[ Page 293 ]

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 1972

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Members I sent the following telegram today:

MISS KAREN MAGNUSSON,

C/O THE PRESIDENT OF THE OLYMPIC ASSOCIATION, SAPPORO, JAPAN. CONGRATULATIONS ON YOUR WINNING THE SILVER MEDAL FOR FIGURE-SKATING AT THE WINTER OLYMPICS. ALL CANADIANS AND BRITISH COLUMBIANS ARE PROUD OF YOU AND YOUR FINE EFFORTS.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

HON. D.R.J. CAMPBELL (Minister of Municipal Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to welcome today students and their teachers from Campbell River District High School.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the first Member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. H.P. CAPOZZI (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Members to welcome a representative from the organisation known as ATTAC, an organisation which is designed to tackle adverse conditions in the eastern part of Vancouver. They are here on application for a grant from the drugs, cigarette and education fund in relation to glue-sniffing, and I'm hopeful that they will receive this grant. And I hope you will join with me in welcoming Mr. Brian Jenkins, who is in the Speaker's gallery.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Nanaimo.

MR. F.J. NEY (Nanaimo): Mr. Speaker, I'd like you to welcome today Mr. William Coates from the Gabriola Island Ratepayers Association.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the second Member for Vancouver South.

MRS. A. KRIPPS (Vancouver South): Mr. Speaker, I would like this House to join me in extending a hearty welcome to Mr. and Mrs. Paul Ruben of the Canadian Folk Society in Vancouver.

Introduction of bills.

HON. L.R PETERSON (Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE JURY ACT

MR. SPEAKER: The Lieutenant-Governor transmits herewith a bill intituled An Act to Amend the Jury Act and recommends the same to the legislative assembly. Dated at Government House, February 7, 1972.

House in committee on Bill No. 27, intituled An Act to Amend the Jury Act.

On the recommendation of the committee, Bill No. 27 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

Orders of the day.

ON THE BUDGET

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to again stand in my place on behalf of the wonderful people of the District of Coquitlam, City of Port Moody and the City of Port Coquitlam.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did they donate that suit?

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, that's known as a hound's tooth. My clothier told me that 24 dogs wore out their teeth chewing to get to the pattern.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're going to the dogs!

MR. BARRETT: Yes, that's about it.

Mr. Speaker, I was especially pleased with the number of people that we have with us today. I was inclined to stand up and welcome the Hon. Member from Nanaimo (Mr. Ney) for being with us today. (Laughter). But since he's here I hope he'll enjoy the afternoon.

We have too, Mr. Speaker, some students from Campbell River, I understand. They're especially welcome. While they're here perhaps they might pick up some old government exams. They've been having a few problems, and I do hope that their visit today won't be considered a matter of playing hookey. They've come down to the real seat of power, and they can watch their own M.L.A. — he's one of the aspirants for that seat. Sometimes they say he flies by his seat. In any event I'm glad that they're down here.

Also I would like to welcome the group from the ATTAC group in the east end of Vancouver. There are some of us in this House that belong to a very exclusive club — the Minister of Highways, the second Member for Vancouver East and myself are all the products of the east end of Vancouver and graduates of Britannia High School. The Minister of Highways — and I speak to him as the Minister of Highways because he can do more for me that way than he can as Provincial Secretary; if the Premier doesn't have road problems in Kelowna I've got a few of my own problems — but anyway we three are graduates from Britannia, and I'm pleased to announce that I've been invited to play in the reunion rugby game again on March 4. I've decided to get into shape again, I missed lunch today, but we'll see how I perform. They want the Minister back at the annual meeting this year, and I'm hoping that he'll be able to make it.

When it comes to the budget, Mr. Speaker, I intend to be very, very brief. When I was discussing the budget with one of my colleagues they said: "Well, you really don't have to do too much work to answer the budget," and I said: "Well, what do you mean?" They said: "Well, look at it this way. It was done in 1965 style, 1965 words, 1965 promises — why don't you just read your 1965 reply, and you'll be all even." Of course, Mr. Speaker, I really considered that.

[ Page 294 ]

After that fantastic build-up that we were given about the budget, the disappointments were very, very great. What the budget was really saying, Mr. Speaker, was that this government plays politics for the sake of politics. Not politics for the sake of people.

Mr. Speaker, it is my opinion that the budget has cheated the people of B.C. of their expectations. There was a deliberate over-emphasis on what this budget would contain, and the build-up led to disappointment and renewed frustrations.

In terms of the people who really need some help in this province — especially the senior citizens — there was very little comfort that $4 a month could give to these people who are still in their own homes. There are 203,000 senior citizens in this province, Mr. Speaker — 106,000 of them have an income so low that they qualify to receive the federal assistance supplementary grant. A further 15,000 of these have incomes even smaller that allow them to qualify for the provincial supplement; 55 per cent of the 203,000 people who are senior citizens of this province — 55 per cent of them live on the edge or in poverty by the standards set by the Economic Council of Canada.

In one of the richest provinces of Canada — do you approve of that, Mr. Premier? — 55 per cent of the senior citizens of this province under your jurisdiction live on the edge or in poverty.

There was an opportunity to provide these people a basic income that would allow them to have some comforts in their golden years, as they are described by the young sociologists. Did the Premier announce the elimination of premiums for medicare for the aged? Not at all.

Did he suggest that drugs should be made available at cost or even free? Not at all.

Did he suggest that some special guidance services, other than the pitiful attempts that have been made, should be provided these people? Not at all.

But he did make a statement, and I read from the budget on page 8, Mr. Speaker, about his approaches to the federal government, and I quote on page 8:

…Second is British Columbia's long standing proposals for the implementation of a nationally-administered guaranteed annual income for all Canadians through a negative income tax. Federal payments to any Canadian with income below a national standard would create market demand and provide the opportunity for a national standard of living.

Mr. Speaker, the facts are that this government under the Canada Assistance Plan could initiate a guaranteed annual income for the senior citizens of this province, and all costs would be shared 50-50 by Ottawa. Although the Minister shakes his head, the federal Minister's answer is on record in reply to Grace MacInnis in the federal House that all supplements are shared 50-50 by law under the Canada Assistance Plan, and if the Premier of this province wanted to bring in an annual guaranteed income for senior citizens in this province, it could be done immediately.

What about the costs? What about the costs? Let's examine another figure in the Premier's budget. I refer you to page 40, graph A, Mr. Speaker.

This province relies heavily, as the Premier announced in his budget speech, on the natural resources of this province. Some of the resources are renewable, others are non-renewable, and they must be described, Mr. Speaker — the natural gas, the petroleum, the mineral resources — as a life blood of this province that is non-renewable.

In 1959-1960, by the government's own graph, 14.6 per cent of the general revenue came directly from natural resources of this province. In 1972-73 that figure has dropped to 11.8 per cent, Mr. Speaker. With all the expansions, with all the boom, with all the growth, there was a 2.8 per cent less addition to general revenue of this province out of its natural resources.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I've broken down some figures to show how we could pay the people of British Columbia who are 65 years of age and older a minimum of $200 a month pension, guaranteed annual income $200 a month each at age 65, if the Premier of this province had even allowed the natural resources of this province to continue to pay their fair share of the load in general revenue.

A 2.8 per cent loss of revenue, Mr. Speaker, would have meant in this year's budget an additional $54 million. The total cost of providing those people, the 203,000 who are senior citizens of this province, the total cost of providing those people with a minimum income of $200 per month would amount to the following breakdown:

106,000 presently receive a supplement, the federal supplement, and to bring them up to $200 a month — the provincial share to bring it up to $200 a month — would be $33 a month.

15,000 people receive the federal supplement and the provincial supplement and the provincial share. To bring them up to $200 a month would be $13 a month.

Of the 82,000 people left, Mr. Speaker, at least 23,000 of them are above the line of $200 a month each. The remaining 50,000 would require $55 per month from the provincial government to bring them up to $200 a month.

The total cost, Mr. Speaker, per annum would be $96 million. If we had no new taxes, Mr. Speaker, no new taxes whatsoever, if we had asked the natural resources of this province to carry their fair share like the home-owner does, like the working man does, like the retired person does, like the civil servant does — just carry the same share they were carrying in 1960 — we would have had an additional $54 million.

If we would ask the Kaiser Coal Company to pay $1 a ton on its contract alone, plus the other coal that is going out of British Columbia, we would have an additional $15 million a year. Coal is now selling at $18.60 a ton — $5 million Kaiser Coal pays no royalty whatsoever and the other coal shipped from British Columbia pays a maximum of 25 cents a ton. A business-like administration?

On copper, Mr. Speaker, if we put a 15 per cent royalty on copper — a modest, reasonable, acceptable royalty — we would have collected another $17 million last year.

We could have raised a total of $86 million by the three measures that I have recommended here without touching natural gas, petroleum or the other items that exist, and the difference between the $86 million and $96 million could easily come out of general revenue.

We could have been the first in North America to go on to an expanded Townsend plan of providing income to senior citizens that would be spent every single month and go back into the economy and the life stream of this province, and provide these people with a decent, adequate standard of living.

AN HON. MEMBER: Like you do in Manitoba?

MR. BARRETT: I'm glad the Hon. Member is here today — and awake — because it's a pleasure to remind him that if

[ Page 295 ]

he checks the scale back in the budget he'll see on page 27 where the Premier has the comparative provincial government tax rate, 1972. He lists down here the amount of Manitoba — that they have to pay for their hospital insurance. Then you go to the next column, over to compulsory plan. They don't say how much they have to pay.

Senior citizens in Manitoba don't pay for their medical plan, Mr. Member. They don't pay for their medical plan, Mr. Member. I'm talking about the medical care and not the hospital insurance, and notice how the Premier changes the wording as it suits him.

There is another matter that I wish to bring to the Premier's attention in terms of his figures and his approaches to financing, because I think that he should know this. On November 6, when the Premier was speaking about his financing to the Social Credit convention, he said, and I quote from the Vancouver Province:

Today there is no argument about whether or not the Government of British Columbia is debt free or not. Financial people around the world know it, even the Government of Canada knows it. "The Bank of Canada knows it. They've sent a man to Vancouver to find out how this government handles its finances. He's been here four months, and he's just dizzy. He knows less now than when he did when he arrived."

Well, he's just dizzy. What does the federal government say about it?

In answer to a question on the order paper, and then a personal reply to the Member of Parliament for Surrey, Mr. Mather, Mr. Benson answered as follows. January 14, 1972.

Dear Mr. Mather:

Thank you for your letter of January 10 in which you asked whether the Bank of Canada sent a special representative to British Columbia to study the financial methods of B.C. government. The simple answer is that it did not.

Now who's telling the truth? Who's telling the truth, Mr. Speaker? The Premier announces to the Social Credit convention — his political arm — he makes a statement that Ottawa sent out a special representative to study the finances of the Province of British Columbia, and the Minister of Finance says the simple answer is it did not send out a representative to study British Columbia's finances.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I expect that the Premier will announce that he was mistaken perhaps in saying that the federal government had sent someone out to study the finances. But the other part of his statement is correct. The other part of his statement is correct. Anybody who studies the finances of this government and came out believing that we're still debt free would be dizzy after four months, Mr. Speaker.

Our debt now stands at $2,600 million in this province. Mr. Speaker, I checked with my banker about the mortgage on my home and said that I would like to alter the approach that I'm taking to pay for my home because I don't like being in debt.

I want my home classified as a contingent liability. Will I still have to pay interest on the mortgage, and will I have to make my monthly payments? Because I've been watching the financial genius that claims to be the most unique accountant in all the world, explaining how, if you change the name from "debt" to "contingent liability," you don't have to pay any interest. Because you don't have any debt anymore.

My banker said that he wasn't interested in politics; he was just interested in me keeping up my payments.

Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you that the obligations of this province are the same as my mortgage. I have a contingent liability — which is a debt. This province has contingent liabilities, which are debts, and the people of this province are paying interest on their own money, collected by taxes in this province. Collected by taxes in this province, loaned out to school districts, at an interest rate at the market level, and people must pay interest on their own money because of this contingent liability nonsense.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, you tell me who your banker is, and if he tells you he'll cancel your mortgage because you call it a contingent liability, I'd like to know his name. I'd like to know his name, because there are a lot of people in this province that would like to do business with him.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're out of your depth.

MR. BARRETT: I'm not out of my depth, and neither is the Member out of debt. I heard what he said, and I'm glad that he's here today from Victoria. I know that they're all excited about his representation here.

