under this new Budget. Are you going to vote against that?

Mr. Speaker, people buying their own home, school students at all levels, civil servants, urban, rural dwellers, all of. them will be helped by this Budget in this next fiscal year. This is the most progressive Budget that's ever been put before the people of this Province. It is. And not a single member in their addresses in this House has been able to prove otherwise, not a single member. Those who are concerned, and if that honourable the Leader of the Opposition, instead of being a joker, will show a little more concern, show that you are concerned with the future of this Province and the future growth and economic expansion, who want people to come in here and invest. their money, rather than being attacked by the hatchet men in your party, rather than being attacked by the hatchet men in your party. Those who are concerned with the plight of the needy and less fortunate, those who are concerned with services to people, Mr. Speaker, you can show that concern and you can show it right now, by voting in support of the motion.

MR. SPEAKER: The question is, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the House to go into Committee of Supply." Are you ready for the question? All those in favour say Aye. Contrary minded say No. I think the Ayes have it.

[ Page 519 ]

The motion was agreed to on the following division: —

YEAS — 35

Messieurs

NAYS — 14

Messieurs

PAIRS:

Messieurs

(IN THE COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY)

MR. SPEAKER: I declare the motion carried. So ordered.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT (Premier): Committee of Supply, Mr. Speaker.

Pursuant to Order, the House resolved itself into the Committee of Supply.

(Estimates of the Department of Agriculture)

The Committee rose, reported progress, and asked leave to sit again.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I move that we proceed to Motions on the Order Paper, page two in the Orders of the Day. Motion No. 3, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion No. 3. The Honourable the first member for Vancouver–Point Grey:

MR. P.L. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member from West Vancouver–Howe Sound, "That a Special Committee of the House be formed to consider all matters relating to the capital financing and rate structure of British Columbia Hydro. The Committee will make recommendations regarding what financial measures are appropriate and what changes in the British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority Act, 1964, are necessary to give effect to the financial recommendations."

In speaking to this motion, Mr. Chairman, it's not my intention, as suggested by the Chair some time ago, to enter into any lengthy debate at all on the subject of the rate structure or capital financing of B.C. Hydro. There will be ample opportunities to do that in Committee of the Whole. My point in putting forward to the House this motion, and I am very pleased that the Government has seen fit to call it at this time, is to indicate why it is necessary for us to have such a committee. The reason why we require this committee, Mr. Speaker, is that we have been told things in this House regarding Hydro rates and capital financing which have not come true, and we need to inquire why these things we have been told have not come true. There are many members in this House who are new members this Session, Mr. Speaker, who never heard these words being spoken, but those who have sat on the Opposition benches for some years, have heard it said here, and it's been reported in the press, regrettably not in Hansard, that we would continue to have rate reductions, continuously.

This is what the Premier and Minister of Finance told us, until we had the cheapest power in all of Canada, and we were told when this giant Peace River project went ahead, that electricity would be delivered to the lower mainland at a cost of 4.4 mills, and we were told that none of the people's tax money would be used for capital financing of the B.C. Hydro. But these things haven't come true, Mr. Speaker. As of today, Vancouver is the fourth highest in all of Canada in its hydro-electric rates. We have expensive power.

In answers which came down on the Order Paper only yesterday, and again we are glad that the Minister of Finance supplied these answers, the cost of Peace River Power delivered was five mills, according to those answers. We were told that the Columbia River was being completely financed by the money advanced by the Americans. We were told that the Mica Dam would be half free to Canadians, or that the dam itself, half the machining of it would be free, and the cost of the dams would be completely covered. Yet in answers brought down on the Order Paper yesterday, it showed that all but $50,000,000 of the Columbia River money has been spent, and the amount of money already spent on the Mica Darn., indicates that we will be at least $150,000,000 short, with no provision for the powerhouse, no machining, no clearing of the dam site, and no transmission lines.

These are things that we have been told in the House, would not happen, and yet they have happened. Why? Well, we were given the answer why, by the Chairman of the B.C. Hydro in an interview with the reporter in the Vancouver Sun. The date, January 9th, 1970. An interview requested by the Chairman of the Hydro to make his story clear to the public, and here's what he said, "Politically ordered rate reductions in the 1960's are responsible for B.C. Hydro needing an increase of at least 15 per cent this year, and seven to eight per cent from now on, as long as inflation lasts." In other words, what the Chairman has been telling us is that we must have a rate increase this year, because political decisions were made which were against the economic interest of the B.C. Hydro and the people of British Columbia.

