[ Page 657 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Budget debate (continued)

Mr. Gardom — 657

Mr. Phillips — 665

Mr. Smith — 671

Mr. Wallace — 674

Mr. McClelland — 676

Mr. McGeer — 680

Mr. Schroeder — 681

Motions

No. 27 (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) Removal of questions on Gulf Islands to committee on municipal matters — 683

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 1973

The House met at 8 p.m.

Prayers.

Orders of the day.

ON THE BUDGET

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): I have a letter that came in over the dinner break, Mr. Speaker, and it deals with the Minister of Highways. I wonder if I should read it to the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes. Read it.

MR. GARDOM: Should I? I'll read it into the record.

"To the Minister of Highways: Sir, will your new government insurance plan sell me a loss of income policy? Signed, Any B.C. Insurance Company." (Laughter).

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I suggest you table the letter. (Laughter).

MR. GARDOM: You know, when we adjourned for dinner, Mr. Speaker, I had just started to talk a little bit about alcoholic rehabilitation, and I would like….

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. GARDOM: I had dinner, Mr. Member, with the Speaker's wife, and she is beyond reproach.

Alcoholic rehabilitation, Mr. Speaker, but for it being so exceptionally tragic, the accounts of the Liquor Control Board ending the fiscal period of March 31 of last year would indeed be a very jolly and rewarding statement. We see from a perusal of the Liquor Control accounts that their net receipts for the fiscal period March 31, 1971 to March 31, 1972, that they arrived at a net profit of $85 million. That in itself does not reflect the true net profit, Mr. Speaker, because it doesn't take into account a tax on a tax on a tax, which is the 5 per cent. In actual fact, Mr. Speaker, the Liquor Control Board made, in the Province of British Columbia in the period ending March 31, 1972, $89.5 million.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shocking!

MR. GARDOM: It is indeed a shocking figure, I agree with you, Mr. Member.

I would estimate, Mr. Speaker, for the year ending March 31, 1973 there will be a net return, net profit of well over $100 million which is an embarrassing figure, I would say, for this province. One thing shrieks out very, very loudly and that is this — governments in the Province of British Columbia have really been mining the booze and mining the drinker in every sense, because as a tax collector it is a complete behemoth, but its rehabilitative programme, and when I say "its" I am referring to the governments of the Province of B.C., is still about at insect level.

The Morrow Royal Commission, Mr. Speaker, called upon the Government in very strong and in very clear and in very plausible terms, and it said, loud and clear, that B.C. citizens want a civilized approach to drinking and they also want to have practical and realistic checks against its abuse. The results of that commission have been ignored and they should not be ignored in the Province of B.C. any longer.

I would recommend that the Government forthwith appoint a catalyst or co-ordinator of Ministerial rank whose terms of reference would grant him the necessary authority to be responsible for a crash programme in the areas of prevention, education, treatment and rehabilitation.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sorry, Hon. Member, I think the matter is now before a standing committee of the House.

MR. GARDOM: Oh, that's only as far as advertising is concerned, Mr. Speaker. It doesn't go the whole hog at all — certainly not, with every respect, Mr. Speaker.

I think this is a matter that has been of great concern to all Members of the House, and even much more than great concern to Members of the House, terrific concern to all the people in the province. I think that we should give terrific priority, Mr. Speaker, to the establishment of detoxification centres and clinics, provide specialized services, referral centres for all alcoholics and, finally, a continuing and a very viable educational programme.

There is no way, Mr. Speaker, that one can legislate against the pleasures of man or tax them out of the market, but there is certainly a duty to educate against abuse.

I think we have a responsibility to end the hypocrisy that we have been living under in this province. We must help the alcoholic and not continue to bleed him white and watch him die in the gutter, and not as a government continue to be a party to his self-destruction and as a government continue to be an accessory before the fact, receiving the full profit of his weakness but offering very scant contribution indeed, Mr. Speaker, to his cure.

[ Page 658 ]

We have a great moral duty to properly plough back into alcoholic rehabilitation a proper amount. If you look at the figures they are truly, as I said a few moments ago, embarrassing.

These are the net profit figures, exclusive of the 5 per cent on it, from 1966. 1966 — $35 million; 1967 — $44 million; 1968 — $50 million; 1969 — $56 million; 1970 — $61 million; 1971 — $66 million; 1972 — $85 million. As I said, for 1973 there is going to be $100 million — over a $15 million increase in one year.

But if you look, Mr. Speaker, at the other side of the ledger you find figures that surely to goodness must bring shame upon all of the legislators of this province.

In 1966 the alcoholic foundation grant was $160,000. In 1967 — $200,000; 1968 — $225,000; 1969 — $250,000; 1970 — $275,000; 1971 — $300,000; 1972 — $300,000. I am happy to see in these estimates there is an increased figure, but that also takes into account something for narcotics, so for all practical purposes, Mr. Speaker, the contribution to alcoholic rehabilitation has remained constant while the profits just swell in left and right. We are not doing the proper thing for these people.

If $1 bills, Mr. Speaker, were stretched insofar as the profits from liquor are concerned in this province over the last year's revenues, you would find that they would more than reach from Namu to Newfoundland. But pull as hard as you possibly could, Mr. Speaker, for alcoholic rehabilitation for this grant to the alcoholic foundation, they would barely reach around Stanley Park. I think that is a pretty rotten record for anyone.

In the field of driving, Mr. Speaker, we have to have one rule and one rule only — and that is to be sober to drive or keep off the road. I recommend tonight, as I have said in speeches before in this House — but still it is not a reality in the province — that there be tacked up in every liquor outlet in the Province of B.C. and the bars and the beer parlous and also on every single solitary gas pump in the Province of B.C. the warning, "Don't Drink and Drive" and, furthermore, full particulars of the penalties for the offence of drinking and driving, so that the driving public can know exactly the way it is and tell them the way it shall be.

Dealing with the problem of liquor bottles, I would recommend that the Government go ahead and make sure that there is some allowance made the same way there are for pop bottles for their return, so we can get them off the freeways and off the highways and off the side yards and off the boulevards.

Insofar as the consumption of liquor is concerned, Mr. Speaker, a great deal has to be done there, too. I think that we should be trying to point, as the Morrow Commission did, to small, intimate, congenial outlets.

I received on my desk earlier today, or a couple of days ago, a very interesting statement made by a community group in Vancouver. They made some very valid points, and I would like to refer to a few of them.

They suggested that the sale of a number of brands of draught beer would be a very good thing to have in these pub outlets so that people could have a personal preference. Also the customers should be able to satisfy their own particular taste by being able to obtain wine or tea or coffee or what-have-you as well as something to eat.

I also like very much their suggestion that there should be an atmosphere of openness to the community, "so that passersby may look in and observe the socializing inside and people inside can see the pedestrian traffic outdoors." And they say this: "We interpret drinking in moderation as a socially acceptable activity which need not be concealed from friends and neighbours." That is what the Morrow Commission said. We have spent a lot of money for the Morrow Commission in the Province of B.C., Mr. Speaker, and it is high time we started to follow some of the recommendations in it.

They carried on by suggesting that drinking should not be confined indoors by law which is a very, very valid suggestion indeed. There is no reason why people shouldn't be able to have what they may wish to have outside with their friends and enjoy a drink in the sunshine.

Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, there's no reason why one has to be riveted to one's seat when one's served a drink. There's certainly no reason why you can't go ahead and trot around and say hello to people having your drink in your hand. There should be provided extra amenities — table games and so forth — just to make drinking a little more pleasurable and more civilized. In British Columbia we really have sort of a "drinking behind the barn" attitude. I think this should be very much changed from the sort of swinish consumption that we have been involved in to more of a social attitude to it.

There should be more competition, Mr. Speaker, in price — definitely more competition in price. If liquor companies choose to go ahead and sell loss leaders in the Province of B.C., I can't see any reason against that whatsoever. I can't see why the consumer shouldn't be entitled to a decent deal. There should be more competition in quality and brand, particularly wines. Why we are not, in British Columbia, permitted to bring in here on the liquor board shelves some of the first-class California wines, I just do not know.

I also would say, Mr. Speaker, that we should be stressing consumer convenience. Refrigeration is not entirely new to the western world. I cannot see why, if an individual chooses to go to a Liquor Control

[ Page 659 ]

Board outlet, he couldn't buy a case of cold beer if he wants it. Why not? Let's give the consumer a break.

There's one other area — and this perhaps is considered a sensitive area, but I'm going to mention it because I think it's a pretty valid point. Take a look at the amount of money that has been paid for this stuff. You talk about the conservation of water, Mr. Speaker. If we ever go ahead and sell British Columbia water to the Americans for what we charge our own citizens for it in the liquor bottle, I'm darn sure we'd all be J. Paul Gettys in our own right.

In 1921, Mr. Speaker — it goes back quite a while for most of us, perhaps not too far for you — but in 1921…. (Laughter). I just want to make sure you're with me, Mr. Speaker. (Laughter).

However, Mr. Speaker, in 1921 a bottle of liquor held 75.3 degrees of proof. In October of 1942, as a result of a war-time measure, the proof was reduced to 70 degrees. When the federal war-time restrictions were removed in March of 1947, there was no return at all by the companies to the 75.3 degree proof. Most spirits in Canada — or in B.C. I should say, which we're concerned about — are still sold at the 70 degree proof, save and except one, I believe, and that's the overproof rum.

A bottle of rye whisky today, Mr. Speaker, costs, I suppose, in the neighbourhood of about $6, when you take into account the tax — maybe a little bit more or a little bit less. In 1942 that very same bottle of liquor would cost about $3.50. The distillers' profit really and truly has not changed too much. They still make, I suppose, in the vicinity of about $1 a bottle. The rest is straight tax. So if you take a look at what you're receiving in the bottle during the periods of time that I've been mentioning here, you're paying a great deal more and you're getting a great deal less.

I think that this thing could be very readily cleared up. There's no need for an increase. The net cost, I suppose, to the distiller would be 5 cents or maybe a maximum of 10 cents a bottle to pick up that proof 75.3, so all of those people who wish to receive an honest drink for the money that they pay for it may receive an honest drink, which they do not today.

This is one area, Mr. Speaker, where I think that we have been just pulling down the blinds insofar as reality is concerned. I think we should just get to it very, very quickly and make sure that we follow the reforms that have been suggested in the Morrow Commission. I would indeed welcome hearing from the Government as to what positive policies they have in this regard.

I'm delighted to see that the Hon. Premier has returned to the House from his dinner. He came in a few moments ago and I missed him. I also, Mr. Premier through you, Mr. Speaker, received a letter to the Hon. Premier. I'd like to read that to the House too. A copy came to me, Mr. Premier, yours will be on your desk first thing in the morning. It went this way:

"To the Hon. Premier:

Gandy is dandy but Rupert is quicker.

signed, Ogden Davis."

One of your friends. (Laughter).