Mr. Speaker, I noticed in the paper another statement from a Liberal. Another ex-cabinet Minister, one that I find most interesting observer of the Canadian economic scene. Mr. Kierans, a very interesting fellow. Renowned business expert, ran a stock exchange that, to my knowledge, didn't have the problems ours had, Mr. Speaker, left the stock exchange and went into the federal cabinet, had a tiff with the present federal ultra-conservative government, known as Liberal, and left the cabinet.

I quote him out of the Victoria Colonist, February 4, 1972.

If Canada gets locked into being a supplier of resources and does not develop industry, it could have problems that are now not even contemplated. Unemployment could rise to 7 or 8 per cent in the next few years, then to 9 and maybe up to 12, unless effective industrial bases can be formed.

He's giving a very serious warning about a pattern of the development of the economy of this country that many Members of this House agree with. Yet the Premier's answer is to advocate free trade, advocate free trade which would mean that Canadian manufacturers with a 10 million population of an adult consumer group would have to compete with 100 million adults down there or 200 million total population to our 22 million population.

The point is, Mr. Speaker, that you could not possibly develop the manufacturing or secondary industry in this province to compete with an open market down there.

I'll give you some specific examples. We make all of our milk cartons here on the lower mainland out of a couple of box factories that rely heavily on Canadian paper and Canadian labour. The number of milk cartons produced provides approximately 300 people permanent employment all year around.

If we had free trade, Mr. Speaker, the number of milk cartons produced by those 300 people here on the lower mainland, would be a production over-run in the Los Angeles

[ Page 296 ]

area that would amount to one month's work at a lower price.

Just in that one example alone, Mr. Speaker, one month's over-production of the existing plant to make milk cartons would lay off 300 people in the Province of British Columbia. That's what free trade would bring.

The production capacity is so great, it's geared to such a large market, that unless we have the protection at the border, that kind of industry would be wiped out over night.

The Minister of Agriculture recognises that when it comes to the production of fruit. The Minister of Health knows very well what I'm talking about. He knows that on that basis in terms of numbers alone we can't compete. Here's what Eric Kierans is warning us about, and what does the Premier say? Let us go into free trade, which would commit us completely to be the hewers of wood and drawers of water.

No destiny of our own for the use of our own products, no plan at all by this government. The natural resource return from this province, Mr. Speaker, has not been developed properly. They have had the idea that industry could come into this province and create jobs at the secondary industry level without any direction or leadership from this provincial government.

What we need in this province, Mr. Speaker, is an industrial development corporation, which would allow the citizens of British Columbia to participate directly in the development of industry in this province — and we need a government that is willing to bargain, to stand up and fight for the people of British Columbia when it comes to making deals in terms of the selling of natural resources in this province.

Where are the jobs, Mr. Speaker? At this present time in the B.C.–Yukon section of the Unemployment Insurance Commission, there are 117,000 people drawing unemployment insurance benefits in B.C. and Yukon.

The total population of the Yukon is only 16,000, Mr. Speaker. It means that over 100,000 people in British Columbia today, for one reason or another, are relying on unemployment insurance as their income in this great Province of British Columbia. Last week there were close to 8,000 applications for unemployment insurance in one week alone.

I'm sure the budget was great news to those people. We're running 3 per cent ahead of applications of a year ago for unemployment insurance in this province, and I have no idea, Mr. Speaker, how the federal government plays jiggery-pokery with the figures of Statistics Canada of the number of unemployed in British Columbia.

But there is too great a discrepancy between the 117,000 and the 73,000 they say are unemployed. There are not that many people on maternity leave, Mr. Speaker, unless there has been a huge boom in births in the last month. There are not that many people who have just resigned and retired and getting their last year of unemployment insurance.

The fact is that the discrepancy that exists between those figures and the unemployment figures that we've been given in this province are just too great, and they need an explanation by the federal government and the provincial government.

Mr. Speaker, what has this government done in terms of the development of an industrial development corporation, tying it in with the pension plan here in British Columbia? Why don't we take the initiative and start a provincial pension plan tied in with an industrial development corporation, allowing people to build up a secondary pension right here in the Province of British Columbia and allow people to retire much earlier than they are presently doing? I suggest to you that requiring people to work until 65 years of age while we are turning out young high school graduates and university graduates to have them go on welfare rolls or on the unemployment rolls, while we ask people to continue to pay taxes and work to the age of 65, is sheer folly.

Let's begin retiring people at 55 with an adequate income and allow them to have the access to the golden years that are due them.

Mr. Speaker, this government could lead. It could lead. Why don't we allow all civil servants in British Columbia to retire at 55 with an adequate pension tied in with the cost of living and open up many, many jobs right here in this province to the young, educated people that we presently have? It is the first time, Mr. Speaker, since the depression, that we have teachers on welfare in this province. We have university graduates on welfare in this province. We even have people with their master's degree on welfare in this province. Some commentary! Some commentary on this government and its dynamic policies! This government hasn't developed any new moves that have any imagination or promise or hope in the last five or six years.

They have tried. They have been sold the myth that bigness is best. They have the idea that an outside multinational corporation can come into this province and centralise its operation and make money.

The classic example, Mr. Speaker, is the Bulkley Valley Forest Products at Houston, which I spoke of three years ago in this House, two years ago in this House, last year and now this year. The Minister of Lands and Forests and I had a heated exchange over how much control the Bulkley Valley Forest Products had in their pulp harvesting area.

When I said to the Minister that they controlled 99 per cent of the saw logs in that area, he said: "That's not true." We carried that exchange out into the corridor, until next day in the House I brought in a report from the Minister of Trade and Industrial Development and I read that Bulkley Valley Forest Products, according to his own report, said that they had control of 99 per cent of the saw logs in that area.

What has happened in that area, since Bulkley Valley Forest Products came in and this government's commitment to bigness and sell-out? We were told that under the policy of this government there would be no selling of quotas. That we would protect the small logger and permit the small logger a place in the economy in this province.

But what happened in the north, Mr. Speaker? Bulkley Valley Forest Products came in and didn't buy quotas, because that was wrong. They bought out companies, and one of the assets of the company was the quota it had for the timber, and in that way they gathered together 99 per cent of the control of the saw logs in that area.

They went into one small town after another in the north. They bought out these small companies, and their first moves after gathering the quota was to tear down the saw mills and, in some cases, Mr. Speaker, burn them to the ground with the charred hulks still standing there on Highway 16. They centralised the total forest operation into the town of Houston, and they set up a new company town.

Those people who were in Houston had their democracy taken away from them. The Minister of Municipal Affairs announced that he would appoint three people to the new town council. The mayor only happened to be the vice-president of the local company. They re-zoned the town and

[ Page 297 ]

on they went to another company town fiasco. Then, Mr. Speaker, the announcement came that they would begin to hire people for work in the mill.

Mr. Speaker, in 1969, there were 2,300 welfare cases in that area before this new timber operation opened up. As of today, Mr. Speaker, there are approximately 2,600 people on welfare in that area. Social Credit centralised welfare in the north. Social Credit eliminated the small logger in that area. Bulkley Valley Forest Products appears in this book to be building a pulp mill, which is an incorrect statement. Mr. Speaker, I won't say it's false. It's an incorrect statement — they are not building the pulp mill as promised in that area.

Although it shows in this book that's going abroad to citizens in this province that it's being built, it's simply not true, Mr. Speaker. But perhaps the Premier didn't know it, perhaps, as my friend the Member from Vancouver East described it, perhaps the courtiers were only trying to please the king, and they put it in the budget without his knowledge. There's no pulp mill being built there, and no jobs.

A dramatic increase in welfare, and what has happened to the social-economic structure of that area? A pioneering area of this province, Mr. Speaker. I'll tell you what's happened. The 50- and 55-year-old veteran of World War II, who came back after the war with interrupted educational opportunities, bought small lots of land in that area. The Member from Omineca knows this.

They were pioneers in that area. They came back with hopes and aspirations after the war, and with their VLA grant they bought small plots of land, and to supplement the small farming that they did, they went to work in the numerous sawmills in that area.

They weren't highly sophisticated sawmills. But they all made money; they all made money. They worked hard; they worked long hours; they were independent; they were tough; they had pride; they had dignity; they had self respect. They were the backbone of the kind of image that we have of how this province was built.

And what happened when Bulkley Forest Products came in? Also in those mills were the marginal workers. The native Indian population that was indigenous to the area had no difficulty in finding part-time or full-time jobs as they wished in the forests, or in the mills.

The native Indian population was involved in the logging and the small saw mills in that area as well.

When those small saw mills were bought out, when Bulkley Valley Forest Products cornered the saw logs in the area and had a monopoly, that veteran no longer had a job, and that native Indian no longer had a job. Because the multi-national corporation brought in its university-trained personnel department that had never been outside of New York or London, Mr. Speaker, and they sat down to do their interviewing in Bond Street suits in Houston, B.C. Yes, in Houston.

Can you imagine the impression that a top, honest, hard-working citizen of the north made to a highly sophisticated city-slicker personnel officer? He was turned down on a job. The Member for South Peace River (Mr. Marshall) smiles — he knows very well that that's what goes on. The city-slicker personnel officer comes in and has no understanding whatsoever of the social-economic structure of the area. He's looking for young blood, someone he thinks can produce eight hours work a day at a massive production job. So the indigenous veteran who was in the area was cut out. The native Indian was cut out….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. BARRETT: Well, we know that the incoming company officials made sure that their wives had jobs as well. That's the only way, Mr. Speaker — two incomes — to live in that company housing project. It's known in the local vernacular as "Hamburger Hill." After you pay the rents in the company housing project you're down to hamburger if you're lucky.

Young workers came up from the lower mainland and were paid wages that were comparable to the coast but found rents, food costs, gasoline prices and other necessities of life one-third higher than down here on the lower mainland in many instances. They weren't going to stay. Young married people 22, 23, 24, 25 years of age, they went to work in the mill for a month or two months — quit, came back to town. When I complained to the company that they had a fantastic turnover, fantastic percentage of turnover in personnel, they wrote me a letter and said: "You're being nasty again, Mr. Leader of the Opposition. Our turnover is only 9 per cent a month."

I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that any company that's experiencing a 10 per cent turnover per year is in a deep personnel problem — 9 per cent a month, I think that's 108 per cent a year, a complete turnover of staff plus.

Every year young men coming up, working eight weeks — enough to get unemployment insurance — then drifting back down to Vancouver. The local residents have long ago worn out their unemployment insurance benefits. They've had to turn to welfare, and now the company has announced — with all its technological know-how, all its bigness, all its commitment that we've had from this government allowing these big companies to do it "because they know how to do it best" — this company now announces that it has lost $60 million. The small logger who didn't have a highly sophisticated university education or a Bond Street suit but had a love for the land, had a commitment to his local community — he was prepared to work long hours, because he had a share in what was going on. He made money in the small mill, and he made money for this government and his small mill because he paid wages and taxes. He's out of business; the big corporation came in, and they've lost $60 million, and they have destroyed forever, Mr. Speaker, a way of life in the north that cannot be recaptured in that region.

This House has always had Members who have a background in logging — first-hand skills and knowledge. The former Member for North Vancouver, Mr. Gibson, the Member from Terrace, he knows very well what that huge corporation has done in that area. He knows very well that it has destroyed the way of life and dignity and self-respect for a whole generation of people living in that area. And then we have the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources coming in giving us "Bowater bath water" when he announces the bigness of the development in that area.

MR. R.M. STRACHAN (Cowichan-Malahat): Lecture 86.

MR. BARRETT: "Lecture 86," says my friend from Cowichan-Malahat. Gibberish, gobbledegook, up-and-down nonsense. And up in Houston, Smithers, Burns Lake in that pioneering area of the north can you get a job? No! But you can have a copy of Lecture 187. Gibberish, nonsense. You can go down, and if you're lucky in the beer parlour you might see one of the Bond Street boys walking by from his desk job at the personnel office.

[ Page 298 ]

Oh yes, one thing Social Credit has done for them though, Mr. Speaker — and they must be given full credit for it — they're not empty-handed. They do have mementos of the past. They're given something to hang up beside their picture of mother — it's a job opportunity certificate.

Mr. Speaker, I used to hear the Member for Omineca (Hon. Mr. Shelford) come to this House, plead for the small people of the north, fight even for the beavers. Now the closest he comes to that is the beaver hat on budget day. I remember, Mr. Speaker, and my good friend the Member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) described them as the "summer rebel down here for a winter pasture." And he was right, Mr. Speaker, because economic policies of this government have destroyed a way of life up there for those people of Omineca.