The Prices and Incomes Commission of Canada has asked that there be a "hold the line" all across the country this year. So far, big industry has said yes. Many provinces have

[ Page 520 ]

said yes. The hopes are that labour will say yes, but what's the answer of the Provincial Government? A rate increase for power probable — 15 per cent — to start in April, just after the Legislature rises.

That's going to increase the cost of living in British Columbia. That's going to fly in the face of everything that's trying to be achieved in Canada this year. Is it necessary? If it's necessary, why is it necessary? It doesn't seem to be necessary next door in Alberta, because what we have there from the Calgary Power, a privately-operated power corporation that pays taxes to government, is a continuous record through its 60-year history of rate reductions, and no rate increase plans for this year. The story in the Vancouver Province of Wednesday, January 21st, says, "Riding the industrial boom, the Alberta system's load growth of 10 to 12 per cent annual increase in recent years has only been rivalled by B.C. Hydro's." It goes on to say, "A key policy decision a decade ago was to construct thermal generation plants. The mix of hydro plants for peaking power, and huge thermal units for base loads, is ideal for providing the cheapest power possible," said Williams, who is the director of that corporation. "However, it took the great growth of this Province to put us in this position."

The reason I draw that contrast is that Calgary Power has far cheaper electricity than British Columbia. We're talking about electricity, Mr. Member, not gas, not run by gas — coal. Cheaper power, that's the point. Paying taxes to government, that's the point. Why is it different? No rate reduction planned in Calgary this year for Calgary Power. Why? Because they make economic decisions and not political decisions, that's why. Why do we need to have this investigating committee of this Legislature? Because we need to know what the correct economic considerations are, that's why we need this committee. And ever since the Government took over the B.C. Hydro, we still don't get the necessary information in public. This is all you produce, this thin document. The necessary figures are never here.

But let me show what happened before this Government took over the B.C. Electric, before they took over the operation of power in this Province of ours. These are the annual reports that we used to get from the British Columbia Power Commission. Absolutely stacked with statistics. Rate schedules, numbers of customers, generating facilities, increases, details for every single town in the Province. Spelling out what their policies were. What the economic considerations were, and available to the members of this House. No longer. No longer. What we have now. What we have now.

I want the B.C. Hydro officials now appearing before our legislative committee to tell us what the rates are and what the rates could be. That's what we need to know. Because, Mr. Speaker, the people of this Province should not be faced with a power rate increase. Fifteen per cent on those with limited income. Why should they have to face that? It's going to push the rents up for all those who rent. It's going to hit those who are on fixed income. They weren't told that before the election. All they were told was they were going to have continuous rate reductions, and after the election, then we had the Chairman of the B.C. Hydro telling us it was all wrong. These were political decisions, and it would have been unwise to announce just before the election what the true economic facts were.

The Minister of Lands and Forests looked over with a puzzled expression on his face, and when we said that these rate increases would be unavoidable two years ago, he said it was uninformed twaddle. Uninformed twaddle. Well, the way to avoid that uninformed twaddle in this House is to have the responsible officials in the B.C. Hydro appearing before us, telling us like it is. That's all we want. What are you trying to hide, is the question.

Here's what appears from another power corporation in Canada, and I think it would be the same no matter where you went outside of British Columbia. Again, a bookful of statistics justifying every rate, explaining the customers and the services that they provide, and giving all the information that is necessary for people to reach judgments as to whether that corporation is being managed in the economic interests of the Province or in the political interests of the Government.

Well, Mr. Speaker, of course I am appealing to the members of the House to support this motion, because I look at the Government supporters, many of them new members in this House, who will want to go back and explain to their constituents what the problems and the opportunities are for B.C. Hydro, to explain to them why there is a rate increase if there is to be a rate increase, why the Government of the Province of British Columbia would permit this at a time when we are trying to hold back inflation here and everywhere else in Canada. And they can do this with some knowledge and conviction, Mr. Speaker, if they themselves have the opportunity to see inside the workings of this giant corporation, to be there when the questions are asked, not of the Minister of Finance, not of the directors of B.C. Hydro who sit on the treasury benches, but of the executives and the operating managers, from the planners who are responsible for carrying forward the decisions of the Government to the ones that lay before the Government the options and the cost of those options. These are the things that we need to know in this Province. These are the things that are no longer told to the people and no longer told to the Legislature. The only time, Mr. Speaker, that we get any information at all is when the Government is required to go to the money markets of the world to find its financing for the B.C. Hydro.