Now I'd like to say a few words about the budget. This is a vibrant budget, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. GARDOM: It's a vibrant budget, Mr. Speaker. It's a budget with a lot of vision. It's path-finding. It's vitalizing. It's just the kind of budget that B.C. wants. It's full of fresh ideas and it's peppy and it's got an awful lot of snap in its garters.

I tell you this, Mr. Speaker, it's a joy for me, although it may be somewhat of a surprise to others, to say that I intend to support the budget. It's definitely going to get the province on the move. I'm happy to hear this enthusiasm from the other side because this has been the best Liberal budget that's ever been brought down. (Laughter). Such support is really and truly very comforting and warming for us.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's not what Dr. McGeer said. (Laughter).

MR. GARDOM: In October, Mr. Speaker, I said it depended entirely upon point of view whether we had a dandy Premier or a dangerous Premier at the helm. In the throne speech debate I mentioned that a curtain of uncertainty continued to be drawn over the province. The observations I made in October and the observations I think I made during the Speech from the Throne debate were very valid then and they're both exceptionally valid today.

Right now I'd like to say this. I'd like to take my hat off to the Premier for completely taking in the business community. They swallowed his budget — save a very few and minor formalistic protestations — hook, line and sinker. It really takes maybe a salesman to fool a salesman, and boy, did the Premier do it.

It was without doubt the most unique and clever bit of political legerdemain B.C. has ever seen and I compliment him. He went for the long ball, Mr. Speaker, and he got a homerun — breezy delivery, blue suit and all. Oh! How the business community liked that. "Hey," they said, "Check the threads. Yeah man, like wild. He's one of us." Then they said, "Peace in our time." What a trip, Mr. Speaker! What a trip! The business community, Mr. Speaker, were clucking like hens on the nest as the Premier fiscalled-diddled through his budget. He was absolutely radiant and all that on apple juice! (Laughter). I tell you, Mr. Speaker, the sooner we get that stuff on the shelf in B.C. the better. (Laughter).

[ Page 660 ]

But whether our business community were looking through rose-coloured apple juice or not, the business community was definitely becalmed. They did not know that their moment of truth was just being put off for a little while. You must give very full credit to the former Minister of Finance because he was dead right. "Return the socialists," he said, "and the province overnight will go into the red." He spoke the truth, because in his 1972 budget he said, "There's no debt at all." For 1973, the new boy lists $47 million direct, $2,998,000 indirect, for a total of $3,045 million or $1,525 for every man, woman and child in the province.

MR. D.M. BROUSSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Overnight.

MR. GARDOM: No, in six months. (Laughter). The Premier said, "Don't expect us to work miracles." But in six months, 180 days, our debt increased from zero to $3 billion. If that's not miracle work in reverse, I'd like to know what is, Mr. Speaker.

You know, we had the same comptrollers, same auditors, and we've gone from the black to $3 billion in the red in six months. Now look, Mr. Premier, you just wait till Moody's Investment Service Incorporated in New York hears about this. You remember Moody's. They're going to wonder what kind of dingdongs we've got out here. No fooling, But I can tell you this — how well the new Premier slipped into the old slipper of financial control which was first developed in 1952 by the former Premier. The former Premier in 1952 created a monolithic economic one-man ship which was absolutely patterned after socialistic centralization — and really and truly of which he had free competitive enterprise were supposed to be so critical.

The former Premier made the slipper and the present Premier just slid right into it. (Laughter). What was formerly a paradoxical modus operandi is now practised as an accepted socialistic structure. We find now as we found before, one individual, the Minister of Finance, the major domo and the sole fiscal agent of just about everything. This is very highly personalized control, and very, very highly singular control.

Secondly; we have to look at the staggering centralization of debt, and the pay-back of which you've almost got to project totally into infinity to appreciate it. Of the $3 billion debt, about $2 billion is owed by Hydro, and with around $16 million or so left in Hydro's kitty annually for profit, you are looking at about another 150 years to repay the capital debt — whether Colonel Shrum's pyramids are still standing then or not.

You know, when the lights went out this afternoon, I was just wondering whether we'd made the daily interest payment on that debt. I'd like to tell the Members of the House just what that is, and these are really staggering figures. The gross interest payment of Hydro per year is $120 million — $10 million from….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. GARDOM: I'm talking about interest payments. You have to pay the interest whether they're assets or not.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. GARDOM: They're out of Hydro's book, my friend. Your boss wrote it — $120 million a year, interest only; $10 million a month, interest only; $333,333 per day, interest only for Hydro; $13,920 interest per hour; $232 per minute; $38.66 per second — that's what we're paying in the Province of B.C. for interest for Hydro 60 seconds every minute, 60 minutes every hour, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. It's mind-boggling! It's mind-boggling!

MR. CHABOT: It's $5 billion a year in Ottawa.

MR. GARDOM: Thirdly; Mr. Speaker, we continue to find so many eggs in one basket. Before 1952, the pension funds for teachers and civil servants and other quasi governmental pension funds contained quite a variety of assets. Stock and bonds — they had pretty well a balanced portfolio. Well, Social Credit sold pretty well all of these and they replaced them with Hydro and earlier on, ferry issues. Now most of all of these pension funds are made up of provincially guaranteed bonds. So in the event of any kind of a provincial set back, we would not have a broad base of investment for these securities and they could indeed be weakened, or payment could be postponed, and with obvious jeopardy to their recipients.

I say, Mr. Speaker, that surely the better way would be to widen the base of these pension fund investments and acquire the expertise of investment counsellors who would be totally independent…I'm glad the Premier agrees with that…totally independent of the government and without any possibility whatsoever of conflict of interest between one governmental function or one government hat and another. It should be their duty to advise and prepare a more balanced portfolio for all of B.C. pension funds. So I say that we should establish an independent investment commission, whose duty it would be to advise in the ways and means of government and pension fund investments.

Fourthly; Mr. Speaker, without any question of a doubt, we must appoint an auditor general and establish the office to watchdog Government

[ Page 661 ]

spending and to stop the preposterous, unwarranted, and expensive pre-election government propaganda that was foisted on the taxpayer by a former administration.

An auditor general should have free access to all files of every instrumentality of the province — Hydro, P.G.E., the new insurance corporation when it is set up, and so forth. His powers and duties would be to examine all the statements as to proper expenditure and accounts, or as to the maintenance of appropriate records; with the power to report on those, or on any matter which he considered should be brought to the notice of the Legislature, and it with it being mandatory, Mr. Speaker, that his report be tabled right in the House.

Fifthly; a check and balance system should be initiated to defuse the very wide and discretionary powers that are totally granted to the Minister of Finance as the fiscal agent under the multitude of funds we have in B.C. Again, I would recommend establishing a fiscal agent's committee of three, with a majority opinion to prevail, and minority report to be filed in the Legislature too — if there was a minority report — because we have to notice that the present Premier again is adopting the policy of the former Premier, and he has become very much of a funder too.

As I've said before, Mr. Speaker, we've got to insist, not pay lip service to, we have got to insist that all of the Crown corporations and all of the instrumentalities of the Government are totally subject to public account and public query of their fiscal direction and their policy direction.

Now there are a few rather interesting references to this in the budget. At page 6 we see a rather pleasant little and somewhat innocuous statement that says: "Turning now to the province's finances and the economy, it is the intention of this administration to disclose," which they have not done as I will show, "to disclose the financial condition of the Government and its Crown corporations in a prompt and more complete manner to allow citizens of British Columbia to scrutinize provincial government operation." I'm glad you said "hear, hear."

At page 10 the Hon. Premier stated when delivering his address; "Mr. Speaker, I will table today separate reports on the operations of the British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority and the British Columbia Railway Company, to December 31, 1972." And carried on on that page and said this: "The government proposes making these operations more relevant and meaningful to the needs of the province."

Now what was filed was five documents. First of all we had the annual report of B.C. Hydro for 1972, with lots of nice pictures in it and some photographs of newspaper headlines, and a balance sheet, and a list of construction areas, and faithful employees.

The same thing was done for B.C. Railway; the second thing — those are balance sheets and profit and loss statements and nothing else. Full disclosure, my eye.

Then we found the same thing with Hydro to December 31, 1972, and also with the B.C. Railways.

The fifth document, there was some year, comparisons in Hydro costs and in Hydro rates.

Now that is nothing more, Mr. Speaker, than a statistical account and that's all. There's no policy material in there, not a whit. No indication of value being received, not any indication of that. No indication as to whether or not these corporations have been skinned in any contracts. No indications of either bonanzas or boobs, and it was really just a very, very, bare bones kind of a report.

It's just the very thing that a person can get, save and except the interim one, by asking B.C. Railway or B.C. Hydro for. So with every respect to the Hon. Premier, what came in in that filing was just a little bit of flim-flam, because he did not go ahead and do what he said he was going to do in his budget address, which we expected him to do.

Now you know it's a good thing to want to know what's going on in B.C. Railway because one of the major policy decisions that it's facing now is whether or not we're going to find Howe Sound as its outlet. How did these things come about? Nobody on this side of the House knows. Maybe some of the former administration know. I can assure you that it's not come to the attention of this group, and I can assure you, unless I've been greatly in error, it's highly unlikely that it came to the attention of the backbenchers. But that's not the point. It should come to the attention of the taxpayers in the Province of B.C. as to what the policy direction is of that railroad, and as to what the policy direction is of needing that port — which I do not think is needed one bit in the Howe Sound area. What's been going on? You can't tell me you're making a disclosure of the Crown corporations by filing a balance sheet. That's absolute poppycock, Mr. Speaker, absolute poppycock.

Mr. Speaker, we need an open-file policy, and we need an end to a secret life in B.C. As I said, there's no disclosure of what direction these albatross debt creators are taking. Not a scintilla of evidence of report or projection as to the economic environmental or sociological direction. Yet we hear from the Government they want to be an open Government.

The "sunshine boys," they say. Well, I say, "sunshine, sunshine." When they were talking about sunshine, Mr. Speaker, they must have been on moonshine. (Laughter). Because it's still nyet, verboten and fermé yet in B.C. There's still a closed door to the policy dealing with these entities.

The Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound

[ Page 662 ]

(Mr. Williams) repeated the analogy of the duties and responsibilities, legal, moral and ethical, of directors of companies to their shareholders and the responsibility of report. He said very well that if only could we have had the provisions of the new Companies Act that's going to be introduced — or has been introduced by the Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) — applied to the governmental practices of cabinet. And how right he was.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, these Crown corporations do have the duty and the responsibility, moral and ethical, to make full account to the citizens of B.C. But that doesn't seem to be enough. It's obviously not enough, because they're still not doing it. They should be saddled with the legal duty too. I say that any one in this House, Mr. Speaker, who would not insist that full governmental accountability is categorically and absolutely imperative, I would say has lost any concept of what modern democracy is supposed to be all about.

This is not a political issue. If this is a political issue, every person in this room should get out of here. This is a democratic issue that I'm talking about tonight. Make no mistake about it. There's nothing more insidious or dangerous or more erosive of the democratic process and more an abuse of power than has been demonstrated by the practice of lack of government accountability in B.C.