But they've missed one man, they've missed one man. He doesn't fight about the 60-cents-a-gallon gas up in Omineca any more — he buys it down here in Victoria. Where is the voice of the north? It's left in the hands…and I'll give credit to him. The Member from Terrace (Mr. Little) on occasion gets up and throws off his hearing aid, and throws off his commitments to this group and busts loose once in a while. But the only real friend of the north in this whole….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. BARRETT: He does, he cuts loose. Rips it right out. He does it especially well, Mr. Speaker, he does it especially well when the Member from Saanich (Mr. Tisdalle) is speaking. We see it fly. He's a little country boy — he knows what big city life is all about.

And you know, Mr. Speaker, he's muzzled. The only voice left fighting for the North in this House is the Member for Atlin (Mr. Calder), and I say: "Thank God we've got him here."

The north, the north so forgotten — not even mentioned in the budget. No hope for the north in this budget, Mr. Speaker, just politics.

Then of course we have the new agriculture policy, but just in case the Minister of Agriculture really wants to advertise agriculture, they've decided he won't get the budget but it will go into the hands of the famous non-politician, that non-partisan Member of the cabinet, that man who makes the democratic decisions at all times. None other than the Member from Victoria, the Minister of trade and industrial affairs. (Hon. Mr. Skillings). That sterling character who beyond a doubt has shown imagination and leadership that's necessary to spend a $200,000 budget on agriculture.

The last time it was that large it was an election year, Mr. Speaker. It is a unique crop, it is a unique crop that grows, spawning an agricultural budget every three years. It's not even a perennial, it's not a biennial, it's a triennial rise in the agriculture estimates. Coincidence, Mr. Speaker, absolutely guaranteed to be coincidental with the provincial election.

Good agriculture. I guess they only fertilise every three years under Social Credit. You know, Mr. Speaker, $200,000 in the hands of that Minister to run around and advertise for the development of agriculture products in this province. That money belongs in the hands of the Minister of Agriculture, and frankly I trust it under him far more than under the Member from Victoria — $200,000 advertising. A lot of it will be spent in the Okanagan, and you know what it will say in the Okanagan? In small print it will say, "Buy B.C. Apples," in the Okanagan and in big print: "Put in by the Government of British Columbia to help the farmers sell their apples, by Waldo Skillings, Minister of Trade and Industry. (p.s. Cyril Shelford has a hand in this too.)" And that will allow the farmers to buy all their own apples and solve their economic problems and bring along the prosperity they need.…

MR. SPEAKER: I don't want to interrupt the Honourable Leader, but I think there is a tendency going in the House to refer to Honourable Members by name.

MR. BARRETT: That's correct.

MR. SPEAKER: And I hope this practice will discontinue.

MR. BARRETT: You are quite correct, Mr. Speaker. I was just referring to the projected ad. I don't think that the ad would.…

MR. SPEAKER: Members may not do indirectly what they cannot do directly.

MR. BARRETT: That's correct. O.K. then, if the ad would conform to the ruling of the Speaker — which I accept — it would say "put in by the Minister of Trade and Industry" and leave a space blank for his name. I would welcome such a ruling. They could slip names in and out; why, some of them even run ads with the picture of the Premier. "I have been commissioned," he said. Yes, yes, he has been commissioned.

AN HON. MEMBER: Know ye by all these presents.

MR. BARRETT: Right. What about the poor farmer — he can't buy his own apples? He can't buy his own apples.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. BARRETT: You know, Mr. Speaker, it's a strange phenomena for us in this House to have two strikes governing airlines in one session. One strike, and we thought we had the Hon. Minister here for a week. Two strikes, and we got him here for another week. As soon as the planes are flying again he'll be on his back-and-forth route carrying the message as he so happily does. "He has been commissioned," and there he is spending some time with us again today.

Mr. Speaker, to sell apples to the farmers is not the answer to their problems. What this government should be doing is using this $200,000 for a new marketing concept. There is nothing wrong with it, except in the case of the fruit growers, Mr. Speaker, they have been captured by the marketing end, by the large food chains. And because there is not a multiplicity of outlets that the farmers have the direct access to, their marketing board becomes captured by Safeway, the Weston chain, and their prices are dictated by those chains.

I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this government would be well advised to spend $200,000 and develop farmers' markets in the regional areas in this province, allow the farmers to have competitive access to markets. Allow them to bring truck loads of apples down to the City of Vancouver and sell apples to the local residents without the middleman, Mr. Speaker, without the middleman, and without the competition from those chains that drives their local prices down, while Washington State apples are being dumped right here in this province.

[ Page 299 ]

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. BARRETT: The marketing board can help. It has arranged and has options. When we were in Washington State we spoke to one Member, a legislator who shall go unnamed from Eastern Washington. He said: "What's with you fellows?"

AN HON. MEMBER: Name him out.

MR. BARRETT: I'll tell you in the corridor, and you can write him.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. BARRETT: What I'm going to say, Mr. Minister, is that he wondered why Washington State apples were selling in the Okanagan cheaper than our own Okanagan apples were. And I didn't have an answer for him.

You go up there and tell them. I bought apples that were selling for 29 cents a pound in Princeton — Macintosh apples from Washington State. I bought them at Princeton at 29 cents a pound. And went to the packing house in Keremeos and found that they were getting 8 cents and 9 cents a pound for those same apples.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. BARRETT: No, I'm not blaming the board, and I make it very clear, I said there's nothing wrong with the marketing board. What I suggest is that the government should take the leadership in providing access to markets other than the chains. Because it's the international chains that are forcing the small farmer in this province to gather low prices for his food. Allow a regional market to be open in Prince George, allow a market to be open in the City of Victoria so that the senior citizens who live here can have direct access to fresh fruit from the Okanagan at a reasonable price without Safeway, without Weston taking their cream off in the middle.

These Members from the rural areas know; they can tell it much better than I can. When I was in Penticton there was a meeting of 500 farmers. They were discussing the formation of a union. They had come to the coast to picket ships bringing in Japanese apples, and they found in talking to longshoreman a sense of brotherhood, a sense of understanding, a sense of compassion in terms of the farmers' problem and the workers' problem. And without the offices of the trade union leadership the longshoremen on the job asked the farmers if they wanted them to down tools, and if the farmers had said yes, we will down tools, they would have. But after an hour of talking with the farmers they decided to quit anyway, they didn't want to see the fellows who they'd been in the Canadian armed services with, they wouldn't want to see their relatives and their friends from the Okanagan having to compete with Japanese apples while our own apples were selling at high prices here, and they were getting low prices for their own growth. Another industry….

MR. D.G. LITTLE (Skeena): Those were New Zealand apples.

MR. BARRETT: Sorry, it was the New Zealand apples.

They wanted open access to the Japanese markets and the New Zealand markets. Right. You are quite right, it was. You know, Mr. Speaker, if you are really concerned, you're familiar with the problems in the north, and you know quite well that what I am talking about Houston is absolutely right, those welfare rolls are up, centralisation of industry was a mistake.

Now the pressure is on the Okanagan; it is designated as a depressed area, it is so, it still is.

Mr. Speaker, the federal government has designated it as depressed area. And what is the policy of this government in terms of developing any help for the farmer? — $200,000 worth of advertising under that great farmer who is an expert on fertiliser, the Member from Victoria (Hon. Mr. Skillings). We know what kind of operation we'll have there.

You know, Mr. Speaker, we saw no effort whatsoever by the government to develop a new concept in labour relations or tying it in with the development of secondary industry. During my discussions with the Toyota motor people last year I discussed with them the possibility of direct worker participation in the ownership of an assembly plant, and it was not a foreign idea to them, although it was to us, Mr. Speaker.

I suggest to you that in North America, if we continue in our old style of having management and a trade union continue to play their traditional roles spurred on by this government in the confrontation through such legislation as section 18 of Bill 33 — there will be no government leadership to bring a new dimension of growth and understanding here in this province.

Through an industrial development corporation we could permit people to start owning directly in the industries they are working at. The government would have its share, and private capital, through this type of mixed economy financing. Every country that has moved in that direction has had a decrease in the amount of labour strife over the years.

Our system is based on greed, Mr. Speaker. The motivating word in private enterprise is greed. It is the base word that stimulates everyone in the kind of society that says "get out and grab what you can." It is a grab, grab, grab system with a low cushion on the end for those who don't survive.

When industry says that a mixed economy would bring in unfair competition I ask you this, Mr. Speaker. In private enterprise, what is unfair competition? Ruthless private enterprise begs for protection from unfair competition when they espouse out of the other side of their mouth that they want competition.

You know, Mr. Speaker, the opportunity of bringing the working people of this province into partnership with this government and with private capital, into a mixed economy sponsoring the development of secondary industry, has been missed completely by this government, and it deliberately, in my opinion, charges full force ahead, hoping for labour strifes, hoping for conflicts, hoping to continue to divide the people of this province so that they can come out as the political saviours of the situations they have raised.

Mr. Speaker, 20 years of crisis by crisis by crisis government will continue, and we'd had evidence of that continuation in this budget.

In terms of the north, Mr. Speaker, has there been any attempt to cooperate with the Yukon? Every time the Premier talks about the Yukon, he wants to annex it. Every time he has a vision in the north, it means ownership in the Yukon.

You know, Mr. Speaker, every time he is in trouble down

[ Page 300 ]

here on the coast, he can always point to the north and say that we can annex the Yukon. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that there is a great opportunity for a meeting of minds between Alaskans, British Columbians and Yukon residents. There should be a regional planning board sponsored by this government, by representatives of the Yukon and by Alaska. After my trip to Washington State, Mr. Speaker, I received a wire from the Yukon, from the Yukon Northern Resource Conference.

They have asked me, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition, to attend the Yukon Northern Resource Conference. They have asked me to be their luncheon speaker on April 6, and the topic they have selected, because of frustration over this government, the topic they have asked me to speak on is "Yukon and British Columbian relationship."

The Attorney General will stamp his feet, and the Attorney General will get teary-eyed, and the Attorney General will raise the flag of British Columbia and again miss an opportunity to provide some leadership for this regional area that we must understand we share in common with people on the coast and in the interior.

The only time I saw the Attorney General get stimulated during the budget speech was when the Premier mentioned succession duty and he jumped up and saluted, Mr. Speaker. He knew what the Premier was talking about.

You know, Mr. Speaker, before I leave the north I want to remind the Premier of the kind of trip that will be made after this budget speech, a trip that will be made annually through the north. Some of the Members might have got a glimpse of the Cadillac that drives through. Sitting in the back of the Cadillac is usually the Member for Victoria with his own brand of help to the farmer, known as fertiliser.

He sits in the back of the Cadillac and they go on a meet-the-people tour. Now, I want to tell you, one of the things that impresses the people up north is the big city-slicker politician coming up in a big black Cadillac to meet the people. That really goes over, and they usually fill up the tank before they stop at a local gas station.

But anyway, Mr. Speaker, the last time they were up there, there was this concern in the northern area, they brought the problems of Houston to the Premier, and the Premier at that time stopped at every gas station.

Well, that's alright, the taxpayers are paying, the taxpayers are paying. The Cadillac full of politicians pulled into Smithers. What happened during the last trip in Smithers after this talk about the pulp mill that still isn't built? After the fiasco in Houston they arrive in Smithers and a group that's concerned about pollution — and the Premier mentioned leaders in the world in his budget speech with the Litter Act — last time the Cadillac was up there the S.P.E.C. group handed the Premier a copy of their concerns for local pollution problems — the window was rolled down and the S.P.E.C. material was thrown out the window.

The caption is, "Caught Red-handed." Caught red-handed.

AN HON. MEMBER: Littering.…

MR. BARRETT: Caught red-handed littering in the north, none other than Premier W.A.C. Bennett. Our own Victoria-style litter bug up there in the north where those small folks don't mind these little things, caught red-handed, Mr. Speaker. Enough description to frighten the Attorney General alone. Red-handed. Not even a delicate pink finger threw it out. (Laughter). But a blazing right hand threw out this litter in the north:

A small S.P.E.C. action group from Smithers braved the deluge of rain last Wednesday to distribute literature to persons arriving at Bulkley Valley Forest Industries sawmill opening ceremonies. Above, the Premier's car stopped when flagged down. Moments later the fact sheet was thrown out the window of the big black Cadillac. Apparently the occupants did not like what they read.