The last candid information that we had, the last detail that was put forward of any plans of the B.C. Hydro came in June of 1967, when this prospectus was prepared, the 6 1/4 per cent Series H-A bonds, marketed in New York through Halsey Stewart and Company, Merrill Lynch and Company, and so forth. The information which is contained in this document is valuable and it is revealing. It should be studied by every member of the House. If you wanted to get a copy of this document and learn what was going on in this giant hydro-electric operation you had to write to the Wall Street bankers in New York, because they weren't provided for the members of this Legislative Assembly whose duty it is to watch the public purse and control the Crown corporations. And I ask the members of the House, are they willing to let this responsibility slip through their fingers?

What do we have to say in this House with regard to the power rates of B.C. Hydro? What do we really know about the finances? What do we know about the future requirements? How much more of the people's pension money that should be used for schools and hospitals are being bled off to serve the B.C. Hydro instead of the people? And don't say that it isn't being done, because just to take one account, Mr. Speaker, the Canada Pension Plan, which every citizen of this Province pays into every year and which is the lowest money in Canada available at the present time in the way of interest rates. Of the first $397,000,000 of that Canada Pension Plan

[ Page 521 ]

fund, $309,000,000 found its way into the pockets of the B.C. Hydro. Only $55,000,000 to schools and $33,000,000 to hospitals — the rest to the B.C. Hydro.

Mr. Speaker, this Canada Pension Plan money is the largest fund of social capital in Canada, and yet the members of this Legislature, whose duty it is to represent the little people of this Province, have let their money slip past their authority and into the hands of the B.C. Hydro, and it is time we began to ask some pretty serious questions about where our social capital is going in this Province.

It isn't just the Pension Fund and the other trust funds that now total close to $1,500,000,000. It is the cash surplus of the Province itself. Last year we stripped $130,000,000 of tax surplus. That wasn't any pension fund. This was dollars collected in income tax and sales tax and gasoline tax and which we didn't spend on services such as schools, even though there are youngsters on swing shift in this Province, nor on hospitals, even though there are ill people who can't find beds. No, we took that tax money and we stripped it off, and where did we send it, Mr. Speaker? Well, look at the holdings of those funds. We've been sending it to the B.C. Hydro, that's where we've been sending that money. And if there were choices that need to be made as to where social capital from our pension funds and where the tax surplus from our various taxes are going, then we should know these because this has a bearing on every single vote we take in this House during Committee of Supply, because that is what the surplus is being built up for and this is where it is going.

Mr. Speaker, this is an opportunity for the humble members of this House to serve the humble people of British Columbia by starting to take some authority in their hands, by asking questions of the officials of these Crown corporations that those men on the treasury benches refuse to answer, to get the information for yourselves and the people in your constituencies, that up until this time have been given to the bankers of Wall Street. This is your opportunity to assert yourselves on behalf of the people of British Columbia, and I urge you to support this motion.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Lands and Forests.

HON. R.G. WILLISTON: Mr. Speaker, this is rather a strange debate. It is led by the representative of the Liberal party which, if they examine their records as they look back insofar as power is concerned in the Province of British Columbia, if this Province had followed the advice of the leadership of the day offered in this House we would have been one of the "have not" provinces in Canada. Despite your difficulties, Mr. Speaker, if you are ever going to make progress there is something has to key progress, and what has keyed progress in the Province of British Columbia more than anything else, what has keyed progress and this progress has led to the jobs, has been the power policy of this particular Government. And when, Mr. Speaker, you take some courageous actions at times, and when people such as the Liberal party laughed all over British Columbia. I remember my former colleague, the Honourable Bob Bonner, and somebody said, "What are you going to do with that power that you've got in British Columbia? What are you going to do with it?" And he said, "We've got faith that British Columbia will grow to use it." The Liberals had no faith and they tried, as a political gimmick, as a political doctrine, to parade this Province and to tell the people that this, in fact, was something in which they should not participate.

Mr. Speaker, before I sit down this afternoon, had we not been on the programme and if we were not to continue on the programme despite its difficulties, and believe me there are difficulties, if we were not to proceed, this Province wouldn't be moving and those jobs these people are talking about in this Assembly just would not be there today. As a matter of fact, to give you one instance, one instance, on the North American continent today the said lead spot for the production of pulp, the integration of the forest industry in the Province of British Columbia today, as you know it, is in Prince George. That was led there for one reason only at the time, that there was an assurance of electrical energy coming to that area which would be available for the industrial enterprises which were planned for that spot. And it was not anybody in British Columbia, it was not someone else that looked at the opportunity and saw it and questioned it as to its coming, but you will remember it was one of those corporations of which the member from Vancouver East was speaking today in such disparaging terms — it was Read's of London who spotted that and focused world-wide attention on the interior of British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: You weren't here for the member's speech.