It's very, very disturbing to see that, insofar as these Crown corporations are concerned, nothing of significance has changed — but worsened, indeed. We're going to get a new one, too, that's going to operate a $150 million business. It should be open from the start — totally, totally, totally, totally open.

The business community still warmed to the Premier's budget, Mr. Speaker, they arrived in force — not quite full force and certainly some kind of different force — but they arrived in quite some force. They looked all nice and tidy in their suits with their umbrellas up waiting for the hordes to "torrent" all over them.

The torrent didn't come, Mr. Speaker. There might have been a sprinkle or two on one or two umbrellas — the kind that they might be able to shake off onto their neighbours. There was no pain and there was no strain.

So what did they do? They furled up their brollies and they jollied home and they left the hordes inside the gates. They triumphantly reported over lunch the next day, as I said earlier, that "indeed, there is peace in our times."

What a great job was done on them. What a great job. The same interesting gimmicks — a little more homeowner grant; a little more municipal aid; an underestimation of revenues; probably an overestimation of expenditures too; a new fund; another new fund; one more new fund; and they're all wrapped up in an extremely eye-appealing package.

There's an old saying, Mr. Speaker: "If you can't sell the steak, sell the sizzle." Well, there wasn't much steak in this budget but, boy, there was a lot of sizzle — and it was beautifully sold. I have to say that.

Once again, Mr. Speaker, either by accident or by design, we saw that what it really ended up being was sort of an alliance between government and business against the consumer, who will soon find once again that he's been put under the yoke.

I will tell you why. His food's going to go up. His clothing's going to go up. His shelter is going to go up. Taxes are going up — always do. Taxes are going up. He's really getting it up, all right.

Later on, after he's howled enough, Mr. Speaker, he'll get an increase in his wages and his salary, and that will be followed instantaneously by an increase in his taxes. Then in a little while his food will go up, his clothing will go up and his shelter will go up. You know, I think he's heard that song before.

There's one thing we do know: the consumer in British Columbia is under no uncertainty at all what way he's going. He's going up in outgo and down in net worth. He used to have maybe one out — he could try a little harder; maybe do a little more. But this doesn't seem to be too popular to the regulationist theories that are being practised in B.C. today.

Maybe he could work to rule or pace himself or lean on the shovel. But he doesn't want to do that. He wants to do a few things perhaps to try to get out of the rut that he's finding that he's in. But in this budget it's Dullsville insofar as that is concerned for him. There's no vibrant economic thrust; no indications of how our economy and growth can be better so our people can have higher and more pleasant standards of living, and how they can attain a more qualitative life and not face continuing tax increases.

I say, Mr. Speaker, that we should be opening up, not closing up, our non-developed areas — certainly on the basis of sound groundlines, but let's keep the economy rolling. This lay-fallow policy can only last for so long, because we all know life is change, life is turnover. It's growth, it's quest for betterment and it's improvement.

We should be offering every incentive to attempt to bring about more self-equipped, more pleasant municipal areas in the province, and try to discourage this great desire of mankind — and B.C. mankind — to hive or swarm to the major metropolitan centres. They should instead try to accept the rationale that the lesser-congested kind of living is the better kind of living.

I say without question there should be an increased awareness and activity in the political process by all of our citizens, specifically the 60 to 70 per cent who

[ Page 663 ]

believe in and want our society in B.C. to be an honestly freely-competing and enterprising system.

It's not really only the businessmen — little, medium or big — but more so, I say, the merchant, the proprietor and the worker, whatever colour his collar, who wants to do more and be properly compensated for that effort. He is the individual who stands the most to gain from good government and the most to lose from bad government but who, unfortunately in many instances, contributes the least, in time or effort or in anything else.

Whether you agree with them or not, Mr. Speaker — and I am sure you would, but I don't think a lot of the rest of us would — whether you agree with the socialists or not, I think you have to hand them full credit. They have taken their stand almost from the cradle up and I'd say with a zeal and a fervour and an effort that is very nearly missionary.

But I'd say to the others, to the indifferent majority — and it is a majority and it certainly has proven to be somewhat indifferent in the Province of B.C. — that they'd better make up their minds to accept what they've got or be vainly content and hoping, as some of the silly people of this province are, that this socialist direction won't affect them. Or they should be prepared to say that they're going to get into the kitchen and face the heat, just the same way the politicians have to, and do something about it.

There's no way, Mr. Speaker, that ideologies can be successfully put into practice merely by the few. I would like to emphasize that the forces of the private sector are an absolute and necessary check against the potentially unyielding and ever-present awesome power of any state, of any government. There's no way the private side can ever be as strong as the public side. No way. And it shouldn't be. But if you start eroding the private sector, or have them by default get to the point of saying "to heck with it," then there's nothing left but one great glob of government.

I say that a lot of people in British Columbia had better start to wake up instead of manifesting a sort of resigned silence, as should the consumer wake up, who's really and truly always been the final safety valve in this tribal go-around between government and business. Because it's the consumer who gets it loaded and larded onto him from every side. Unfortunately, maybe by virtue of the very force of the blows, resignation seems to have set in there too.

There seems to be sort of a lethargy, Mr. Speaker, sort of Micawber-inspired on the one hand or despair-oriented on the other. But I think they'd better shake it, because it could get worse. They've got to remember that, although the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) makes this new Government float like a butterfly, it can also sting like a bee.

You just have to ask the insurers and the miners and the oilmen and the farmers in this province. They found out about that pretty darn quickly.

So I'd say that the free competitive enterprises in B.C. have got to try to take a look through that curtain of uncertainty that's on top of them. They'd see up there something that was just counting time. If they'd peer, Mr. Speaker, through a break in those socialistic clouds up there that cover this province they'd see the sword, or maybe better still, Mr. Speaker, the sickle of Damocles getting a little sharper and a little more poised and a little more ready to drop, and who knows next where. Who knows next where? How much more over-taxing, how much more taking-over can B.C. stand?

Remarkably, Mr. Speaker, the consumers are closing their eyes and, even more remarkably, so is a lot of business — if not most of business. They've even turned a blind eye to their fallen — the insuring; and to their slipping — the mining. There's no word of help or even of philosophical support to them. Some may say, "We're okay, Jack. We're fireproof." Well they may think that, Mr. Speaker. But those pundits are Pollyanna, and I'd say it's vice-versa.

If they think that they've a fireproof situation, I'd say that anyone who is involved in the political process in the Province of B.C. would say that that's really and truly the biggest ho-ho-ho since St. Nick.

But as I said, Mr. Speaker, I would reiterate my congratulations to the Hon. Premier. Comparing his recent performance in the budget of political diffusing to that of the former Premier is like comparing Sir Lawrence Olivier to summer stock. It was without doubt the neatest act we've ever seen and he's all pro.

If anybody in B.C., particularly the business community, wants a copy of the Waffle Manifesto, I'd be delighted if they'd let me know because it's all written in there. And that is the moderate position. It will make quite some bedtime reading for the business community. I guarantee them one thing: insomnia will certainly follow.

Since it's early in the evening (laughter) and it's early in the session, I'll delete this one. However, don't give up. You want to go and phone? You don't have to hold up your hand. It's all right.

There's been a lot of talk about consumerism and the cost of credit — very valid discussions indeed. I think we've also got to consider the need for unit pricing, for fair packaging, and advocate the abolishment of promotional gimmickry insofar as foodstuffs are concerned. There certainly should be some definition, Mr. Speaker, or account or disclosure of reasonable credit.

Credit used to be, Mr. Speaker, a consumer benefit. It used to be considered a service to the consumer. Now in retail sales, or wholesale sales I suppose for that matter, Lord only know what the final cost is. Sometimes you find the come-on of loss leaders saying there's a 10 per cent deduction sale. Then the person wants a little bit of credit, so they run into 18 to 24 per cent on the balance — over double or triple the anticipated cost to the consumer and profit to the seller.

I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, something that is totally

[ Page 664 ]

unknown today to the consumer and that is, what is wholesale price. Certainly the retailer is entitled to sell as he deems fit. He has his overhead and his fixed costs and he's certainly entitled to a profit. But I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if really indeed there would be consumer resistance if the consumer also knew what the wholesale cost to the retailer was. Not blooming likely, I would say, Mr. Speaker, as Eliza Doolittle said in slightly different terminology.

Another point, Mr. Speaker — and I would certainly hope that I would have the Hon. Attorney General's ear on this one — concerning the word "guarantee." That has plagued consumers for ages and it's certainly been a very, very great plague in the Province of British Columbia, to wit: the Commonwealth Trust debacle.

Anyone can guarantee, but few can perform the measure or extent of the guarantee. Buyers of whatever it may be — of goods or services or even of credits — must inquire into the capacity of the guarantor to actually guarantee. Otherwise, they're not only buying blind but are being badly taken in We see these phrases all the time in the paper: "guaranteed investments," "guaranteed performance," "guaranteed for life," "guaranteed or your money back." But to what extent exactly? Who by? How many other guarantees have been given concerning the particular service or the particular product?

Can the guarantor perform? Would he perform? What has been his performance rating? We need improvements in this field. I'd like to suggest a couple. No doubt there are many, many more.

I suggest this: if a guarantee is given, particulars of the guarantor's capacity to perform should be indicated by law. We should have a law to that effect in the Province of B.C. Secondly, Mr. Speaker, should there not be some kind of regular government advertisement or caveat indicating that people should fully inquire into the efficacy of a guarantee before they accept it? Make the public more aware; make them more inquisitive — what they should look for in a guarantee. In other words, better equip them to help themselves.

We've also got a real hodge-podge of grey-bearded statutes in B.C. needing re-assessment and revisions and repeal and, I would say, perhaps totally new concepts. The Bills of Sale Act, the Conditional Bills of Sale Act, Sales on Consignment Act, Bulk Sales Act, Closing Out Sales Act, the lien statutes — mechanic's, woodsman, warehouseman, whatever.

I'd like to make an illustration concerning the Woodsman's Lien Act, Mr. Speaker. I do hope that we're not going to get the runaround that we've experienced once before, but it's rather funny. The Woodsman's Lien Act is one that has done next to nothing for the woodsmen in the Province of British Columbia.

If an individual happens to be doing work in any kind of a logging contract — it might only be a contract on the back of a package of cigarettes — he is not entitled to a woodsman's lien. So many, many people in the forestry industry today are not really working for companies but are contracting and subcontracting and so forth. They are out of luck for a woodsman's lien.

There have been illustrations. There's one up in the Terrace area, where a fellow did a great deal of work. He did all the work. He got all the logs out. He cut them. He got them into the water. He was subcontracting. He couldn't get a lien on the logs. By the time he was able to perfect his claim against the company, he was absolutely 100 per cent out of luck.