What's that new law about littering? A fine example. But don't worry, you will get a second chance up north, you'll see the big black Cadillac come up, and perhaps you will be lucky on this trip — they will have the travelling projectionist with him and if the windows are open and they see a few shacks here or people lined up for their welfare cheques or unemployed people loafing in town, all they have to do is roll up the windows in the Cadillac, pull down the black blinds and turn on the "Good Life" and everybody can have a good time when they're riding.

The good life — it's alright if you're travelling in a big black Cadillac in the north. What about the urban areas? What have you done for the urban areas? Well, politics for votes doesn't include long-term planning. The Premier learned that a long time ago. I quote here from the Victoria Colonist, dated Saturday, February 5, 1972. The headline says "Pollen: 'Socreds Not Worthy of the People'." Who is Mr. Pollen?

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. BARRETT: I'll read the thing. I'd like to read it all to you, because I'd like you to know what former Social Credit candidates are saying — along with the absent Member from Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) who had enough, he couldn't stomach it any more.

Mr. Pollen is the mayor of this great city; he sat right here in the corner, right over there in the corner along with the good Doctor Shrum; and I quote, Mr. Pollen said:

"I sat in that House today" (that was Friday) "and listened to the government we have had for 20 years hand out sugar-coated inanities with no relevance to urban problems. If you look at the Members of the House, that standard of intelligence is not worthy of the people of this province and not capable of meeting the problems of today that will affect the future of our children."

That probably applies to all of us. No party has a monopoly on genius. And like it or not, no party has a monopoly on idiots.

AN HON. MEMBER: But some are cornering the market.

MR. BARRETT: But Mr. Speaker, I go on to say that Mr. Pollen was also critical of the provincial government's pledge to pay half the operating deficit of any operating rapid-transit system run by a municipality or regional district.

Who is Mr. Pollen? The Mayor of Victoria, an extremely successful businessman, a former Social Credit candidate, and this is how he described the offer by this government to municipalities.

"Suppose that I had a business that was losing $1 million a year and the government offered to pay me half of my loss; this is the absurd hypothesis," he told the audience of more than 350."

Imagine buying the Victoria bus system and the equipment and getting reimbursed for half the loss. What an inducement! He's a businessman.

[ Page 301 ]

The solution to urban problems, he said, "is to have good government, and the way to get better government is to put intelligent people into office. If people will support moderate political leaders backed by skilled, intelligent civil service you could have what you want," stated Mr. Pollen.

Well, what else did he see in this House? He saw a back-bench that had no idea what was in the budget, and their high point of titillation came when the total figure of the budget was announced, and they were scampering around to see who won the pool (Laughter).

That's their participation in the budget. They really believe that the budget figures are kept secret from them so they can keep on playing the pool. If they ever lost that, then they couldn't play their little game. But of course, Mr. Speaker, we did get a moment of pride. Two and a half days of Social Credit caucus meeting, and the chairman of the meeting, the Member from Alberni (Mr. McDiarmid) got up and announced "the highlight of one morning was that the Premier spent almost half a day with us."

He was down in Palm Springs writing the budget, and what was the cabinet doing? Well, well, well, I heard that story about tennis elbow, Mr. Speaker. Tennis elbow — and the ones who suffered it most are those in cabinet who seek to find a leader's mantle. There they were, on cue, a little bit weaker this year than most. Some of the backbenchers with a little less hope in their pounding because they've seen opportunity slip away, because they've showed a degree of individualism, they've showed a desire to participate, they don't like the idea of being limited to getting in the pool to find out how much the budget is.

Some of them actually think, Mr. Speaker, that they've got a part to play in this process. But we know what happens to the uppitys who do that kind of thing. We know. Imagine wanting to sit down and discuss the budget details with the Premier. They can't even afford to go down to Palm Springs, let alone get in on the meeting, some of them, some of them.…

Later on I'll read you an interview from the Palm Springs newspaper about how the budget was drawn up — it's a delightful little piece.

AN HON. MEMBER: He'll tell them, but he won't tell us.

MR. BARRETT: I must have a friend down there in Palm Springs. Last year they sent me that programme, you remember the programme with the belly-dancer, Little Egypt, the belly-dancer? And on the second page was the provincial government sponsoring a cocktail party.

AN HON. MEMBER: Was it topless?

MR. BARRETT: The same day as Little Egypt, the belly-dancer was performing, the cocktail party was a bust. Or was it that Little Egypt was a bust? I'm not sure, I don't want to define it too much, because the Attorney General might get upset. (Laughter).

But, Mr. Speaker, that budget was drawn up without the participation of the elected Members of this House.

Where is the public accounts committee? Did they participate in any way? Where are the other committees of this House? We just had our annual charade, Mr. Speaker. The committees are called together, the chairman comes in says: "I open nominations for chairman," and the nomination comes. "I nominate X" — who is a Social Credit M.L.A. — and someone else says "Any further nominations? Nominations closed." X is now the chairman; democracy has worked again. "I move that the committee dissolve itself," and the committee dissolves itself, and again and again the memory of Damon Runyan is robbed of an experience unlike any other legislator in North America.

The memory of Damon Runyan. Oh, if some of the Press gallery only had a sense of humour, the stories they could write in the committee meetings, Mr. Speaker, would warm the cockles of the hearts of those who avoided cynicism by developing a sense of humour. But for the rest, Mr. Speaker, for the rest of the people of this province, it brings a touch of cynicism and despair.

You know, Mr. Speaker, those Members don't have any concept of how the House functions with government and opposition. Those Members don't have any understanding of the responsibilities of those committees. They don't understand, they have never been given the opportunity to participate and share in the decisions of this government. It has been a government dominated by one man who is on a theme of politics for politics' sake and gave us the same kind of budget with gimmicks that have been passed to us all along the line.

Mr. Speaker, in terms of the other offerings for the municipalities, I challenge this government to state to the people of Vancouver that its $41 million gift for the third crossing will be made available for either a third crossing or urban rapid-transit but it will not be granted unless there is a plebiscite by the people in the area.

Let the people of the area prove that you're democrats. That government should do it, prove that they're democrats. The Minister of Municipal Affairs comes into Vancouver and says: "We want a ward system to democratise the City of Vancouver." I challenge this government to put a proviso on its $41 million grant for the third crossing by saying: "It can be used for either mass rapid-transit or the third crossing, but you people of the local level decide through a plebiscite."

That's the challenge. Why not let the people decide? I have faith in the ability of the people who are most concerned to make that bridge crossing.

Mr. Speaker, I want this House to know quite clearly that I oppose the expenditure of some $200 million on another crossing of the First Narrows. It will only add to the problems of the urban area, and I disagree with you and all my associates in a different party, but that's my honest opinion. I think it's a mistake.

We can make gains because we've been so slow. I think it's a tragic mistake to go ahead with that third crossin, and I urge people if there was a plebiscite to vote against it. But let them vote equally with the politicians on this issue because it is the very life of the lower mainland at stake if they intend to rip the heart and guts out of Vancouver like our sister city of Seattle. It happened to them. Then I think it's a terrible, terrible mistake, Mr. Speaker.

It's a city that I love too much. I was born there and raised there, and there's no way I want that very great city and the very great lower mainland to be scarred with those ribbons of concrete and steel that rip the heart out of any city and destroy it from being a kind of cultural, civilised centre for people to come and enjoy and be the show piece of any civilised area.

Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude by talking a little bit about philosophy. I've only had political experience in this House, Mr. Speaker. I can't share what the experiences are in other legislatures. I really don't know if other places have a question period every day. I really don't know if other jurisdictions have a Leader of the Opposition as the public accounts chazirman.

[ Page 302 ]

I can tell by the records that other jurisdictions have a daily printed Hansard so that everybody can see what is being said. I don't have any of those personal experiences because my time has been limited to 12 years in this House.

I don't know if other areas have direct radio broadcasts, so that the people who are paying the bills can see what their money is being spent on. I understand that some jurisdictions allow television to come into the House.

Mr. Speaker, I'm going to suggest to you that it is rare that I turn to the Bible for a quote, extremely rare, but I suppose I wait till the moment strikes me in looking for an appropriate quote to describe this particular budget, and I've stuck to the Proverbs, which are the Books of David. The Books of David and I quote from chapter 3, verses 13 and 14.

Happy is the man that findeth wisdom and the man that getteth understanding. For the merchandise of it is better than the merchandise of silver and the gain thereof than fine gold.

All the Premier spoke about in his budget debate was the emphasis on money — money to be used for political purposes. Money that we have seen being directed for very crude political direction while this House plays a secondary role to that one person's control.

Mr. Speaker, I want to suggest this. I want to suggest that the Premier of this province in the year 1972 when this province is at the cross-roads economically, socially — asking for leadership from a government — use the skills of a modern technology and have the Premier and myself go on television for provincial-wide broadcast to the people of this province.

Let him state his goals, his aspirations and his dreams and his method. Let me state mine, and let the people of British Columbia see through the medium of television what we may or may not have to offer.

Mr. Speaker, this government said it was a government of the little people. Let us go to the little people through the medium of television. Let them see the politician. Let them hear directly from the Premier, let them hear directly from me on a joint television programme in front of the people.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, this government says "you have nothing to fear." This government says it has nothing to fear. Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you that if this government has nothing to fear let them go and tell the people on television what the options are. They say they have nothing to fear, Mr. Speaker, or do they? We cannot support this budget, Mr. Speaker, and we'll go into more detail why.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member from Dewdney on a point of order.

MR. G. MUSSALLEM (Dewdney): My point of order is that the Hon. Leader of the Opposition seriously misled the House. In his speech he said — the public accounts committee and all the committees in general are just moved, the chairman is elected automatically by the weight of the members of the committee. We could tell this House that in the public accounts committee, of which I am chairman and which I convened, I was nominated for the chair and the Hon. Member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) was nominated as well.

AN HON. MEMBER: He declined.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Speaker, if the vote had been taken there would have been a dead tie. However, there was no vote taken. The Hon. Member from New Westminster declined to have his name stand. I asked him a second time did he wish to reconsider? He said: "No, I decline." I merely infer from this, Mr. Speaker, that the Hon. Members of the Opposition do not want to take the responsibility of a committee of this House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! Just order, please! This House has no knowledge of matters that transpire in committee. The Hon. the first Member from Vancouver Centre. Point of order?

MR. H.P. CAPOZZI (Vancouver Centre): Point of order. I think it only fairness that in that comment the original proposal was of his name being put forward, and I realise it was in committee.

MR. SPEAKER: I have already ruled on that.

MR. CAPOZZI: It was a misunderstanding.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the first Member for Vancouver.…

MR. CAPOZZI: I would like to set the records straight.…

MR. SPEAKER: Order! The Hon. the first Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Well thank you, Mr. Speaker. I must say that the Leader of the Opposition put forward a pretty dreadful prospect to the people of British Columbia today. It wasn't just an empty reply to the budget; it was the thought that he might go on television with the Premier and subject the people of British Columbia to a scene of those two dreadful old war horses battling about the past — one with an outmoded government and the other with an outmoded philosophy.

But what we're going to talk about today, we Liberals, is the future. We're bringing down, as we have done before, a Liberal budget for the Province of British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: How can you do it…? Without even enough members for a cabinet?

MR. McGEER: Well, I'm going to talk a little about cabinets today.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't have enough members.…

MR. McGEER: They can handle it very much better than the ones who are handling individual portfolios over there. Because there is some real ability on this side….

[ Page 303 ]

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. McGEER: It's time it was put to work for the people of British Columbia. We'll be talking about new departments. We'll be speculating on what to do with some of the cabinet Ministers. We'll be talking about industrial development. And of course, I recognise that there is a terrible problem over on that side.

I've been thinking about how we could breathe some life into industrial development for British Columbia and what we might propose for that Minister. Well, we defeated one of the important Ministers of the Crown, and he was the only one who had any ability. He was defeated in Vancouver–Point Grey and went to our largest company in the province. They have since announced a policy of investing capital in other parts of the world, and they've built a forest complex in Southeast Asia. I think we should follow through on that and open up a British Columbia House in Kuala Lumpur and send the Minister of Industrial Development there.

AN HON. MEMBER: A one-way ticket.

MR. McGEER: I'm glad that the first Member from Vancouver Centre agrees with that. I did enjoy his speech, but I'd like to give him a little advice, Mr. Speaker, and that's to tell him that he didn't get to the Premier.

You know, you can always tell, when the backbenchers start buttering up the Premier, when they get to him. He starts to cry. The members of the Press don't notice that. But the Hon. Member didn't make it with the Premier, and of course you really get to the Premier when the Attorney General starts to cry. (Laughter). But they were both laughing, and when everybody on that side started the chorus "go…" I was thinking of the Hon. Member.