MR. WILLISTON: I was here for the member's speech.

It was that that spear-headed the biggest expansion in that particular industry that has taken place in the western world, Mr. Speaker, and that was geared to power. If I get back on this, you won't catch the ferry or anything else.

I would like to answer specifically some of the matters which were raised by the honourable member and put them into some kind of perspective. Mr. Speaker, before anybody gets into a committee and racing up and down they need to have some basic type of factual information about the subject in which they are getting, and we have listened this afternoon on the basis of some subject matter which was erroneous, and hand-picked, and served to paint an improper picture of the situation in the Province of British Columbia. Mr. Speaker, we continue in this debate backwards and forwards to compare like not with like. And I want to give you one or two general statistics here today, and we listened to it again this afternoon with Calgary Power. We listened to it with cities compared to cities like Vancouver.

Well, let's get away from British Columbia and their other statistics. Let's take your current Dominion Bureau of Statistics record and look at the situation that prevails in British Columbia as against the Canadian situation right at the present time, and you look them up. If you take the average light bills paid by all Canadians, take 1961 as they are doing at the present time as equalling 100, the average price paid for electricity by Canadians today is 112.4 on your D.B.S. statistics. B.C. Hydro compared to 1961, the comparative rating for B.C. Hydro is 77. And Mr. Speaker, even if a rate increase does come, and I will substantiate this in a minute, but even if it does come to the extent suggested, our index would still be 91 against the Canadian index of 112.4.

This business of painting the situation in British Columbia in very black terms for political purposes just is not fair because it is not honest and it doesn't project the whole situation. For example, Mr. Speaker, we take Vancouver with three of four cities and say what a terrible situation it is. But remember in British Columbia it's a matter of policy, and if you are not for it stand up and say, but in Canada today we're the only Province that has a postage stamp rate for the people that are outside. If you are against the proposition

[ Page 522 ]

back in your communities, of that business, then get up and argue it and say it at the present time. But we in British Columbia, if you will be fair and compare the rates in the Province of British Columbia with the rates for example in the Province of Manitoba, with the rates for example in the Province of Alberta — and get off of one utility and get back to the utilities in Alberta that are asking B.C. Hydro to extend their services into Alberta right now and give them service — you'd be giving something that was a true picture.

I don't have to emphasize, Mr. Speaker, that even at the moment when we make these comparisons that Manitoba Hydro, as you know, has a rate increase coming up of 14 1/2 per cent. Manitoba Hydro had a rate increase last year. Manitoba Hydro has to increase its revenues by $45,000,000 — we're not talking in that field — by $45,000,000, and even at that the Federal Government are in on the scheme and handling the transmission from their northern power proposition back into southern Manitoba. They are subsidizing the business right at the present time.

But, Mr. Speaker, when we talk, as we do also, and they give us Washington and they give us all the rest of these places as comparison, it may interest you to know that all of the money, for example, in the Bonneville Power Corporation's works, that up until 1969 the average rate on all borrowings in the Bonneville Power Corporation, all of their works south of the fine that you compare us with, was two and a half per cent — that was Federal policy. It was two and a half per cent. That's their competition.

Money is the highest single cost in a hydro-electric project today. Last year their rate went up to three and a quarter per cent, and there was great loud lamentations and wailing throughout the area. But there's two of them, there is the Bonneville Power and there is the Corps of Engineers, a Federal agency, and there are only three projects in the whole of the Corps of Engineers that pay more than two and a quarter per cent interest on the capital borrowings that they are using. There are only three, and the highest they pay is three and one-eighth per cent.

Now, Mr. Speaker, sometimes when we compare like with like, let's compare like with like. This afternoon we heard that it was a political decision on behalf of the Government to reduce the rates in the Province of British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: And it was.

MR. WILLISTON: That's right, it was a political decision, and political decisions are the people's business. Politics in its highest form is the people's business.