In actual fact the man was a workman, as opposed to a contractor. But he agreed to do it for so much per thousand as opposed to so much per hour. This is not a new situation in B.C. The statute has been severely criticized by the Supreme Court. It's been severely criticized by our Court of Appeal.

I had a great experience as a new Member with a political roundelay by bringing this to the attention of Members of — I'm not criticizing the people here because none of them were involved in it — Members of the former government. I drew to the attention of the Minister of Forests this particular problem. He gave me every encouragement but said it was really within the purview of the Minister of Labour.

So I went to the Minister of Labour and he gave me every encouragement and said I'd raised a very valid point indeed. But he directed me to the Attorney General. The Attorney General was kinder than any, Mr. Speaker, and he gave me more encouragement than the first two and sent me back to the Minister of Forests. So I wasn't really able to make any progress there at all.

But I would be more than delighted to give the Hon. Attorney General a brief on this particular point, which is rather a technical point. But the Woodsman's Lien Act my boy, because I know you're a modern-thinking gentleman.

I'd like to see perhaps a little more protection for those people — maybe "protection" is the wrong word — more information as to their rights and responsibilities to those people who get involved in these long-range muscle contracts or get inveigled into these long-range dancing contracts.

Have you ever been into any of these signing rooms, Mr. Speaker? They're pretty interesting little rooms, I can tell you. You get into a signing room with rather dim lighting — a pretty small room and small print. Then a fellow who would make the Hon. Member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) look like Tiny Tim comes in the room. He gives you a pen and he sort of says, "Sign here." I can tell you, it's some experience.

But there are some very delightful and interesting stories dealing with this. Some people are paying, I suppose, for the privilege of socializing. But in the abuse section, Mr. Speaker — and we only hear about the abuse section — the abuse section is very savage indeed. I don't think a year goes by that there aren't cases before our courts on the particular point.

I think if the public of B.C. were informed a little

[ Page 665 ]

more about their rights, it would be a good thing. It's a pretty wretched thing for a lady to pay a couple of hundred dollars to take a course and also sign up, say, for another $2,000, be unable to do it because her doctor says "No" and then get sued for the $2,000. I've had that particular case in my office. It's just disgraceful, these sort of circumstances.

I'd like to mention to the Attorney General, Mr. Speaker, that there has been no appreciable improvement in British Columbia laws or in the supervisory sections of our Government since the Commonwealth Trust debacle. That was the worst economic fester that B.C. ever experienced. I would suggest — and I'm going to be introducing a bill this session, Mr. Speaker, as I've done before — that it must become mandatory here that the report of the Inspector of Trust Companies is filed in this House, and not just with the Attorney General and with the Minister of Finance, as is called for under that statute. I'd like the Hon. Members' appreciation of the point.

The Commonwealth Trust problem might never, ever have occasioned if the reports of the Inspector of Trust Companies had been made public. They would have been open to public scrutiny and what the Government didn't pick up, the Opposition surely would. Truth doesn't need any blind or any cover. I say we've got to end the secrecy, amend the Trust Companies Act and make those reports a matter of public record.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank you and the Hon. Members for their very courteous attention and I am sorry that I have been so long.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: You haven't. More! More!

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

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I assure you I just have a few well chosen words…(laughter)…for the assembly this evening.

AN HON. MEMBER: Give us the whole loaf!

MR. PHILLIPS: I want to stand here and support the amendment in principle.

AN HON. MEMBER: "However…." (Laughter).

MR. PHILLIPS: However, before I support it too far, Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about taxes for just a moment.

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) is not in his place. Is he out appointing his land commission, Mr. Speaker? The House has no knowledge of what the Minister of Agriculture is doing this evening. Well, I will have to talk about the Minister. I want to talk about what he said. I don't want to talk about the Minister, Mr. Speaker, but I want to talk about what he said a couple of days ago when he was speaking in the budget speech. He was talking about farm taxes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order. I would remind the Hon. Member that there is an amendment before the House that was moved by the Hon. Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson). Both he and the speaker who followed him, the Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) are permitted to discuss the budget in general and then also discuss the amendment. But following that, no one else can do anything but to discuss the amendment.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Speaker, I'm discussing the amendment because the amendment says "by failing to provide for relief from the burden of provincial taxation."

MR. SPEAKER: I don't know quite what that has to do with the land commission that you were talking about.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I have dropped that. I have gone on to taxation now, Mr. Speaker, because the Minister wasn't in the House. I am talking about what the Minister of Agriculture said when he was speaking in the House the other day about farm taxation. Is that within the rules of the House, Mr. Speaker? Thank you, I will carry on.

And the Minister of Agriculture said this….

MR. SPEAKER: I may have a delayed reaction on that. (Laughter).

MR. PHILLIPS: The Minister of Agriculture said this, Mr. Speaker….

You know I would get through a lot faster, Mr. Speaker, if you would just let me carry on here because…. (Laughter).

MR. SPEAKER: You may get through quite a bit faster.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, the Minister of Agriculture said this, Mr. Speaker: "When you remove a basic cost like that from farmland, is it really the farmer who is going to benefit?" The Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Speaker, was talking about the removal of the educational tax from farm land.

Now, the removal of the educational tax from farm land was a basic tenet of the Government's campaign during the election — removal of taxes from farmland. It was one of their number one tenets in their election campaign.

Now, I would suggest, Mrs. Speaker, that if the Minister doesn't think that removal of the basic education tax from farmland is going to assist the

[ Page 666 ]

farmer, then the Minister should go into the homes of some of the farmers in the area about the time taxes have to be paid, and see the budgeting and the negotiating and the selling of wheat, the selling of pigs and the selling of chickens, liquidation of bank accounts, liquidation of other assets to try and get, Mr. Speaker, enough money together to pay the taxes.

He should have been with me in July, 1969 when I met an angry group of farmers who were going to dump wheat in the courthouse yard in Pouce Coupe because they couldn't pay their taxes. This angry group of farmers was demanding that the tax deadline be set back from July 31 to October 31. It was only through a great deal of effort on my part, Mr. Speaker, and a great deal of selling on my part, and some phone calls to the Premier and the Minister of Finance of that day, that I had the date set back to October 31. It has remained there ever since.

But for the Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Speaker, to stand in this House and say that the removal of educational taxes is not going to help the farmer leaves me wondering, Mr. Speaker, what the Minister of Agriculture is actually thinking about. I can't quite understand it.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. SPEAKER: Order.

MR. PHILLIPS: They are in Hansard. The time and place.

AN HON. MEMBER: Give us a date. What year?

MR. PHILLIPS: It was sometime during the p.m. of February 9. I will quote it. I will quote it, Mr. Speaker. Is it all right if I quote it for the Attorney General? He says "When you remove a basic cost like that from farmland, is it really the farmer who is going to benefit?" That's what he said.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: I don't know, maybe he thought it was the farmer's wife or the farmer's children or the farmer's pigs or the farmer's hens or the farmer's cows or some other something that the farmer's got that was going to benefit, but if the farmer's wife or the farmer's children or the farmer's pigs or the farmer's hens or the farmer's cows benefit, so must the farmer benefit, that's the rule of Phillips — that is a new one I just made up tonight. (Laughter).

AN. HON. MEMBER: Is that Old Macdonald you're talking about?

MR. PHILLIPS: No, I am not talking about Old Macdonald. I am not even talking, Mr. Speaker, about the Attorney General.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're talking to Old Macdonald. (Laughter).

MR. PHILLIPS: Then the Minister of Agriculture stands in this House and says the removal of the education tax would not help the farmer. I am telling you, Mr. Speaker, I just about fell off of my chair here in the Legislature, I was so astounded. I was not only astounded, Mr. Speaker, I was dumbfounded. And then he went on to say, Mr. Speaker, if you would believe this….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, that was a real funny, Mr. Attorney General.

Old Macdonald's really fudged it tonight.

AN HON. MEMBER: Ee-i-ee-i-oh! (Laughter).

MR. PHILLIPS: Now listen to this. I want you to get these words, Mr. Speaker. He said, after saying it wouldn't benefit the farmer at all, the reason that we are not taking the education tax off farm land right now is because there is a split in the cabinet.

HON. MR. BARRETT: He didn't say that.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, that's what I have down here. (Laughter).

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Speaker, if he didn't say it he sure meant it. Well he did so say it — he did so say it. I remember him saying it. The Minister of Agriculture said it. He said there is a division in cabinet, Mr. Speaker. And then he went on to talk about another cost, Mr. Speaker, about the farmers, that has to do with tax. He says the farmers want it, this "purple gas thing". He said, "I don't think it was very important, but it was something they really wanted."

Well, I remember during the election campaign when the Premier was in our riding, he thought it was very, very important. They were interviewing the Premier, Mr. Speaker, and they said, "You don't come up to the Peace very often." He said, "No but I'm here and I'm going to give them this removal of gas tax." And he did it too. I appreciate that.

That was one thing, about one of the only things within this budget, Mr. Speaker, that — I shouldn't talk about the budget. I should talk about taxes.

Well, it was about one of the only things that was in the budget that even mentioned agriculture, Mr. Speaker. Now it sure seemed important, as I say, to the Premier when he agriculture, Mr. Speaker. Now it sure seemed important, as I say, to the Premier when

[ Page 667 ]

he was in our riding at the height of the election campaign.

Mr. Speaker, I want to mention just one thing more that the Minister of Agriculture had to say when he was talking in the House the other day. This is very important because it is the whole crux of my few chosen words here tonight. "When a farmer is able," and he said this, and I have it down here Mr. Attorney General. He says, "When a farmer is able to reduce his costs as he has been able to do over the years…."

Well, I was always under the impression, Mr. Speaker, that a farmer hasn't been able to reduce his costs. I would say, Mr. Speaker — and I'm not the Minister of Agriculture —

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I might be someday. Don't panic. (Laughter).

HON. MR. BARRETT: Is that a threat?

MR. PHILLIPS: No, that's an honest and sincere promise (laughter).

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) how the farmer has been able to reduce his costs over the last few years. I'm from an agriculture riding, and I say that the farmer has not been able to reduce his costs over the last few years. His increased costs, the costs over which he has no control, Mr. Speaker, and the cost of taxation are the costs that are driving the farmer to distraction.

Let's look at what his costs are, Mr. Speaker.

Equipment. He has not been able to reduce the cost of repairs and services. That's one of his costs of doing business, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's your fault.

MR. PHILLIPS: Sure. My fault. Oh, we'll talk to you during the estimates about that, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Premier, through you, Mr. Attorney General. (Laughter).

Mr. Speaker, he has not been able to reduce the cost of his food. He has all these things that he has to buy at Safeway — the lard and corn oil and flour and all that. It's not like the old days when I was a farm boy and we made everything.

He has not been able, Mr. Speaker, to reduce the cost of his housing because the taxes have gone up on housing.

HON. MR. BARRETT: How about his truck?

MR. PHILLIPS: He has not been able to reduce the cost of his buildings because of the increased taxation on building supplies.