Well, it's my pleasure today, Mr. Speaker, to continue my tradition of bringing down a Liberal budget. This is my fourth budget. What I offer today is a new century budget for British Columbia. It's a budget of dynamism, it's a budget of growth, and it's a budget of justice. It makes full use of the resources and potential of our growing province.

AN HON. MEMBER: And it's your last chance.

MR. McGEER: I'll be here when the Hon. Minister is back selling insurance policies to the government.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, our budget calls for an expenditure of $1,577 million. That's a budget $124 million larger than the one brought down by the Social Credit Finance Minister on Friday. It's $177 million higher than the budget I brought down a year ago.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I'm not an expert on forecasting revenues.

AN HON. MEMBER: I'll say you aren't.

MR. McGEER: I've made mistakes in the past. But a year ago when I brought down my budget of $1,400 million — $100 million greater than the Social Credit Finance Minister — I said then that budget would be balanced without any increase in taxes.

We were against those tax increases that imposed a hotel-room tax, so that the British Columbian on vacation would pay more — that added to the gasoline tax so it would cost the working man more to drive his car, that imposed a tax on cigarettes so that his smokes would cost more. That's what the government brought the little man last year. Yet the Liberals brought down a budget $100 million higher without those tax increases and with the prediction that it would be balanced.

AN HON. MEMBER: Move over to the Liberal government because they have responsibility.

MR. McGEER: Now, Mr. Speaker, what do we find?

AN HON. MEMBER: You tell us first.

MR. McGEER: We find in interim revenues, if the Members will look at them, that those forecasts were all true. Because when the totals are added up this March 31 you will find that without that $38.5 million in tax increases the budget would not only have been fully balanced but would have had a huge surplus as well.

What I tell the House, Mr. Speaker, is not just that my budget of last year was balanced but that it provided for a $57 million surplus.

Yes, I have made errors in my estimates, but for this coming year, Mr. Speaker, the Premier had made an error not of $15 million, as I did, but an error of $150 million in calculating his revenue.

AN HON. MEMBER: Some Minister!

MR. McGEER: After all that experience as Minister of Finance — 19 budgets he brought down — and he's still making those dumb errors. $150 million out. I'm not expert, but my revenues were within $15 million of being accurate and because of that we were able to bring down a budget $100 million higher.

Mr. Speaker, I say this to the Member from Skeena (Mr. Little). After all these years the Premier isn't getting any better; he's getting worse. Because his error in estimating revenues for the three years previous to that was only $130 million a year on the average.

You know, Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Members have laughed at my budgets each year when they have been brought down. But look up our record of debates, such as it is. Check the forecasts. See who was closer to being correct. See whose budget was more accurate — the Liberal budget or the Social Credit budget. Then read those budgets and see where the dynamic programme lay. Was it with the Social Credit budgets? No. It was with the Liberal budgets.

These people over here on our right — the Socialists of British Columbia — they don't have budgets at all. They don't have a programme at all. All they do is stand up and complain about the free-enterprise economic system of British Columbia. All they do is ask for higher taxes on the resource industry. No imagination at all, Mr. Speaker, in how to use in creative ways the resources that we have, and the earnings that our people are bringing in.

Well, Mr. Speaker, enough of the past because I want to talk about the new Liberal budget, the dynamic programmes that we bring down today for our future. It differs today in three vital ways from the Social Credit budget of Friday.

The first of these, Mr. Speaker, is that it provides a new measure of social equality for the elderly.

Secondly, it provides an accelerated programme of provincial development.

[ Page 304 ]

Thirdly, it provides new and creative approaches to community and educational life.

Mr. Speaker, what we offer to the elderly and handicapped is not just a series of budgetary provisions but a charter, setting forth new principles at their rightful place in our society. We set as our objective to replace fear of age with pride in age. We want all those who are beyond their working years to know they will never have to beg for handouts from their juniors who are in government. We offer dividends, Mr. Speaker. We offer them with unreserved gratitude to the people who have done the job of building British Columbia. Because our elder citizens have built a wonderful society and a magnificent province.

It's taken 100 years. Mr. Speaker, we've been dismissing right here in this provincial government those who have made the greatest contribution with crumbs from our groaning table of provincial revenues. We've offered handouts when these people have deserved rights. We've made years of anxiety of what should have been years of satisfaction.

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal programme is designed to end all of that. It's designed to provide an adequate monthly income and to protect the savings of these people. Specifically we offer the following as rights:

1. The freedom from all property taxes. The home-owner grant, Mr. Speaker, never keeps up with rising taxes. The Member from North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Clark) came in and told a story to the House, and I think the Members listened with interest because here's a man who understands the plight of the elderly.

He was the one who explained that the home-owner grant was no good to a woman in his constituency who only wanted to live out her years in her own home. Yet, Mr. Speaker, with all that increase of $50 plus $15 for the people with the home-owner grant, that woman's taxes that he brought to your attention only last week, would still go up $223.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. McGEER: You must get letters; I get them. I have one here from Salmon Arm, Mr. Speaker. This person didn't bother to write the Member from up there. He was too busy applauding the budget to listen to what his constituents were saying. Here's what this person has to say.

Our taxes on a home on five acres of land, 2½ miles out of Salmon Arm last year, $718. It's true we received the home-owner's grant of $170, but my income is $80 a month old age pension plus $20 a month Canada Pension. We have to use our life savings for income.

What kind of a life are you giving them by loading on these property taxes?

AN HON. MEMBER: That's not the whole story.

MR. McGEER: Let me go on to another. Because I think these people tell their story very well.

AN HON. MEMBER: They're made of them.

MR. McGEER: I think the Members opposite should listen with their hearts as well as their ears.

Our taxes went up $128 in two years, and we are just worried sick as to what they will go up this year. We have worked so hard through the years to pay for our home. Now we can't enjoy it for worry.

That's what the government budget did, Mr. Speaker. That's what the Minister of Finance's budget does for these people. We say as a right we will end all that. We can collect any overage of property taxes at the time the property is sold.

The second right, Mr. Speaker — the right to a rental supplement of $30 per month for all those whose monthly income falls below $200. This supplement is to be made available regardless of savings or other possessions. We want to face it on current income only. I'm sorry the Member from Vancouver Centre (Mr. Capozzi) isn't here, Mr. Speaker, because he spoke out for these elderly people who are renting. He even said he was going to take commercials on the radio to tell people to vote against the budget — as I presume he is going to do.

He understood very well what the problem was — no increase to municipal governments this year. That means an increase for every renter as property taxes inevitably go up. Now the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Campbell) who's yawning so vigorously over there, he's going to have a little bit of trouble getting the same kind of testimony next time he speaks. Because his pal who is head of the U.B.C.M. didn't have very kind remarks about that budget. Did they, Mr. Member?

A little different story than the one he read us last week. That man is thinking a little of the elderly who are renting too.

The third right, Mr. Speaker, is the right to free drugs and medical appliances. This includes hearing aids and batteries for hearing aids, eye-glasses, false teeth, crutches, artificial limbs, wheel chairs, and other essential aids. Now, Mr. Speaker, probably the cabinet has had visitations from elderly people on fixed incomes, and I can tell you of one we had where the man who visited us, an elderly man, had cancer. He'd had a colostomy. All his increase was going on drugs and paying for his colostomy bags. He didn't have anything for food left over. Is that kind of thing necessary, Mr. Speaker? No, it isn't.

Not only should they have the right to all these drugs and medical appliances but the right to medicare without premiums. I noticed that a more progressive government in Alberta, a progressive Conservative government, has introduced such a scheme into the Province of Alberta. You know, if they can do it there, we can do it here.

The fourth right, Mr. Speaker, is the right to unrestricted passes on public transportation. The buses run empty. The government has agreed to pick up half the losses, and the senior citizens have earned the right to ride in those empty seats.

The fifth: the right to chronic hospital care. Mr. Speaker, the most certain thing in any person's life, all of us, is that sooner or later a health disaster will occur. No one can predict its timing. No one can forecast its nature. But the time comes for every one of us — when the fight for health becomes the most important thing in life.

When we know there's a need and we fail to provide a facility, we are denying a right. We are particularly denying a right to those who have spent a lifetime building this province and paying their taxes as well. Because, Mr. Speaker, what are these years of effort to accomplish, if in the end the facility we need more than anything else in life has been denied us despite our efforts? We Liberals say — chronic hospital care should be available to all who need it for a $1 a day.

That's the Liberal policy for a decade, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 305 ]

It's Liberal policy today. And it's going to be Liberal policy for the future. Not $3 a day, $5 a day or any extortionate amount — $1 a day as a right.

Lastly, the right to an abatement of the provincial income tax for those in need over 65. We've talked about the negative income tax in the House. The Leader of the Opposition mentioned it only today. Well, why don't we do it right here in British Columbia? This year the provincial share of the income tax is 30.5 per cent. That's a pretty fair abatement. We can introduce the negative income tax principle right here in British Columbia — now.

AN HON. MEMBER: Show a little leadership.

MR. McGEER: You read those letters or heard the letters. Read the ones you get in your mail. Yes, Mr. Speaker, think — think of what we can do in British Columbia with the resources that are at our command. That's why this Liberal budget that we bring down today has increased spending in the Department of Health of $20 million and the Department of Social Improvement of $10 million.

Now, Mr. Speaker, if we're going to provide these benefits more generously in the future, we have to have a more aggressive programme of provincial development. To do this, I propose a brand new ministry of government. That ministry is the Department of Transport. The mandate of the Minister is to set the transportation objectives of the 1970s.

That's not fast enough. We need 16 new ministers over there, right now. Liberal ministers.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

AN HON. MEMBER: We can get five of you guys off, right off the bat.

MR. McGEER: I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that our five members can do the work of 16 and much more. Any day.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. McGEER: And when we look at the Hon. Attorney General, we think it would be easy.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's making it easier every day.

MR. McGEER: Well, Mr. Speaker, what's this new Minister of Transport going to do? He's going to have under his administration, highways, ferries, railways, rapid transit, commercial transit, commercial transport, the port authority and, Mr. Speaker, a new B.C. aviation authority.

It's time to develop a new thrust in transportation. I can hear the Ministers over there gasping — it's a little too imaginative for them. You see, Mr. Speaker, the great thrust of Social Credit was way back in the fifties. The Minister of Highways was the one who provided it. He's the only one that's done any work over there.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's right and always is.

MR. McGEER: There was a great bridge and highway building programme. Do those fellows over there remember that? It was a long time ago. But you see, the time has come for a new thrust, for a new energy, because the job has barely been done.

Yes, the Minister got into trouble over land deals, and we criticised him. We called for his removal from government, but you see that hasn't happened. The ethics aren't any better than they were then. He's still in the cabinet.

But, you see, we've got the worst of all worlds. We haven't cleaned up the government at all. Now we've eliminated the one Minister who did any work. I don't forgive him a bit for what he did, but I at least say that if he's going to be there, make use of him. He was the only one that did anything.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're confused.

MR. McGEER: Well, here's some of the tasks for the new Minister of Transport, the Liberal Minister of Transport — that's not the present Minister of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation, I can tell you.

First, he must commission a new ferry to be built in our B.C. shipyards. I would have hoped for a little applause from the Socialist benches over there. Because, what this should be, Mr. Speaker, is a companion to the Queen of Prince Rupert. We're going to call it the "Queen of the Coast." Its objectives will be different from the Queen of Prince Rupert. Because what I envisage is not an express ferry but one that will stop at the Queen Charlotte Islands, at Kitimat, at Bella Coola, at Bella Bella and at Ocean Falls. This new ferry will take both freight and cars, and the objective will be to tie together all of our coastal communities.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about the poor people of Port Hardy?

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. McGEER: Well, I would hope so. I think that the government is extremely poor at negotiating with the federal government, but I'm certain if there was a Liberal government here in Victoria that we would be able to carry on more aggressive negotiations. Wouldn't have anything to do with political strife, merely skill in negotiation — and that's been lacking.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. McGEER: Whatever reason, we have no doubts about our ability to get on with national government, even if it were a Socialist government.

AN HON. MEMBER: We wouldn't communicate by Press release and such.

MR. McGEER: Well, we don't particularly care who we have to deal with in Ottawa. So long as we're the government in British Columbia doing that dealing with Ottawa.

We talked about the one-hour ferry crossing to Iona Island, and this again is part of a dynamic new thrust with the ferry system.