Mr. Speaker, I'll say this, had this Government or the Corporation built up that amount of money and held it in reserve, which was $172,000,000 that was put back to the people of the Province of British Columbia — it wasn't chicken feed, it was $172,000,000 that went back — had we accumulated $172,000,000, this Opposition across here would have been the first group in the Province of British Columbia to say we were gouging the people. Now, Mr. Speaker, you can't have it both ways, Mr. Speaker, you can't have it both ways. If we're running hydro at cost when that cost is in that factor the people deserve the benefit, and they have benefitted, and as our cost factor goes up against our general standard of living, that will be reflected in the costs that are charged for the services which happen to be rented.

But remember, Mr. Speaker, just one or two points here before we deal with the whys that we have an increase at the present time, and we can detail them, but let's think of one or two other things about cost factors in British Columbia. For example, our journeymen line wages for the I.D.E.W. In British Columbia are $5.39 an hour — $539 an hour. Our fringe benefits are $1.5 9 an hour. For example, Mr. Speaker, if we have these things in British Columbia, and we have a high standard of living, and we pay for a high standard of living. But if you take Ontario Hydro which you love to use, the linemen's rates this year in Ontario Hydro comparative are $4.27 an hour as against our $5.39, their fringe benefits are 99 cents against ours at $1.59. The City of Seattle, take the City of Seattle, which they give us, and we take their standards of living and their wage rates, the City of Seattle linemen's rates are $5.28 an hour against our $5.39 an hour in British Columbia, and that's in American funds, and their fringes in Seattle are $1.65 an hour, Mr. Speaker.

I'm coming back in a moment, but I think that the people in this Legislature, the people in this Legislature and the people in British Columbia do not recognize one or two things that are going along in the power business right now, and the first is, for example, if you don't know, that ever since November when you talked about what we were going to do — and I'll link this in with why we're having trouble with finance — but ever since November the Peace River project has been handling, in November it was 54.7 per cent of all the load of B.C. Hydro in the Province of British Columbia. In December it handled 53.5 per cent, in January it handled 53.4 per cent, in this month we're through it's just about 54 per cent. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, without that power source that we've been able to expand — remember we plucked it off the 1980 shelf — number one, and number two, the best we could do, the best we could do, Mr. Speaker, the best we could do.

Mr. Speaker, let's just deal with this business down in the States and the waste, because if anybody has put to the people of British Columbia and Canada an absolute falsehood that would waste more money for the people of the Province of British Columbia than the pronouncements that have been coming from the Opposition, I've heard nothing worse in these parts.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just one moment I think there is a tendency towards unparliamentary language there. Perhaps the Minister can withdraw that.

MR. WILLISTON: Well, I don't know which word it was, but I didn't intend it to be, and I withdraw it, wherever it was along the line.

AN HON. MEMBER: We'll excuse it.

MR. WILLISTON: All right. It's so gracious, thank you, Mr. Member. You set the standard for everybody in this House, and I accept it from you.

But anybody in British Columbia, anybody in British Columbia that attempts to build up a power system on the basis of somebody else's power generating needs and somebody else's power generation in their generators and take it when they generate it and not when we generate it, which was the agreement there and which was the sum that we happened to sell, Mr. Speaker. that cannot be done. You cannot do it insofar as the Province of British Columbia because you have no control, Mr. Member, if you don't know it, when the power happens to be generated, if it's generated on somebody else's system, to meet your load growth. And if you'd like — I've heard some….

[ Page 523 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order.

MR. WILLISTON: Well, Mr. Speaker, they know so much about this subject one would hate to spend years in it and doing it.

But this cannot be done, and the best arrangement insofar as the people of the Province of British Columbia was to get paid for every kilowatt of power when the power was actually generated. Despite what the people have been arguing in here, Columbia and elsewhere, when that sum was paid in cash and then discounted at less than 5 per cent at 4 1/2 per cent going backwards, that agreement, insofar as financial return in the Province of British Columbia, has been worth just about twice what it was negotiated at the first time. It was discounted and all people have to do is to take the discounting at the rate that was in, and take the worth of money which we're using today on the basis of it, and if the money you're getting today is 4 1/2 per cent and you can find it, you'll find it, and it's displacing the 4 1/2 per cent money that you happen to be talking about.