He has not been able to reduce the cost of his gasoline.

He has not been able to reduce the cost of his fertilizer because of increased taxation.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: That's not the type of fertilizer that you're thinking about either. (Laughter).

He has not, Mr. Speaker, been able to reduce the cost of farm labour.

Lastly, but not leastly, he has not been able to reduce the cost of the interest on the money that he, of necessity, must have to carry on his farm operation, Mr. Speaker, because he also has to pay taxes on the interest, to say nothing about the cost of government. I'm just glad that the farmer is not getting all the government he's paying for; he wouldn't be able to afford it.

The Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) stands in this House and says that the farmers….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, you were a little late on that one.

The Minister of Agriculture stands in this House and says the farmers have been about to reduce their costs, Mr. Speaker. I would like the Minister of Agriculture — and I sure wish he was in the House, because, I would like the Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Speaker, to explain to me how the farmer has been able to reduce his costs with all this added taxation.

No, Mr. Speaker, if the government cannot help the farmer get more money for his produce, and if the consumer is not willing to pay more for the produce, then the government has no alternative but to help the agricultural industry in an indirect way. I don't mean direct subsidization, but in an indirect way, Mr. Speaker, through helping him with his tax burden.

I would like to point out a couple or three items the government of British Columbia can help the farmer. I'm going to outline them.

Now, point (a) is: the farmer should be helped to stay on the farm by being given a guaranteed annual income. Now, Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot during the debate on the budget and during the throne speech debate about guaranteed annual income. But I don't think that anybody that has spoken this far has really been serious about a annual income for the farmer. This will not only help new people to get started in agriculture — and I am talking about young people — but it will sustain the family far which this government, Mr. Speaker, has said it is dedicated to do — sustain the family farm, Farmers on guaranteed annual incomes must be told that they cannot take other jobs, Mr. Speaker,

[ Page 668 ]

because that is part of the whole package. I am saying pay the farmer to stay on the farm, give him a basic cost of living and keep him out of the labour market, Mr. Speaker.

Farmers are, of necessity, energetic people who, when their crop is off in the fall, take off and go find work somewhere else, Mr. Speaker. I am suggesting that it would be far better to pay these farmers guaranteed annual income, keep them on the farm so they can raise some livestock and so forth. It's better than to have them go out onto the labour market because, if they go onto the labour market they're going to displace somebody else and you're going to pay that somebody else unemployment insurance or social welfare.

So why not leave the farmer on the farm so that he can be there 12 months out of the year? He'll be there in time in the spring, Mr. Speaker, to plant his crop. He'll raise his chickens and his cows in the wintertime. In essence, Mr. Speaker, through you, Mr. Premier, you will be doing something, Mr. Speaker. You will be making a concrete, definite, number one, number A, step forward to preserve the family farm.

Now there, the Minister of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams) agrees with me. Thank you, Mr. Minister.

This is the point — and as I say, I don't want to belabour it — keep this young, energetic man out of labour market so that you don't have to pay him social welfare, so that you don't have to pay him unemployment insurance, Mr. Speaker. This way the rest of the taxpayers of the province will, in an indirect way, be sustaining agriculture and helping young people to get back on the farm.

That's point number (a): better to pay them to stay on the farm than to pay unemployment to the people they displace in the labour market.

Point number (b) is low-interest or no-interest loans. One of the biggest rip-off artists in this country so far as the farmer is concerned, and so far, as many businesses are concerned, are the chartered banks.

I have told some of my socialist friends, Mr. Speaker, that they're in the wrong business. They're trying to socialize the wrong part. They're trying to socialize industry and commerce and so forth. They're barking up the wrong tree. If they want to socialize something they should get at the root core of the whole operation, the real rip-off artists, Mr. Speaker.

Bank assets doubled in five years from less than $28 billion in 1967, when the Bank Act was amended by those…Where have they gone? All the Liberals are gone…by the Liberals in Ottawa. In five years, Mr. Speaker, the chartered banks in this country doubled their assets from $28 billion to $56 billion by April of 1972.

Mr. Speaker, you talk about taxes and you talk about rip-off artists. Present interest rates make it impossible for young farmers to purchase land. Farmers are forced to loan and finance companies by being turned down by the chartered banks who don't want to take the risks.

I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we set up a farmers' bank. There again, we will be supporting the farmer in an indirect way — not by subsidization, but in an indirect way we will be helping to sustain the family farm.

Now we talk about interest and my friend, the Liberal who has since left the House, said that the Hydro pays $120 million interest per year. I want to inform that Liberal, Mr. Speaker, that of every tax I send to Ottawa, 26 cents of it goes to debt retirement — over 26 per cent of every tax dollar that goes to Ottawa goes to retire a debt.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we're talking about taxes. I want to mention just a few things that the Province of Saskatchewan has done to relieve the burden of taxation from their farmers.

In their budget, Mr. Premier, through you, Mr. Speaker, in the budget in Saskatchewan, you don't have to look too far to see what they're doing for their farm organization, for their agricultural industry, Mr. Speaker: $15 million for "Farm start," Mr. Speaker, $15 million.

In 1973-74 they are introducing a comprehensive agricultural development programme. It will provide $2 million in grants to assist the development of viable farm units. They recognize, Mr. Speaker, that economic stability in Saskatchewan can be achieved only through the development of a stable and diversified agricultural industry, the development of their primary resources and the creation of secondary industry. But it is the stable and diversified agricultural industry that I'm talking about tonight.

They know, Mr. Speaker, that in Canada we are one of the only countries in the world that does not directly subsidize the agricultural industry. So if we don't directly subsidize it, we should do it indirectly.

They are providing money for young farmers to get into farming. One of the problems confronting the agricultural industry today is scarcity of young farmers and the resulting decline in farm population.

They go on to say, Mr. Speaker, that the capital investment required to establish an adequate land base has for many years been a deterrent to young farmers seeking to establish themselves in farming operation. They are making money available for those who want to diversify into the livestock industry, and I could go on and on and on about what Saskatchewan is doing to help their agricultural industry. Mr. Speaker, I would hope that some of the future budgets in this province will certainly pay more attention to the agricultural industry than this year's has.

Those are points A and B. Point A was the guaranteed annual income. Point B was low interest

[ Page 669 ]

or no interest loans, or a farmers bank.

Point C is; take the land taxes off of the agricultural land, Mr. Speaker. This can be done by having the land dedicated to agriculture in perpetuity, Mr. Speaker. Then if the land is sold at some later date for development, a portion of the back taxes can go to the Crown. This is the most beneficial way, without freezing land, Mr. Speaker, to keep the taxes off agricultural land. Dedicate it to agriculture in perpetuity. Buy back the land from the older people who want to retire. Buy it back, Mr. Speaker, and sell it back to the sons or daughters of the family who want to carry on in agriculture. This is point C, Mr. Speaker.

Point D, Mr. Speaker, is another way, through indirect taxation, or by spending the other people's money — the other tax money — without directly subsidizing agriculture, to establish farmer-owned processing and marketing plants. A cubing plant for alfalfa is just one — dairies, meat processing plants — and I could go on.

This could be done through a farm development corporation, Mr. Speaker, could provide the know-how, the organizational ability, the money, and the help to market the products. Another one could also be a fertilizer plant, because I feel that our farmers are paying a lot for their fertilizer. I'm talking about that chemical fertilizer, not the residue from the dairy farms.

Last year, Mr. Speaker, in assisting the farmers to merchandise their products, there was a sum of $200,000 in the budget. I haven't got Hansard here, but I did read where our Premier sort of laughed at it and said that it was going to be used for election campaigning and so forth. Yet I notice that he's a smart man, he saw what good it did, how it helped to promote British Columbia agriculture products, Mr. Speaker and it's back in there again this year, Mr. Speaker. So I don't know whether the Government is planning on having an election this year, or whether I should stand — you know I'm not that type of person. I wouldn't stand here and accuse the Government of using this money for politics — I wouldn't do that, no.

The money is in there and it did a good job last year, Mr. Speaker, and I know and I hope that it will do a good job this year. But this is another way — through farmer-owned processing plants and assisting the farmers to find their markets — $200,000 might not be enough. Now those are points A, B, C and D.

Point E….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: No, we're just going two more.

Point E: What I am trying to point out, Mr. Speaker, is how this Government can assist the farmer without a direct subsidization. We assist lots of other groups in this province by sort of an indirect deal. I won't go into them tonight, but we do. We help the school teacher with his wages by providing money, and so forth. The civil service, and so forth — I could name other organizations. In an indirect way we help them, and that's what I'm pointing out that we should do.

The farmer doesn't want direct subsidization, Mr. Speaker, but in an indirect way we can do this by helping him. These are good solid points and I know that they'll be adopted by the Government next year, maybe even this year.

The other one, Mr. Speaker, is to provide some of the services that the farmers have been asking for. I speak directly here. For instance, more veterinary labs are required in the area, and particularly in the Peace River area, to assist the livestock industry. Isn't that right, back bench? Good.

Soil testing labs; more soil testing labs so we don't have to send that soil down here to Victoria to be tested. Let's get some more of these services out where they're more readily available to the farmer. Is that a good point? Thank you very much.

Another one is also to do with the livestock industry, whether it be poultry or pigs, or lambs, or whatever it is. We need pathology labs so we don't have to send all down to Abbotsford. Right?

Now these are ways that we can in an indirect way provide the farmers with these services, and they've been asking for these services. Why don't we provide them? More help with weed control. I'm sure that there are many other ways, or services that farmers are asking for that we could provide. That's point E.

Point F is a better crop insurance plan. I say, Mr. Speaker, that crop insurance should probably be made mandatory, so that everybody, in every region will pay their just share. Then, when we have disasters, like we've had, we won't be coming down here bickering and begging for this segment of the industry or that segment of the industry. Supposing, Mr. Speaker, that this spring as the cows are calving there should come a sudden snow fall and freeze all the young calves. That would be a disaster, Mr. Speaker, and there's no insurance.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Is that compulsory insurance?

MR. PHILLIPS: Compulsory, compulsory insurance. That's what I said, compulsory insurance. Certainly. Not only crop insurance, but a system, Mr. Speaker, where every farmer pays into this insurance programme and every farmer can get out of it, regardless of what his disaster is. There is no industry, Mr. Speaker, in the Province of British Columbia, that is as susceptible to changes in weather and acts of God as the agricultural industry.

[ Page 670 ]

I think we should take this air of uncertainty away from the agricultural industry and through a means of taxation, by using the people's taxes, indirectly help the farmer.

Now there are points A, B, C, D, E, and F. They're all good points. I would be quite happy to discuss them with the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich). A guaranteed annual income for the farmer; no-interest loans or a farmer bank; take taxes off the land; establish farmer-owned processing plants and marketing boards; provide better services for the farmers; and compulsory, subsidized, all-risk insurance.

Mr. Speaker, it's time agriculture received the recognition in this province that is due this important industry. It's time that the people in this important industry were recognized for the contribution they make to the good life which the people who live in the penthouses enjoy.