Now the next job of this Minister of Transport, since he's going to get the ferries moving again, is to undertake major projects in the railroad field, and I know this would appeal to the Minister of Labour — my friend will be back before long selling tickets in railroad stations again.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. McGEER: The P.G.E. The B.C. Railway, I'm sorry.

[ Page 306 ]

Mr. Speaker, the B.C. Railway is going to be extended to the Yukon, and we agree with that…

AN HON. MEMBER: Read your budget speech in Campbell River.

MR. McGEER: …because it's going to open up the north. But the important thing, Mr. Speaker, is that we have a little bit of cooperation in the negotiation with the federal government. Because if it's to be extended into the Yukon, it won't be by speeches that the Leader of the Opposition makes in Whitehorse, it'll be on the basis of negotiation with the federal government.

If we want to introduce postage stamp rates along the C.N.R. right of way — and that's important for pulp chips if pulp mills are to flourish in the northern parts of British Columbia — that's a matter of further negotiation.

If we're going to establish a ring railroad around the harbour of Vancouver and eliminate switching charges, that's another negotiation. If we're going to buy the Esquimalt and Nanaimo Railroad, and I think this should become part of provincial railroad system, that will require yet further negotiation. This provincial trackage, which would link up with our ferry system, should at the same time be extended into the rapid transit system for the City of Vancouver — connections should be there, Roberts Bank and our new Iona Island crossing.

These are all possibilities for an expanded railway authority that will begin to link our province together in a more effective way. Just as highways and ferrys have done up to this time.

Of course, the new Minister of Transport will take over commercial transport — that's an administrative anachronism, Mr. Speaker. We call for the elimination of that department every year, and I repeat that call this year.

Then, Mr. Speaker, we're going to revive the highway programme. That was a pretty disappointing budget for highways this year. Construction costs have gone up — it's just a dribble what we're doing any more. Long ago we should have had that highway from Clinton down to Squamish completed. We should have upgraded the southern provincial highway so it's equivalent to the Trans-Canada — Excuse me, Mr. Speaker, another slip, "B.C. 1."

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. McGEER: Yes, it should be four lanes, and I'll tell you where it should be four lanes, Mr. Speaker. Right there between Hope and Rosedale. That's the provincial bottleneck, and if the former Minister of Highways had been in there it would have been built long ago — and there should be a direct highway between Merritt and Hope, and I think, Mr. Speaker, there should be something better than the country lane which runs between Revelstoke and Castlegar.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. McGEER: This isn't taxes, Mr. Speaker. That's where the Member from Saanich so misunderstands. All that money that was spent on highways during the 1950s — it was expensive, running into the hundreds of millions category each year — but that all came back with dividends because as we moved an ever-increasing amount of goods on those roads the efficiency that was achieved more than returned the expenditure. And yet we quit just when we were getting started.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's forgotten their own past glory.

MR. McGEER: It's been so long ago. They've been asleep for so many years.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's asleep on his magnetic pillow.

MR. McGEER: We include in that Ministry of Transport the port authority as again negotiations are required for our new bulk transport systems.

Now finally — and this is the most important step, Mr. Speaker — this is the B.C. Aviation Authority. It's not enough to have British Columbia tied together by road and rail. Because more and more in the future, fast and reliable transportation will be by air.

We cannot wait for the federal government to do the job. Already we are severely handicapped in British Columbia by substandard airports, and I'll take two examples. Many Members are familiar with these. One's in Castlegar and the other's at Terrace. We buy the best aircraft in the world, but they're unreliable in British Columbia because our airports are substandard. Almost half the flights are scrubbed at Castlegar and Terrace during the bad winter months because there aren't adequate instrument approaches. Part of it is the location of the airfield, part of it is the lack of adequate instruments. But reliability by air is essential. And these airports must be brought up to standard.

There's lots of other places, Mr. Speaker, where aircraft can't go in at all, and I refer to centres like Revelstoke, or Golden, or Atlin, or Stewart or McBride. Think what it would be like in British Columbia if all these important geographical areas were equipped with modern airports that would permit commercial jet aircraft to go in there. Reliably and regularly. It would begin to tie British Columbia together in a way that's never been known before.

Well, we've provided in our Liberal budget an additional $30 million dollars in this first year to get on with the beginnings of this new thrust in transportation.

I have a word or two about the cornerstone of our Liberal development programme, and it's a beefed-up budget for the Department of Industrial Development. We're giving away nothing, we're trying to…

AN HON. MEMBER: Give away the Minister!

MR. McGEER: …breathe a little life, just one small breath out of that moribund Minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: We'll replace him.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, the creation of a science city in British Columbia is not an option — it's essential. The warnings I've sounded year after year in the Legislature regarding the need for advanced, sophisticated industry in British Columbia have been ignored by the Members. Yet only last month those same warnings were sounded by the Senate Committee on Science Policy, and the essence of the message is this. An industrial base which relies on harvesting of natural resources will not carry this country or this province in the future. The groundwork for new careers and innovative industries must be laid soon, or our standard of living will slump behind the more advanced countries. We're sleeping away the year, Mr. Speaker. That Minister of

[ Page 307 ]

Industrial Development is the "Rip van Winkle of British Columbia."

The second job for a Minister, if we can find one over there, is the establishment of a programme of industrial incentives to get some of the existing skills into the province.

The third is the establishment of an Economic Council for British Columbia.

And the fourth is the setting up of beefed-up trade missions.

I know that the Minister is going to be out huckstering apples this coming year. But we want something a little more aggressive and effective from his department.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. McGEER: In opposition, yes; in government, no. There's one industry that's going to experience rapid growth before the decade is out. And I say this now — that's the agricultural industry. And there's only been one person, Mr. Speaker, who's spoken out with any imagination at all about agriculture in British Columbia, and that's our dapper Member from West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams). Because he's the one that understands agriculture in this province.

He's the one that understands agriculture, and we're at his suggestion increasing our budget for agriculture $5 million this year, to get on with the job of building up an agricultural trust.

It would be a tragedy to begin taking our farmland out of production now, just when it's on the threshold of becoming extraordinarily valuable. Because the agricultural land of California is not inexhaustible — the population of the United States is growing. The time when we will have to satisfy more of our own needs and indeed the needs of other areas is rapidly approaching. And it's none too soon to commence that trust.

Nor are we satisfied, Mr. Speaker, with the succession duty proposals of the Minister of Finance. We state our policy now — that there will be no succession duties on family farm property. The Social Credit policy, Mr. Speaker, will only destroy economic farm units.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's right. They've done it for years.

MR. McGEER: They've done it for years. But the important thing is to keep those family farms as economic units generation after generation. Keep them in production, and no one on that Social Credit side can understand that — only the Member from West Vancouver–Howe Sound. That shows how badly we need to switch sides in this House and get on with aggressive policies.

Mr. Speaker, we've set aside funds again this year for the Department of the Environment. But this year we again set aside funds and say it should be combined with a provincial Department of Fisheries. And there's a reason for this, Mr. Speaker, because fisheries departments have been very successful in the Maritimes. And with the world food shortage the value of our fish catch is going to increase every year.

It's the fishing industry, Mr. Speaker, which is continually threatened by the policies of the Social Credit government on dams and water pollution. And why we want a provincial Department of Fisheries is to provide a little balance to the ministries over there so that there will be a little competition for their pro-pollution policies.

Energy developments conflict with the environment. No question of that.

I repeat today what the Liberal policy on energy is. First of all the gathering of technological information, secondly public hearings, and then — and only then — legislative action.

Mr. Speaker, we heard the Minister of Recreation and Conservation tell us about Moran dam when he spoke. He said he wanted all the facts before any decisions were made. He admitted that the provincial government had been spending money testing for the dam's site. He told us we might need Moran for flood control. Mr. Speaker, that's a very different story than what we heard a few years ago.

When the government wanted to build the Peace River dam, flooding wasn't a problem on the Fraser. We could do it adequately with dykes, and we must never, never touch the fish.

Well, now that the Government's casting about for new dams to build the priorities suddenly seem to change. Suddenly we're starting to worry about flooding in the Fraser Valley.

Well, Mr. Speaker, last fall there was a report released by the federal fisheries service and the Department of the Environment. The International Salmon Fisheries Commission report said that the Moran dam wasn't necessary for flood control. The report said that dykes can provide this protection, and they reminded us that the federal-provincial governments had signed an agreement in 1969 for a 10-year programme to achieve just this.

Mr. Speaker, what we say is this. Let us convene a legislative committee. Let us hear this testimony on flooding that we somehow didn't hear about at all until the Minister gave his speech.

We agree that ultimately a political decision has to be reached. But it's got to be a political decision that does not have at its base the concealment of facts. We said we were against the Moran dam. We said to us it appeared to be a gigantic environmental gamble. But, Mr. Speaker, to the second Member from Vancouver Centre, if we have open testimony and the facts say otherwise, we're prepared to listen.

But if it's going to be the same old seat-of-the-pants political intuition that makes this decision, and if it's going to be done with the deliberate suppression of facts, then we put it now to the government as an open challenge — call an election based on the Moran dam as your number one issue. We relish the opportunity to take you up on that alone. Otherwise hold those hearings and let us hear the testimony right here in the legislative chamber.

The other thing that we want to listen to is testimony on nuclear energy. Now again the Minister of Recreation and Conservation said he didn't want to tell us about nuclear energy — it would take an hour. But he certainly catalogued all the difficulties of the prototype American plans. But he didn't tell us the experiences of Ontario Hydro because the experience with new Canadian nuclear reactors is nothing short of spectacular.

It's like the Minister telling us that we can't have jet aircraft in British Columbia because there were problems with the Comet well after the DC8 and the 707 had been proved to be reliable, faster and more modern.

There's one difference. That difference is in this case the world's best nuclear reactors are Canadian. Ontario Hydro in their October 1971 Bulletin described the favourable experience they've had with their new Pickering plant.

[ Page 308 ]

They told how that plant not only supplies non-polluting energy which will be enough, when it's completed two years from now, to satisfy the electricity for 1,700,000 homes, but it makes cobalt for cancer treatment machines that are sold around the world.

Some of their reactors make plutonium, which is used in other nuclear reactors around the world, and indeed some of those Ontario Hydro nuclear plants will become plutonium mines in a few years.

Now, Mr. Speaker, today I called Mr. Grey, who is head of the Atomic Energy Commission of Canada, and invited him to come to British Columbia to provide testimony regarding the advantages of nuclear power.

He agreed to come, and I think it's up to the government to set the time and the place. We can extend the invitation, but it would be far better if the government did so. I report only that the chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission of Canada is pleased to come to British Columbia to provide testimony to this House or anyone else as to what nuclear power might have to offer to British Columbia, and specifically to southern Vancouver Island.

Let's get the facts on the table. What both he and his representative Mr. McKay, who is in Victoria today, told me is that nuclear power can be put on southern Vancouver Island cheaper than any other power source, including hydro sent over from the mainland.

But the Minister tells us that nuclear is unreliable. That we can't go into that because we have so many other energy sources. Let's have hearings. Let's get the facts on nuclear power. Let's get the facts on flooding. Let's follow the Liberal policy of reaching sensible energy decision in this province.

Well, I could tell you, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to see an engineer like the Member from North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Brousson) in charge of some of these decisions so that we can go about it in a sensible way.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. McGEER: He knows more about power than any of you. He's an electrical engineer. The difficulty is that we've had seat-of-the-pants political decisions instead of sound economic and environmental decisions.

Mr. Speaker, the Member from North Vancouver–Capilano spoke in the House only last week about another project in this province — the Kootenay-Quesnel project. While he was speaking there was more under-the-table dealing going on between the provincial government and the City of Nelson. Because even as we were discussing that budget the government sent up the deputy Minister of Water Resources, the deputy Minister of Municipal Affairs and the Comptroller of Water Rights to apply pressure on the City of Nelson.

AN HON. MEMBER: He didn't tell us that.

MR. McGEER: While the Member from North Vancouver–Capilano was giving us the facts in this House on the project, the representatives of the government were up placing pressure on the City of Nelson. Mr. Speaker, with any reasonable government the City of Nelson would be judged to have an overwhelming case.

First of all, it's got prior rights on the river. Secondly, it put its application for a licence in first. Thirdly, it has a need for more electricity. Fourthly, this is the zone the government doesn't like. It owns property that B.C. Hydro must obtain before it can put in its controversial canal.