But, Mr. Speaker, one or two things about why we are the victims right now, we are the victims of the growth in the Province of British Columbia that's moving, and there are very, very substantial reasons why we are in some difficulty insofar as this situation is concerned at the moment. For example there's a question asked on the Order Paper, Mr. Speaker, and this puts it in quite some perspective. It'll be in the Order Paper and it'll be answered tomorrow or today. But as of December the 31st, 1969, as against last year with B.C. Hydro, of a net income of $1,980,119, and this year, and this is the whole of the Hydro, our figure this year, comparatively, is a deficit for the nine months of $6,708,403 — $6,708,403. And it's anticipated, Mr. Speaker, that by the end of the year, because this is the increasing time of the year, by the end of the year we will be approximately even this year with not too much of a deficit. It's going to be on the line just one way or the other way by the time we come to the end of March.

MR. D. BARRETT: He's not telling the truth….

MR. WILLISTON: But why are we in this position right at the present time, Mr. Speaker? And the Members have asked….

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just one moment.

HON. L.R. PETERSON (Attorney-General): I would ask the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw the allegation, you're not telling the truth.

AN HON. MEMBER: He didn't say that.

MR. BARRETT: I said the Premier did not tell the truth.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is unparliamentary to make such a statement in the House. Would you please withdraw. A member has requested a withdrawal. Will the honourable member withdraw? It is not a parliamentary term.

MR. BARRETT: I stated, on the speaker's statement, that the Premier knew these facts in July, before the secret minutes that I published….

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just one moment, just one moment!

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT: Withdraw!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will the Premier be seated and will the member be seated. It is not a question of making a speech at this time. The member made an unparliamentary statement. Would he please, as a gentleman, withdraw.

MR. BARRETT: The Premier has asked me to withdraw and I'm always incumbent to the Premier.

AN HON. MEMBER: He doesn't know the rules.

MR. BENNETT: You'll never be leader.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. WILLISTON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. With the interest proceeding here this afternoon, and with the information that's still available and they asked the specific question of why? and I'm ready to give the question why? and I can't give the question before six o'clock, but I'll promise you I'll go to a quarter to six and then move to the adjournment of the debate and carry it on when we get back to the argument of this.

But Mr. Speaker, very quickly, the reason why, and there are five very good reasons. One has been, believe it or not, we're the victims, we're the victims of our own growth, and the growth factor, Mr. Speaker, is that we've had an unexpectedly high load growth far beyond all of the advice, everything we've ever had. You may recall that when the Energy Board brought in its report insofar as the Peace and the Columbia Rivers, the two river policy was concerned, they took at that time a load growth compounded just a little less than eight per cent, and I can remember the howls of derision we had from the Opposition at that time that we'd built this so high, to get the best possible picture to justify the two river policy in the Province of British Columbia. Mr. Speaker, we haven't had a load growth of seven or eight per cent, it has been consistently over 10 per cent, and it's been as high as 14 per cent in the load growth area served by B.C. Hydro.

People tell us now, of course, you could have foreseen that, but there are some things we could not foresee, or the best experts could not foresee. One was, of course, the great influx of people into the Province of British Columbia since Hydro was announced. We've had the greatest expansion in family units on the Canadian scene, and it was far beyond our highest expectation. That was one. The second one was the tremendous industrial demand which built up, particularly around the pulp and paper industry and the mining industry in the Interior. If in the early 60's somebody could have indicated this to us and said precisely what it is, we might have known. But, Mr. Speaker, the indication of the good life in British Columbia and the fact which has caused us as much trouble as anything else is the fact that in 1961/62 our average consumption in each outlet, in each home outlet in British Columbia in 1961 was 4,829 kilowatts a year, 4,829 kilowatts. In this last year the average household use of electricity in British Columbia was 6,779 kilowatts, or an increase of better than 40 per cent in each household. Now if you want to translate this back into cost and what it's done to us in the ensuing time, well.

Mr. Speaker, I promised I'd stop at quarter to, and it's

[ Page 524 ]

going to take me longer than that. Mr. Speaker, I move adjournment until the next sitting of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: You've heard the motion. All those in favour say Aye. Contrary minded, No. The motion is carried. The Honourable the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. D. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, since we've now left the formal debates, will the experimentation with the debates continue into the Estimates?

MR. SPEAKER: I will be still experimenting with tapes, yes, to ensure we're getting proper fidelity, etc.

MR. BARRETT: If the Resolution becomes retroactive, then the material will be available during the….

MR. SPEAKER: I can't prejudge any situation, Mr. Leader, but we are continuing with the recording just to ensure that we're getting proper fidelity. There'll be some difficulty, in terms of the wording of the Resolution, as to when and when not to record. At the present time we will be recording everything, and then we'll act in accordance with the instructions handed down by the House.

The House adjourned at 5.48 p.m.