It's time people in this province started spending a fair share of their earnings on food processed and grown in British Columbia. It's time the labour unions started to think of the effect of some of their strikes on the agricultural industry — on the people who know no hours, who have no security, who have no guaranteed wage, who have no pension plans, who have no sick leaves with pay, who have no paid statutory holidays as others.

Mr. Speaker, it is time that everybody was cognizant of the contribution the farmer makes to the life in British Columbia. It's time the Government of this province stopped treating agriculture as a necessary evil, getting in the way of commercial and industrial development. It's time the budget of the department was enlarged to give it sufficient funds to do the research necessary to assure the industry a secure and economically viable future.

It's time the Government of Canada looked into the economics of agriculture in Canada versus that of other countries, and if lower prices and subsidies are necessary by the federal government, they must be instituted immediately, Mr. Speaker. No longer can this industry be looked upon as a poor country cousin. No longer can those in charge of the political end of agriculture keep on using stop-gap methods.

No longer can the planning be done for short term periods putting out today's smoke only to have the same problem erupt into a big fire later. It is time we took a good hard look at agriculture, Mr. Speaker.

I said in the Legislature, last Friday, Mr. Speaker, that the Government was driving the petroleum industry out of British Columbia. My colleague from North Peace (Mr. Smith) stood in this Legislature on Monday last and gave facts and figures to substantiate this statement. This was after I stood in this House on Friday last and said what the taxation increased royalties on the petroleum industry would do. Over the weekend it was substantiated by actual facts.

The mayor of Fort St. John gave further evidence, Mr. Speaker, and then some newspaper man got hold of some man by the name of Nelson up there. Now this Mr. Nelson seems to have a big bowl that he looks into and he can forecast the future. But I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that this Mr. Nelson is not an elected representative of the people and is not going to have to answer to the people and therefore what he says, Mr. Speaker, should be taken with a grain of salt.

AN HON. MEMBER: Was that the defeated NDP candidate?

MR. PHILLIPS: I didn't say who it was. I said it was a Mr. Nelson.

The Peace River area will return to the forgotten land it was before 1952 if this Government keeps on ignoring the problems of the area.

I want to point out a few of the problems that the Peace River area has had which as not all due to taxation. Number one, we had the crop disaster, Mr. Speaker. Then we had a disastrous fire at the Canfor mill in Chetland throwing 225 men out of employment. Then we had no co-operation from the Government, Mr. Speaker, to build a road to Monkman pass so that we could tap some of the rich resources of the gas industry. Then we had the firing of the highway employees. Then we had the set-back of the Sukunka coal deal and now we are having a disaster in the oil industry, Mr. Speaker.

If the economy keeps on going down and down and down, it is going to take a lot of taxes, Mr. Speaker, to bring it back up because a lot of this damage is going to be irreparable. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) and the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) take an honest look at what is going on up there. Because I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, if the Peace River country goes down, it's going to go down fighting.

Last year the petroleum and natural gas industry through royalties, leases and fees paid into the coffers of this province $53 million. Grazing permits, fees and all of the other land fees come to about $500,000. About a half of this is due directly to the petroleum industry so we have another $250,000 there. Land leases, rentals and fees come to about $3.5 million and about $70,000 is directly due to the petroleum industry, bringing us another $2,450,000 — a total last year, Mr. Speaker, of $55,700,000 into the coffers of this province from the petroleum and natural gas industry.

What is the budget? This isn't like the forestry department where you take in several million and you spend a million. The only thing we spent on the entire Petroleum and Natural gas Branch, in the Department of Mines and Petroleum Resources, last year was

[ Page 671 ]

$1,807,684, leaving a net revenue greater than any other natural resource, including the forest industry, of over $55 million.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, you have, throughout your debate on the general motion about reducing the burden of taxation, touched upon quite a number of bills in detail that are on the order paper for debate in the future.

You are anticipating, in effect, the debate on the mines and petroleum changes — that bill. You are anticipating the debate on the credit relief for farms and other matters of the same kind that you will find on the order paper. I won't give them in detail, because I didn't want to interrupt you too much. But could you stay away from the bills that are on the order paper which you appear to be anticipating?

MR. PHILLIPS: I appreciate your remarks very much, Mr. Speaker, but I was hoping that the Minister of Mines and the Minister of Finance might stand up and pull the bill and I wouldn't have to talk about it any more.

MR. SPEAKER: I would prefer if you didn't talk about it at all since you are touching upon a debate that is already ordered for this House in those matters.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your remarks but the Premier….

MR. SPEAKER: The Premier doesn't allow debate in this House. The Speaker has to stick by the rules.

MR. PHILLIPS: The Speaker has been very lenient with me. I appreciate that and I'll just press right on. (Laughter).

Mr. Speaker, I do hope that the Minister of Finance will take a second look. Mr. Speaker, would you pass that message on to him? Because I pointed out the facts — they are urgent. They are urgent, I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, or I wouldn't even be talking about this matter. They are of great urgency to my constituency. They are of great urgency to the Member for North Peace (Mr. Smith). They are of great urgency to the entire province.

In order for the Premier to carry on his welfare programmes that I know he wants to put in, he has got to have the tax dollars, Mr. Speaker. Now, due to these people being laid off, not only in the oil industry but in the service industries, they will not be contributing taxes, Mr. Speaker. They will not be contributing income tax, they will not be contributing Social Security and Municipal Aid Tax. I would just like to mention, Mr. Speaker — well, no, you told me not to talk about this….

MR. SPEAKER: That never stopped you before.

MR. PHILLIPS: It's not only the people involved in the actual drilling, it is all of the service industries.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to have to take a look at my notes here. I am glad the Premier was here to hear my few chosen words tonight about the petroleum industry and about taxation in general. I know that I stood here to support this amendment in principle. I support the amendment in principle, but I would like to move an amendment to the motion.

You didn't know that was coming. (Laughter). What I should say is they didn't know that was coming this soon.

I don't want to get the Speaker angry with me, because he is a good man and he will go and tell the Premier what it is all about — I am sure of that.

Mr. Speaker, I move — would you call this a sub-amendment to the motion or an amendment to the amendment? It's an amendment to the motion?

MR. SPEAKER: It's an amendment to the amendment, so it's a sub-amendment.

MR. PHILLIPS: A sub-amendment to the motion. That's what I said in the first place. Moved by myself, Mr. Speaker, and seconded by the Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) that the amendment to the motion, "that the Speaker do now leave the Chair," be amended by adding after the word "taxation" in the fourth line, the words:

"for the purpose of restoring the economic viability of the entire north-eastern section of the province, mainly the Peace River–Liard region in particular, and for the purpose of restoring the level of job activity within British Columbia in general."

Well, I guess that's it.

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

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In addressing myself to the sub-amendment, and I will try to keep my remarks pertinent to the sub-amendment, which deals specifically with the economic viability of the entire north-eastern section of the province, in one part of it, and for the purposes of restoring the level of job activity within British Columbia in general, I would like to say to the Government benches that we do have a difficult economic problem facing us in the Peace River–Liard Regional District at the present time.

It is a difficult situation brought on, we believe, in part by a government which has not really appreciated the very fragile nature and the balance that is involved, particularly in the petroleum industry,

[ Page 672 ]

between the production and the exploration end of the business.

I do not intend, Mr. Speaker, to reflect upon the bill that is before the House concerning additional royalties, but may I preface my remarks by saying this. In the petroleum industry there are two distinct portions. One is the production end of it and that is dealt with in a bill. The other is the exploration end of the business and that is not in any way covered in the bill that is before the House. It is the exploration end of the business which I wish to deal with tonight as it affects the Peace River–Liard region and as taxation affects that particular business.

Indirectly, whatever happens in the production end of the petroleum business will directly affect the exploration end of the business. Because of this, there has been a tremendous layoff of people who are expert in the field of oil exploration. We don't have dozens, we have literally many hundreds of small companies in the Peace River area who cater almost specifically and entirely to the exploration end of the petroleum business.

Now what is happening to these service companies, as they are called, who cater to the companies who do produce petroleum products? Well, they have found themselves in a position where, due to a cutback in exploration, they have had to lay off many, many people — several hundred at the present time.

These companies have been in the business and developed and built up over a period of the last 20 years. Many of them have offices throughout other provinces in Canada including the Province of Alberta and they have expanded into the Peace River country. It has been a gradual expansion over a period of 20 years, so that they started out basically in that part of the country a long time ago with a very small crew. As the fortunes of the business grew and expanded, they expanded.

Now I would just like to give the House the benefit of what this type of employment has meant to many, many people. As a matter of fact I would say that at least 50 to 60 per cent of the entire economy of the Peace River–Liard region at the present time is dependent upon the exploration business.

I would like to read from the report of just one company that is engaged in the exploration business. I would like to inform the Speaker that the company that I am referring to and the report that I am referring to is one concerning people who are drilling beyond the borders of British Columbia, so they are not affected by any bill in this House. But they do use as their base Fort Nelson. Everything that they do into the area in the Northwest Territories and all the supplies that they need, originate out of the area of Fort Nelson.

So they talk about transportation. The cost of roads in the region range from $20,000 to $50,000 per mile. To support exploration, drilling and construction operations in the region we have used Fort Nelson as a base. Of course, in the wintertime they have moved materials along into that area over the winter road from Fort Nelson to Fort Simpson. It's a matter I spoke on earlier in the debate today and I am not going to reflect on it again except to say that if there was a summer road there it would be very much better, more beneficial for all of that particular part of the province.

But let me read you something from their report regarding the costs of drilling just one well.

"Cost for drilling a well in the Beaver River–Pointed Mountain region are from $2.5 to $3 million This includes the construction of roads and the preparation of well locations. It costs our company about $100,000 to move a rig into the Beaver River field from Fort Nelson. Through 1970 our company has spent about $52 million for exploration and development of the Liard area."

They go on to illustrate and list other expenses that are involved.

The exploration business is a 24-hour-a-day, 7-day-a-week business during the months when it is possible to get into the muskeg areas of the north. That business is coming to a very abrupt halt in the Province of British Columbia.

I would just like to propose to the cabinet benches the fact that if we in British Columbia lose the exploration business to some other part of Canada, including the Beaver River–Pointed Mountain area which is beyond our control, or beyond that even into the Mackenzie Delta, we will be throwing down the drain multi-millions of dollars per year.

Mr. Speaker, the money that is generated into the provincial coffers through exploration, real big money, is not what the oil companies have to pay in the way of statutory fees. It is in what they pay into the coffers in the way of bonus bids to allow them to explore a certain particular area in the hope of a profitable oil or gas development.

Now I make that as a point to try to impress the cabinet benches with the fact that even though they have not levied an higher tax on that particular area, this particular field of exploration, which is a large field in the Province of British Columbia and a growing field every year, could be lost to our economy.