Now, Mr. Speaker, B.C. Hydro and the government lack the legal instruments to expropriate that land. Yet they still go up and put pressure on the City of Nelson. Mind you, Mr. Speaker, the City of Nelson's requests are reasonable enough. All they say is: "Give us enough water to run our plant efficiently. If you can't give us the water then give us the equivalent in power."

But what's the government implying? What it's implying is it could change the ground rules. It could expropriate, it could change the expropriation laws, it could shift around the water licences. What it all amounts to Mr. Speaker, is a gun being held at the head of the City of Nelson and the city being left to wonder when the government's going to pull the trigger.

I admire the City of Nelson for hanging tough and demanding justice. Because they are faced with awesome power. We Liberals say, once more, grant the City of Nelson its request for water.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. McGEER: The B.C. Hydro's licence is for 30,000 cubic feet per second. The City of Nelson only wants 740. Well if the project is such that B.C. Hydro is going to need every last drop of water, if the flow is going to be that short during much of the year then go ahead — take the water from the City of Nelson, drop it through your head which is 240 feet instead of the City of Nelson's 70. But credit them with that power. All you have to do is to give them a third, less than a third of that extra 740 cubic feet per second. And you get to keep two-thirds. What could be a fairer deal than that?

The Minister of Highways comes from Nelson. He didn't speak in the throne debate. I challenge him to get up in this debate and defend the City of Nelson he represents. Because the City of Nelson is being sold down the Kootenay River, and he's got to be the one to defend them.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. McGEER: No, he doesn't like it, Mr. Speaker. We're going to be listening very carefully to what he has to say because for once he's going to have to defend his city and not his government.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's right. That's right.

MR. McGEER: Well, Mr. Speaker, our Liberal budget provides $2 million more for the Department of the Attorney General, and if ever a department needed a couple of million dollars and somebody to run it it's the Attorney General's department.

The Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom), and the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) have said the department's an administrative mess. What a treat it would be in British Columbia to have a lawyer who knew something about the law running the Attorney General's department.

The Land Registry is in chaos. You have civil servants, good ones, throwing in the sponge and quitting. Your companies and securities supervision is nothing but a joke because of understaffing.

Crime rates in British Columbia are the highest in Canada. The public isn't being adequately protected. I suppose they

[ Page 309 ]

are going to be saved from topless dancers and bottomless dancers and they're going to be spared the ordeal of going to dirty movies. But that's hardly a priority activity of an Attorney General.

I agree with that headline "The Attorney General's Helpless on Sniff." We need a legal aid system. We need an ombudsman. We need a fund for the victims of violent crimes. But most of all, Mr. Speaker, we need a Liberal Attorney General.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. McGEER: I'd like to say no one in British Columbia, Mr. Speaker, has ever understood patronage like Social Credit. No one ever. No one has ever drawn the kind of campaign funds Social Credit has drawn. No one has put the squeeze on industry, including the liquor companies, like Social Credit has done. Patronage. They make every other government that's ever sat in British Columbia look like children in short pants. That's the one thing they do understand. — That's the one thing they do well. Run a government — no. Patronage — yes.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: Where did you get the half million…?

MR. McGEER: No one has been more cynical about the liquor industry than the Premier of this province. Such a pious teetotaller, raking in the huge profits each year. Taking in the campaign funds every election. Putting aside $25 million of a fund supposingly for education….

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. McGEER: How much do we spend after all that desk pounding for $25 million? You saw it in the budget — $253,000.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. McGEER: The one thing they do turns out to be a gimmick for the provincial Crown corporations. Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. McGEER: Well, Mr. Speaker, there are other provisions in our budget — $40 million more for education, we'll be discussing that; $900,000 more in travel industry. Nothing for Ministers without Portfolio.…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. McGEER: No Ministers without Portfolio. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, we're moving the Minister of Social Rehabilitation up to Transport. It's a dreadful stop-gap measure, and the highways minister from Nelson we'd better put him as head of the Civil Service Commission or the Public Utilities Commission or something because the City of Nelson isn't going to support him any longer.

But that leaves one portfolio, and I'd put the Lady Minister without Portfolio for Little Mountain (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) into that. I think it would be a very nice thing for the Province of British Columbia to have a Lady Minister of Social Rehabilitation because we need a little more heart there, less talk about the dead-beats, more help in providing day-care centres for the single parent families. So I'd give her a job, and I think she'd do it well.

But heaven knows it's a big enough job, Mr. Speaker, because the Minister of Social Rehabilitation has that tremendous task of picking up all of the fumbling errors of all the other Ministers.

You know the Provincial Alliance of Businessmen found a lot of jobs. It just couldn't find them fast enough, because the bungling of the Minister of Municipal Affairs not getting winter works money, the bungling of the Minister of Finance not getting development programmes going, the bungling of the Minister of Labour not getting labour-management disagreements settled, all these things throw people out of work. What a tremendous load that's put on the poor Minister of Social Rehabilitation. But anyway that's my proposal for taking care of the Lady Minister.

Now, there's one more final item in our budget.…

AN HON. MEMBER: She doesn't want the job. I don't think she wants the job.

MR. McGEER: I think that's right. It's a real challenge compensating for all those other Ministers. I agree.

Mr. Speaker, there's another very small provision in our budget. It's only $100,000 but I mention it because it's so essential. It's for legislative committees.

The giant forces of labour and management are girding themselves for another confrontation this year. I warned in my budget speech of two years ago that the provincial government was providing poor leadership and setting a poor example. I said that the economy might well turn down if steps were not taken to correct the situation. It was a disastrous year for strikes, 2,900,000 man-days lost. It was a self inflicted wound. The worst in our history — even if the settlements were reached two years ago. Mr. Speaker, I must remind the Minister of Labour it fell to me to bring the parties together in the second worst of those strikes.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. McGEER: How much was that strike costing the people of British Columbia? How many millions of dollars did that settlement save?

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. McGEER: Ninety per cent of all the labour negotiations in this province are under the aegis of the provincial government.

AN HON. MEMBER: I thought you were Premier of B.C.

MR. McGEER: We're talking about the provincial strikes and the difficulties that have been caused to this economy by the constant, unremitting warfare between management represented by Social Credit and the labour unions represented by the N.D.P. It's this continual spilling of the cold war of politics into the labour-management scene that's caused us so much distress in the Province of British Columbia. When we get a new government in this province that is not attached to big management or to big unions that's when we'll begin to have some real progress.

[ Page 310 ]

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. McGEER: Even as those settlements of two years ago were reached a time bomb was set in our economy, and it's ticking away today. I warn now, as I did two years ago, that nothing has been done to bring about harmony in the matter of settling wage demands, and if precautions are not taken now, another year of labour-management conflict could force the economy into another unnecessary slump, and that would mean that revenue predictions that I've made of over $1,600 million for the coming year could well fall short.

The labour committee of the Legislature should be meeting to consider this problem now. If necessary, it should continue beyond the prorogation of this House. It should, and we have asked it before, hold hearings all around the province. Recommendations for a better way of solving labour-management disputes must be sought and must be found. Now, Mr. Speaker, once more we've presented a dynamic Liberal budget, no phoney funds. Aggressive in its outlook for the province and compassionate in its treatment of the citizens. Mr. Speaker, it demonstrates more clearly than any other the running down of the Social Credit machine, and we are looking at unbridled arrogance this afternoon.

There has never been a political machine in the history of our province that begins to compare with Social Credit, and we grant you that. What we say is we do not need a political machine in charge of British Columbia, we need a government, a Liberal government.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order!

Hon. Mr. Campbell moves adjournment of the debate. Motion approved.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT (Premier): I wish to advise the House that in answer to our first letter that we sent to our people at the Winter Games in Japan, we received a letter, just received, dated February 4, Japan.

Since there are only four of us from British Columbia on the Canadian Winter Olympic Team in Sapporo, your telegram was greatly appreciated. We'd like to thank you, the Legislature and the citizens of British Columbia. It is good to know that the people of British Columbia are thinking of us.

And it is signed by the four names on the team.

I move we proceed to public bills and orders. Second reading of Bill No. 1, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE EVIDENCE ACT

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 1, An Act to Amend the Evidence Act. The Honourable the Attorney General.

HON. L.R. PETERSON (Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, this bill contains a few technical amendments to the Evidence Act. There is presently a provision in the Evidence Act that provides that a photographic print tendered by a government, the Bank of Canada, or the registrar of a land registry office may be tendered in evidence at any time without the usual six-year limitation period applying, and we propose in this amendment to extend that provision to other municipal governments and school district governments as well as the regional hospital districts.

There's another provision relating to the taking of affidavits by commissioners, which is primarily clarification and to ensure that matters can be dealt with when false declarations are taken. The other amendment is really striking out some words which are not necessary to the statute. I move that the bill be now read a second time.

Motion approved: Second reading of the bill.

Bill No. 1 ordered to be placed on orders of the day for committal at the next sitting after today.

AN ACT TO AMEND
THE CONDITIONAL SALES ACT, 1961

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 4, An Act to Amend the Conditional Sales Act, 1961. The Honourable the Attorney General.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to make some amendments to the Conditional Sales Act, and some of the amendments contained and proposed to the Conditional Sales Act are common to the next two bills that will be considered. There is a provision at the moment in the Conditional Sales Act and in the other statutes the Bills of Sale Act and the Assignment of Book Accounts Act as well, which allows an extension of time for registration.

This existing provision preserves the rights of third parties who otherwise might be adversely affected by such registration, who have in the meantime acquired title to all or some of the chattels being dealt with in the conditional sales agreement.

There is a recent decision of the supreme court of this province which held that a trustee for the benefit of creditors is not presently protected by this provision. I don't have the actual citation — I can get it for the Honourable Members — in other words, this is strictly interpreted to purchasers of goods and those who have had acquired title other than by purchase do not have this protection and the purpose of this amendment is to extend this protection in this case to the rights of the liquidator, an assignee, a receiver or trustee for the benefit of creditors and as well to his share from the execution of a court process.

The amendment would afford protection to a person who might have taken title from such a liquidator, assignee, receiver or trustee. I think it's only proper they should have the same protection as a purchaser of goods in question, and that is the major purpose of this amendment, which is common to the other bills as well.

The second principle contained in the bill, Mr. Speaker, would provide for the making of regulations prescribing a form of statement of particulars to be filed as part of or in addition to the conditional sale.

At the present time you can have some very lengthy documents — it becomes a very time-consuming thing for someone to go through the document in question and pick out the material details and so there is provision for prescribing a form of statement of particulars which can be included at the time of registration.

[ Page 311 ]

Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.

Motion approved: second reading of the bill.

Bill No. 4 ordered to be placed on orders of the day for committal at the next sitting after today.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE BILLS OF SALE ACT, 1961

MR. SPEAKER: The second reading of Bill No. 5, An Act to Amend The Bills of Sale Act, 1961. The Honourable the Attorney General.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, this bill contains the same principle as the one that has just been voted on. It applies equally to bills of sale as it does to conditional sales. The only additional feature in Bill No. 5 is an amendment which would remove the requirements of an affidavit of bona fides. As the legal members in the chamber will know, this is an affidavit that's sworn by the grantee under the bill of sale. It's annexed to the bill of sale setting forth essentially that the bill of sale is not made for the purpose of defrauding creditors and that the bill of sale was executed and given in good faith.

It's been found that requiring such an affidavit has done little in the way of protecting creditors, and the problem arises because where there are minor defects in affidavits of bona fides, where they have not been filled out properly or completely, it has resulted in the bill of sale itself being invalidated by the supreme court.

Therefore, it's felt that the provision is not of sufficient value to maintain it in existence. Often times the grantee resides perhaps in a different city than the grantor, and it means that the bill of sale has to be signed by the grantee as this affidavit is completed and sworn before a notary public, and we feel there are other remedies under the law that can apply equally without the necessity of this procedure continuing.

The other provisions, I believe, Mr. Speaker, are the same in principle as those which obtain in Bill No. 4 which has just received second reading. I therefore move that Bill No. 5 be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the second Member for Vancouver Point Grey.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, with leave of the government side I move the adjournment of this particular debate. I am very concerned about this affidavit of bona fides deletion that you're talking about. I'd prefer to adjourn it. I so move.

Motion approved.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE
ASSIGNMENT OF BOOK ACCOUNTS ACT, 1961

MR. SPEAKER: The second reading of Bill No. 6, An Act to Amend the Assignment of Book Accounts Act, 1961. The Honourable the Attorney General.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, the amendments proposed for this bill are similar to those proposed in the bill which has received second reading, on the Conditional Sales Act, and I move that it be now read a second time.

Motion approved: second reading of the bill.