I would think that everyone in this House would be concerned not only about the revenue that will be lost to the Crown if these exploration companies move elsewhere, but they would also be concerned about the jobs which will be lost to the people who live in northern British Columbia.

The former speaker has dealt with a matter the farmers have brought before the Members of this

[ Page 673 ]

House time and again. That is the removal of educational tax from farm land. Certainly even that concession would have been helpful to the farmers in the position that they are in today.

Just to have removed the educational tax from farm land to many farmers would have meant the difference between making a few dollars on their operation — not just last year because it was a complete write-off, but in other years — made the difference between making a few dollars on their operation and losing it.

It is not a large concession and, as was pointed out by the previous speaker, if you require the farmers to lock their land in and for some reason somewhere down the road it is sold, there's always a way of recapturing the lost tax revenue to the Crown.

I would think that most farmers, if that situation did come about, would be quite happy to pay any taxes that they had been forgiven in prior years. At least at that point they would have the dollars in their hands to pay the taxes with.

The situation right now, as we've pointed out here today, is that it doesn't matter what they have done in the last few years. Their operations have not been viable. You're not going to make the farming operation viable by suggesting to the farmer that he become more efficient. You may be able to help him by reducing taxes. But the final solution to his problem, in my opinion, while tax reduction is going to help, is to give him a greater return for whatever it is that he merchandises — be it grain, cattle or some other product.

Certainly, of all the segments of the economy today, the farmer has been harder hit by increased production costs and lower returns than anyone else in business.

No one, if he looked at farming from the economics of it, would ever go into that business today. You are much better off, in the scheme of things today, to take a job working for private enterprise, for any enterprise in the country which pays an average living wage, than you are to go into the farming business today. That's a sorry state of affairs, Mr. Speaker, when we look at that.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. SMITH: Some farmers might take you up on that offer.

I have before me a list of companies that service the exploration business in northern British Columbia. This is a partial list, but there are a great many more involved in that part of the country. I would hope that the provincial government will find some way to keep these people gainfully employed in the Province of British Columbia.

If we lose that exploration industry and we go on the experience of other parts of Canada, it could very well take us another 20 years to recapture it.

I'd like to move on to another couple of points. One is the lumber industry. There is an infant lumber industry, but one with great potential, developing in the Fort Nelson area at the present time. I am told that the greatest reserves of untapped and uncut timber lie in the Fort Nelson area — greater than in any other part of the Province of British Columbia.

One of the ways that the provincial government could have helped to stimulate that infant industry is to look at the stumpage they have to pay in relation to the number of miles they have to haul their product before it gets to market.

I am told that the lumber industry in Fort Nelson sells on the export market mainly. They have a domestic market there, but it certainly doesn't being to absorb all their production. I am told that the lumber industry in that area pays stumpage rates equivalent to any other part of British Columbia.

Surely, when we're trying to establish a new industry and encourage them to expand their operation and employ more people, we could adopt a scale of stumpage fees for that area substantially less, or at least a small amount less, than we have applying to the Prince George area, the Quesnel area or to the Vancouver Island area. It's only common sense, when you stop to think of the number of miles involved regarding the transportation of that product before it ever gets close to the market.

These people absorb additional costs in the way of housing costs for their employees, salary costs for their employees, all the things that go in to trying to attract worthwhile people to build a life for themselves in the north. Yet the industry that is trying to establish and get a foothold in that area is required to pay as high a stumpage rate as any part of the Province of British Columbia.

If the Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams) has made a decision, as he announced on the floor of this House today, to triple the rate of stumpage in some parks in the Province of British Columbia — because I would suspect that he would like to get the lumber industry and the logging completely out of those parts — perhaps he could have a little compassion in the other direction for an end of the province which is almost 1,000 miles removed from its closest major market.

Certainly the B.C. Railway cooperates with industry in that part of the world by providing them with rates which they might not receive if the corporation were the CN or the CP. It's a public enterprise owned by the people and I think that the lumber industry appreciates that fact. I'll be fair and say that the farmers of the Peace River country in the past have appreciated the fact that when they got into a real bind some special consideration was given — and it wasn't the NDP government that gave them the consideration — but they were there.

[ Page 674 ]

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. SMITH: It's a utility, the same as the lights that went out this afternoon.

These are the types of things, Mr. Speaker, that I wish to bring to the attention of the cabinet this evening. I'm not going to prolong the debate or harangue it, but I do want to say this: either we are going to acknowledge the fact that northern development is important to the whole Province of British Columbia — and we have heard enough from the Government benches about their great plans for the north to hope that they were sincere in those remarks. If we acknowledge that fact then we must make provision for some incentives to the type of industries that are locating in that area.

I could suggest to you that the increase in the sizes of the parks in northern British Columbia may or may not be a benefit. But because I do not know the size of the increased boundaries I cannot at this moment say how many mineral claims will be inundated by park boundaries or how many copper mines or mineral developments may have been washed out of existence this afternoon by one announcement by the Minister of Lands, Forests, Water Resources and (Minister of) Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Williams).

It is a difficult part of the country to operate in. Sometimes a reduction in tax would be the best investment that the Province of British Columbia ever made if they have any interest in the future growth of a part of a country which must take increasing importance in the over all development of the province, and must absorb in the future much of the population which presently would like to move into the lower mainland but which cannot be accommodated here.

I would hope that the Ministers of the Crown would take this into consideration and decide whether they like to….

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SMITH: The Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) talks about Frank McMahon. I can tell you many stories about the early development of Frank McMahon in the northern part of British Columbia. But I will tell you this, the Attorney General doesn't understand….

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SMITH: The Attorney General does not understand what it means to go in and take a big risk, invest millions of dollars on the hope that some day they may be returned in part.

We saw the day in northern British Columbia where the only person in the whole petroleum industry that was prepared to take a risk in that part of the country was Frank McMahon.

Mr. Speaker, it is good for a man to look back 20 years in retrospect. But I will tell you one thing: 20 years ago the Attorney General or anybody that is represented on those Cabinet benches tonight wouldn't have invested a five cent piece in the petroleum industry in British Columbia.

They'd have said, "The risk is too great, let's put our money somewhere where it is safe." But because of these people we do have a viable industry in the north. All we want to do is keep it. All we want to do is make sure that it continues on a viable basis and this is why we are on our feet speaking this evening. Thank you Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Thank you Mr. Speaker.

I am sure the Members are wondering how I can speak to the sub-amendment, coming as I do from the agricultural riding of Oak Bay. Somebody said earlier today you can say it all in one page. I hope I can do that to make the Conservative Party position very clear. I don't know who said it.

Mr. Speaker, I think the Member for South Peace River has made it plain tonight that as far as the late show is concerned, entertainment is more important than fact.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Shame, shame.

MR. WALLACE: Oh, shame, shame, but the fact is….

MR. PHILLIPS: Your instructor isn't up there.

MR. WALLACE: Well, I don't need any instructor. It is you who needs the instructor.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. WALLACE: The sub-amendment refers particularly to the northeastern region of British Columbia, Mr. Speaker. I don't think it is any prerogative of the Members from that area to speak on it although they seem to resent somebody speaking from another area….

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. WALLACE: The points are quite clear, Mr. Speaker. The increased royalty on petroleum has led to unemployment. In this party, the Conservative Party, we feel that that is a retrograde step and that it certainly is not either to the benefit of the people in that region or to the benefit of the people in the

[ Page 675 ]

province as a whole.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): Premier Lougheed has done the same thing.

MR. WALLACE: Premier Lougheed hasn't led to any unemployment that I am aware of.

The facts as stated by the people in the region, particularly — as already mentioned by some of the Members — the mayor of Fort St. John, it has already led to at least 250 jobs being cancelled out or more. The figure from my enquiry is that there are some $30,000 lost in wages per month, which of course affects the economy of the whole area and not only the individuals who have lost their jobs.

I understand, Mr. Speaker, the point which has been made by the previous speakers of the need for further exploration. I understand that at Taylor, for example, there is only an 8-year supply of oil with present known reserves.

I think that the potential to develop the coal reserves…again, I won't repeat it at any length as it has already been stated that the Sukunka coal development seems to have ground to a halt. They have only minimum staff to keep the operation going. It seems to be related to two measures: the uncertainty of the port development, and the port at which the coal will be exported, and the clear statement by the Minister of Finance that indeed the present royalty will be increased.

I think it makes only common sense that companies developing large resources have to know what the cost of the development will be. The uncertainty which exists at the present time created by this Government is certainly detrimental to further development.

I have also read the local Press regarding the Monkman Pass and Peace River country and it is very obvious that all the citizens and the developers in that area are asking for is a gravel road. They are not even asking for a fully blacktopped road, but simply enough in the way of a gravel highway to allow the resources of coal and natural gas to be developed and brought through British Columbia instead of through Alberta.

It seems to us in this party that it is a very reasonable request. Apparently it is not enormous sums of money that we are talking about. The Mayor of Dawson Creek is quoted — I think it is worth mentioning the feeling of the residents of that area has been explained by the speakers from that area — but it is interesting to read from the Press that the Mayor of Dawson Creek sees Alberta getting jobs and support industries and taxes from two of the latest possibly biggest natural gas and coal finds in the country just 50 to 75 miles south of Dawson Creek, and well inside British Columbia.

This, the Mayor believes, is because the New Democratic Party Government in Victoria is loath to do anything to help big corporations, in that it won't even build 13 miles of road to connect an existing road from Dawson Creek to the finds in Monkman Pass in the Rockies.

It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that if this is valid — and no one has denied it, and the Members representing that area have also spoken of this — I think it is important that we should make our stand clear in asking the Government to provide help in developing a simple highway which would enable the resources to be taken through British Columbia to the benefit of the income of the people in the area rather than through Alberta.

The crop disasters in this area have already been mentioned in some detail, Mr. Speaker, and I won't repeat them, save to say that no one is in any doubt that it has happened.

The Toronto Globe and Mail sent a reporter to the area. For the sake of brevity I won't quote from the Globe and Mail. But this article pointed out the tremendous financial hardship which exists at the present time on many, many farmers in that area.

The proposals which we would put forward are similar to the proposals put forward by the former Member from that area. It is very interesting that the present Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) is now putting forward ideas which the Socred government in power were very resistant to accept.

I am talking about financial assistance, either in the form of low interest loans or in the form of guaranteed loans, by the provincial government for the building of cubing plants for alfalfa.

I think, Mr. Speaker, it should be repeated that this is a rich protein form of food which is of great value to the farmers there, providing capital can be provided to usefully process the alfalfa and either exported or use it locally.

The fact is I don't care what happened in '67. I am saying that I was here in 1972 when the Socred government laughed at this Member when he brought forward productive, positive ideas to help the people in your area.

MR. CHABOT: Rubbish. Nonsense.

MR. WALLACE: I think that the other factor, Mr. Speaker, which is worth considering is some assistance from government to help the farmer to diversify his interests. A farmer who is completely dependent on grain crops and who suffers from, whether one wishes to call it an act of God or hail or whatever damages the crop — the fact that he cannot market the crop means that the farmer goes broke.