Bill No. 6 ordered to be placed on orders of the day for committal at the next sitting after today.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE SUPREME COURT ACT

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 7, An Act to Amend the Supreme Court Act. The Honourable the Attorney General.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, in September of last year the federal government amended the Judges' Act of Canada, and this amendment authorises a judge who has been appointed under that Act and who retires to continue to act as a supernumerary judge.

Only those with 10 years of service and of the age of 70 years or more are eligible for such appointments. In addition, the appointee must give up his regular judicial duties. This bill that is before us now would make a similar amendment to the Supreme Court Act of this province, and it's necessary not only the federal government legislate on this matter but also the provincial government, so the purpose of this amendment is to give full effect to the amendment of the federal government.

Circumstances sometimes occur where there may be too few judges for the task at hand, and this amendment and the implementation of this provision would to some extent alleviate those situations by making available the experience and ability of those judges who elect to become supernumerary.

Every such election will, of course, also create a vacancy in the supreme court which would have to be filled so that you would have the supernumerary being called upon when necessary and also the new appointee who replaces the supernumerary on full time.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Well, I won't comment on that, although I did across the floor a few moments ago. Of course any of the expenses in connection with this, the salary of the supernumerary as well as the new appointees, are paid by the federal government, not by the provincial administration.

The remaining two provisions are technical in nature, Mr. Speaker, and can be probably best dealt with, if there are any questions of them, in the committee stage of the bill. I move that Bill No. 7 be now read for the second time.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the first Member for Vancouver East.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, there is an important principle in this bill which will enable judges at the age of 70 to become supernumerary judges. I want to be clear in my interest, and I don't want anybody to be in any doubt that I am putting forward a case for my brother the judge in any remarks I make.

Neither would I want the House to think I am jealous in any way that I don't ever expect to be elevated myself, Mr. Speaker, but some day I think I may be able to get on the list and get rejected. (Laughter). That's more than I've been able to do with the Q.C., because some fellow in the newspapers stood up and turned it down on my behalf, although it had never been offered to me. (Laughter).

But the principle — and then somebody else says "we'll

[ Page 312 ]

abolish the Act," from my own group — so I have better chances in the other direction, really! But this is just a housekeeping bill, really, to create supernumerary judges, and I don't know why it should be restricted to judges, there should be supernumerary cabinet Ministers. We see them across from us in the House, Mr. Speaker, and if there should be judges who are after all only law students who have earned the right to mark their own examination papers and when we see before us superfluous cabinet at 70, let's have supernumerary cabinet Ministers.

Motion approved: second reading of the bill.

Bill No. 7 ordered to be placed on orders of the day for committal at the next sitting after today.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE COURT OF APPEAL ACT

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 8, An Act to Amend the Court of Appeal Act. The Honourable the Attorney General.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, I'm relatively certain that the remarks of the Honourable Member for Vancouver East would apply equally to this bill, and with the same enthusiasm the House will want to endorse this measure, which applies the similar principles to the court of appeal as will obtain in the future to the supreme court.

The only additional principle contained in this bill is the creation of one additional member of the court of appeal. The proposal would be to bring the total number of active court of appeal judges to nine rather than eight, which it presently obtains. I move the bill be now read for the second time.

Motion approved: second reading of the bill.

Bill No. 8 ordered to be placed on orders of the day for committal at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Resolution No. 7, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Resolution No. 7, the Honourable the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

HON. D.RJ. CAMPBELL (Minister of Municipal Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable the Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement the resolution standing in my name on the order paper: (That this House authorise the select standing committee on municipal matters to examine the criteria and conditions which should be met either to incorporate by statute an area as a municipality or to include an area in an existing municipality, and to report their findings and recommendations to the House.)

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this resolution is self-explanatory. The content will refer to certain matters that were discussed with the municipal matters committee last year. There was an undertaking at the committee level that this question would be referred to the Union of B.C. Municipalities, who did certain work with this particular subject during the course of the year. They held a special seminar on this matter at the annual convention of the Union of B.C. Municipalities and in fact undertook to make available to the legislative commission committee the report on the matters which are referred to on the resolution. I move that resolution.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Burnaby-Willingdon.

MR. J.G. LORIMER (Burnaby-Willingdon): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper which reads: "To amend motion No. 7 by adding after the word 'municipality', at the end of the third line, the words 'and to consider the advisability of setting up a municipal boundaries commission charged with the responsibility of deciding what boundary changes should take place or incorporations allowed.'"

Speaking briefly on the amendment, Mr. Speaker, the amendment is merely suggesting to the committee that in addition to what the Minister has said that discussions also take place in the committee with reference to the advisability of putting the matter of deciding on municipal boundaries, amalgamations and so on into the hands of a municipal boundaries commission, and to take it out of the area of politics and allow an independent commission set up to determine what should be and what shouldn't be a municipality and when they should be amalgamated and so on and so forth.

The reason is we feel that of late in the province there have been a number of municipalities created, a number of terms set out under the charters, which haven't met with the approval of this side of the House and certainly not, I suggest, with a number of the people that were basically involved. We're not quite sure that the government is able to draw the boundaries in a manner that is in the interest of the people of the province as a whole. And as a result we're suggesting that discussion take place on the municipal boundaries commission in the committee level.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Does the Minister wish to indicate if the government is accepting the amendment?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: Want to take your place now or later?

MR. BARRETT: No, no. I'll ask a question.

MR. SPEAKER: Will the Honourable Minister please be seated, and will the Hon. Leader of the Opposition continue by addressing the Chair?

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would have hoped that the Minister may have given an indication earlier to avoid this debate but in response to what my colleague has said, certain evidence has come forward in this House in terms of the drawing of boundaries to municipalities that give rise for concern. Those boundaries have obviously been drawn as a distinct departure from policy announced by the Minister.

We feel that the committee, to function properly, should have the amendment suggested by the Member because the amendment suggests a boundaries commission which would be separated from political pressure that may or may not be brought to bear in terms of setting up new boundaries.

A specific example that we're concerned about is, quite frankly, the little municipality of Dufferin.

[ Page 313 ]

Without a boundaries commission, the Minister allows such a development to take place with really goof-ball proportion.

Now we don't want the Minister to get tagged with gerrymander or snakes and ladders, but it does seem suspicious, Mr. Minister, through you Mr. Speaker, without having some guidelines for the committee and coming up with an area like Dufferin that we may have a repetition of the same ministerial shaky hand guidance unless those boundaries are drawn up without light of day.

We feel that it is the responsibility of the municipal committee to strengthen the confidence of the elected officials at the municipal level in this government. There's already enough criticism by the municipal administrator and by the elected officials over the fact that boundaries appear "willy-nilly." So to avoid that criticism we suggest that the House supports this amendment and strengthen the hand of municipal planning throughout the whole province.

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

MR. B.A. CLARK (North Vancouver–Seymour): Mr. Speaker, my reasons for indicating support of the proposed amendment are not necessarily those expressed by the Leader of the Opposition but as representing a riding that probably more than any in this House has been involved in questions of whether or not to amalgamate. I would urge the House to consider that in such questions of establishing municipal boundaries there is a growing need in the province for an independent voice.

We have had, in North Vancouver, numerous referendums on the question of amalgamation and adjustment of municipal boundaries where there has been a need for the public to receive from some outside impartial body accurate information, accurate assessments of the various statements that are being made on both sides of the issue, and indeed positive recommendations. For that reason I think the amendment is a worthwhile one, and I would urge the government to accept it.

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

MR. R.A. WILLIAMS (Vancouver East): Such boundary commissions or authorities exist in several provinces in Canada. One exists in the Province of Manitoba, one in the Province of Ontario. It is my sincere hope that the committee will consider this kind of approach so that we can avoid the kind of problems that have developed in this province in recent years.

It's clear that in Ontario there has been significant advantages for the people in the municipalities by having such an authority. The City of Toronto alone now has a ward system, for example, that fairly represents the genuine neighbourhoods in the City of Toronto, because of such a boundaries commission.

In the Province of Manitoba there has been similar advantages through having such a commission. I would urge the government to consider this amendment so that the committee could consider the broader context for remedying the kind of problems that have developed under the authority of the Minister of Municipal Affairs in this province.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: Here, I think, if the Members of the Legislature will read the resolution, the remarks that have been made so far are in effect an insult to the legislative committee itself.

The question of using a boundary commission as one method whereby the effect of incorporation or annexation could take place is in fact one of the matters which was before the legislative committee last year. I suggest the only reason that this resolution was on the order paper in the first instance was to discuss some matters which I intend to discuss in some detail in another place at another time tomorrow. The amendment is tying the hands of the committee, it's an insult to the committee, and the real reason for its presentation here I'll have more to say about tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question on the amendment? The Honourable the Member for Cowichan-Malahat.

MR. RM. STRACHAN (Cowichan-Malahat): Well, I think the Minister outlined the observable and growing weakness which he has been showing recently in that feeble effort to turn aside a very worthwhile amendment — an amendment which his own actions as Minister have made very necessary for presentation to this committee, because if we had not had this horrible example of a Minister who started off determined to draw boundaries of municipalities of this province in a reasonable, sane and rational manner…. He then went back on his promise he made to the people and demonstrated the fact that he'd abandoned every ideal he ever had as a minister.

He made it obvious that as long as that Minister is Minister of Municipal Affairs, as long as that government is in power, then they simply can't be trusted to draw municipal boundaries with any reason or rationale for the benefit of the people of any district or area.

It's on the records. And I suggest to you, Mr. Minister, rather than turn down this very worthwhile amendment, this very crucial and necessary amendment that was made, you should have accepted it, put it to the committee, let the committee decide.

It's obvious that this government has deteriorated so much it no longer has any faith in committees. They all know the one that dominates the committee but they don't want to open up the area of debate, discussion, resolution or recommendation of these committees, and that is the reason the Minister turned it down. I don't care how much he gets on that high horse of his tomorrow, it still won't answer the basic question that he's afraid.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. STRACHAN: Look, Mr. Mickey-Mouse Minister.…

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!

MR. STRACHAN: Any time I'm afraid of him, that'll be the day, that'll be the day. He demonstrated his fears of a rational committee examination of the situation by turning this down. He normally plays cheap politics — this is cheap, cheap, cheap politics.

[ Page 314 ]

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Kootenay.

MR. L.T. NIMSICK (Kootenay): Mr. Speaker, this amendment I thought would be accepted without any question. I've been on the municipal committee for many years, and we used to take all the amendments to the Municipal Act before the committee; now we only take the hot potatoes, the things that the government don't want to deal with as a government, and they want to turn it over to the committee. They want to turn it over to the committee for them to handle. And last year this very question of boundaries of municipalities came up, and you should have seen the fancy dancing that the Honourable the Minister did in the committee to get around the issue, to try and get the committee to take responsibility, to give the Minister the power to set boundaries. This is exactly what he wanted the committee to do, and the committee turned it over then to the Union of B.C. Municipalities for them to come up with a suggestion.

Now we've got this amendment which gives the government an opportunity to set up a boundary commission by which you would take it out of that political area and they would set up not necessarily to be completely carried through, but at least they would have the power to say whether these areas should be taken into the municipality or whether other areas should be set up as a municipality or not. I'm rather surprised at the Honourable the Minister didn't accept this suggestion very quickly, and it's only a suggestion for the committee to consider.

I hope even if he doesn't accept the recommendation that they still consider a boundary commission within that committee.

AN HON. MEMBER: Sure we will.

MR. NIMSICK: I hope they do too, but why didn't you accept the amendment, then, if that is the case? Or are you going to say that it is outside of the jurisdiction of the committee to consider the boundary commission? Because I think that the boundaries commission is the solution to this problem. Because you know last year when we were discussing that there was no solution, no one could come to any real solution because as long as you are a politician when you are dealing with municipal boundaries, political influences and political tension arise and you can't come up with a real clear solution to the problem.

MR. SPEAKER: The question is that Motion No. 7 be amended by adding after the word "municipality" at the end of the third line the words, "and to consider the advisability of setting up a municipal boundaries commission, charged with the responsibility of deciding what boundary changed should take place or incorporations allowed."

The amendment was negatived on the following division:

YEAS —17

NAYS — 34

MR. SPEAKER: Question on the motion that this House authorise a select standing committee on municipal matters to examine the criteria and conditions which should be met either to incorporate by statute an area as a municipality, or to include an area in an existing municipality, and to report their findings and recommendations to the House.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy withdraws notice of Motion No. 9.

Hon. Mr. Bennett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:16 p.m.