I think that there is a lot of sense in the philosophy which encourages a farmer to diversify. I just was informed the other day that one of the big

[ Page 676 ]

firms in Canada — Woodward's, in fact — one of the area managers had visited the Peace River country and said he would buy, or his company could buy, all the lamb that could be produced in that area.

But to get this kind of project under way requires capital. I am just repeating that the policy our party would follow, and we encourage the Government to follow, would be to provide financial assistance for such projects.

But the immediate need seems to be, Mr. Speaker, to bail out the farmer, or the many farmers, who are close to bankruptcy. I think with the unquestioned surplus which is being shown to exist in this budget debate, that surely — as a former speaker said this afternoon, I think from South Peace River or North Peace River, I am not sure which — it wouldn't be unreasonable, with this surplus, to give immediate financial relief to the farmers who have been brought to bankruptcy by the crop failure.

The last point I would make is that the whole question of grain storage is an important one. If you want to talk about the Lougheed government in Alberta, I think that they have brought in very progressive legislation setting up a corporation which deals with grain storage. We in this party will be bringing in a bill similar to the bill in Alberta which we feel would be of tremendous value to the farmer.

The last point worth mentioning is that in dealing with the general part of the sub-amendment, this provincial government could contribute also, as is the federal government, to exploring the whole question of food costs. One of the interesting points that came up when I was discussing this with certain people in the industry was the fact that Safeway is presently constructing a plant in Calgary, Mr. Speaker, which will cut all the meat for Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia. When we consider the immensity of this task and the fact that it produces a centralization in industry which may not be totally beneficial, I think the House should perhaps consider the whole question of food costs and whether or not this provincial government can contribute in all areas of British Columbia — not only in the north-eastern part — to ways in which costs can be limited and there can be a better price paid to the farmer for his product.

The whole purpose of speaking in this debate to the sub-amendment, Mr. Speaker, is to put on record the fact that while we perhaps are small in number, we're trying to cover the interests of all citizens of British Columbia.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Langley.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Speaker, I am in support of this sub-amendment because I think it pinpoints the real problem with the budget delivered by this Government. The real problem, of course, is the failure to provide for jobs in the province and the failure to provide any easement of the burden of taxation for the people of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, this Government made much of its claim in the budget speech that personal income taxes will not be increased. That's only the first of many hollow statements about this hollow budget.

The imposition of increased oil royalties and utilization of capital and the increased corporation taxes, Mr. Speaker — all of these things reflect on personal taxes just as surely as digging your hand into the taxpayers' pockets and taking the dollars out personally.

Consider for instance, Mr. Speaker, an editorial in Vancouver Province of February 13, 1973. I'd like to read this, because I think it bears repeating in this House. It tells the story about what the increased corporation taxes are doing. I quote from the editorial. It says:

"Because consumers pay the prices that enable corporations to pay their taxes, the corporation income tax is ultimately a people tax. Because the poor have to spend a higher portion of their incomes to live than do the well-to-do, the corporate tax is a regressive tax, hitting the wrong people hardest. Knowing this, Premier Barrett raised the B.C. corporation income tax by 20 per cent from 10 to 12 points on the tax scale.

"Although his budget doesn't demonstrate that he needed the revenue from this tax increase, we might assume that he can justify taxing poor people harder, because they will reap proportionately even higher benefits from new government programmes as yet unannounced. But not even that assumption solves the inherent contradiction of increasing this particular regressive tax. If you really needed extra revenues to finance future programmes to benefit the poor, would you deliberately increase the tax on an unreliable source, of revenue that fluctuates sharply with economic conditions? Not likely. Because at the very time there are more poor people to take care of, the source of revenue declines. And that makes it difficult to finance the government programme at precisely the moment it needs more money.

"Since 1965 B.C. corporate income tax revenue has doubled from $40 million to $80 million, but personal income tax revenue increased six-fold, from $45 million to $266 million. In those seven years corporate tax revenue rose four times and dropped three times. Provincial sales tax revenue almost doubled from $125 million to $244 million, never failing to increase on a year-to-year basis.

"If any further contradiction were needed, traditional NDP suspicion of the profit motive could logically be projected into the future as indicating a less-than-average profit growth for

[ Page 677 ]

B.C. companies. And that would mean even more fluctuations for corporate income tax revenue than were evident under the former free enterprise system.

"For all the financial and economic contradictions there is no doubting Mr. Barrett has succeeded politically in making it appear that he isn't taxing the ordinary people of B.C. Not only that, but the $25 million extra that he'll take from businesses, through his corporate tax increase and the new capital utilization tax, is being described as a relatively light tax increase. Yet if that same amount of money had been wrung out of personal income taxes, it would have been about 8 per cent increase and undoubtedly would have been described with adjectives such as "hefty" and tough.

"Maybe that's what politics is all about — making a 30 per cent increase in corporate tax revenue seem lighter than an 8 per cent personal income tax increase."

Mr. Speaker, that's from the Vancouver Province of February 13. It states, in effect, Mr. Speaker, that the Government is taxing not some ogre of a corporation out there in never-never land, but the poor taxpayer who is always the piper who pays the tune. In fact, it's the taxpayer who runs the whole music store.

Those direct increases in taxation, Mr. Speaker, are the most visible imposts on individual taxpayers contained in this budget. But it is the invisible taxes contained in the budget that indicate to me that the budget is really window dressing only. As I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, there is no relationship between the figures in this budget and what happens to the expenditures of this province — no relationship whatsoever.

Mr. Speaker, the Government continues to tell us that there is no increase in personal taxes, but perhaps we should look at what really will happen as the year goes on. The Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) pointed out the other day, and I referred to it on February 15, Mr. Speaker, the alarming increase of over $20 million for social assistance. Now if you couple that with the fact that this budget fails to lower the municipal share of welfare cost — and we can see a serious increase in homeowner taxes — the municipal government is going to get the blame for the provincial government's shortcomings.

This Government lifted the lid on teachers' salaries. What does that mean to the individual taxpayer? Well it means only that taxes will go up, Mr. Speaker. In fact, the increase in education spending this year will cover not much more than the increase in salaries and that's about it.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's right on.

MR. McCLELLAND: So the school board and the taxpayer are being short changed again. And the school boards and the local councils are being blamed again for the Government's shortcomings.

MR. SPEAKER: Are you speaking to the sub-amendment?

MR. McCLELLAND: I am speaking to the sub-amendment, Mr. Speaker. The sub-amendment deals with taxes and jobs. It deals with taxes and jobs, Mr. Speaker. I am talking about taxes.

MR. SPEAKER: May I just say the subamendment actually seeks to limit the word "taxation" in the amendment by talking about a specific area of the entire north-eastern section of the province as the area that is to be restored, and secondly for the purpose of restoring the level of job activity within British Columbia in general.

So somehow I hope that you can try to confine your argument in this matter to those two matters that are going to condition the word "taxation."

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to ask if the first part of the amendment as amended does not deal with taxation.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, the great difficulty the Speaker always has in matters of this kind is to try to confine the debate to the sub-amendment which seeks to limit the problem of the burden of taxation to these two subjects. Therefore, you have to somehow argue these two points in the subamendment rather than the main amendment.

MR. McCLELLAND: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, the problem, of course, is increased taxation, which leads to a serious shortage of employment opportunities in British Columbia — all of British Columbia and not in any one sector.

The only help, Mr. Speaker, that this Government promised the taxpayer and the wage earner was a move towards the removal of education tax on residential and farmland. That was the promise, but that promise has now been reneged on. For what reason? Mr. Speaker, because of a split in the cabinet.

How many cabinet Ministers, Mr. Speaker, are against tax relief for homeowners?

MR. CHABOT: Stand up.

MR. McCLELLAND: How many of the cabinet Members? That's what the Premier said, Mr. Speaker. The Premier said that some of his cabinet Ministers don't want to take the education tax off the homeowner. That's what the Premier said.

[ Page 678 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: The Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke), he stood up.

MR. McCLELLAND: Which cabinet Member, Mr. Speaker, is against taking the education tax off the land?

MR. CHABOT: There are none there.

MR. McCLELLAND: They're all for it. Only the good guys are left in the House, Mr. Speaker. (Laughter).

Mr. Speaker, if this Government had any real concern about taxation and jobs in British Columbia, and particularly the burden on the homeowner, it would at least have showed its good faith — that's all we would have asked — by either announcing some kind of a definite programme for a five-year removal of education taxes on the land, or perhaps adopting the suggestion that I made the other day in the House that would have amended the homeowner grant. It was so simple. All you had to do was amend the grant to have it read that the actual amount of the school tax for people….

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, you're really dealing with the main amendment again by making suggestions about how you could relieve the burden of taxation. But the sub-amendment you're supposed to be debating talks about the advisability of restoring economic viability of the northeast section of the province and for the purpose of restoring the level of job activity. That's what you're supposed to be debating. If you don't want to debate it, sit down and debate the main amendment later, if I may suggest.

Interjection by an Hon. member.

MR. SPEAKER: You're talking about the means under the main amendment. I suggest to you if you would kindly refrain from talking about that, and talk about the sub-amendment subject matter. If you're not going to talk about the subject matter of the sub-amendment, then please sit down and deal with the amendment when it comes up again.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, perhaps my concern then is with the people in the Peace River–Liard area who are being taxed out of their homes and don't have a job.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, they can't even build houses because they don't have any jobs because the policies of this Government have put them out of work.

HON. MR. COCKE: What government? It's utterly disgraceful.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, the Government that sits on the other side of this House.

Mr. Speaker, then who is the person, I ask, who is being hurt by the policies of this Government? It is the taxpayer and the homeowner and the out-of-work person in the Peace River–Liard area — in all of British Columbia.

What happened, Mr. Speaker, to the glowing promise of this Government to help these municipalities out of their problems, that would have helped to create the job employment in these areas. The only place we're helping them, I think, is into the poorhouse, Mr. Speaker.

This Government has already said, Mr. Speaker, that it's going to add to the problems of these areas by not only adding to the royalty tax on oil but it's going to add to the mill rate of taxpayers in these unorganized areas — many of them up in that part of the country. It's said it's going to lift the assessment ceiling from commercial and industrial properties in this area, Mr. Speaker. It has even sent its assessment people out into these municipalities to conduct a wholesale re-assessment of not only commercial and industrial properties, but residential properties as well. That's what's causing problems in these areas, Mr. Speaker. That's why people are out of work in these areas.

There have been comments about the Assessment Equalization Act, Mr. Speaker, with regard to what's happening here. I think that we have to get on to this problem later on of assessing at market value so that all properties are assessed on the same basis.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, that also is in a bill, I believe, before the House, is it not? Therefore you'd be anticipating debate.

MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker. I won't talk about that then. I wasn't aware that there was a bill before the House on that particular subject, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the problem keeps coming back. The taxation policy is related to jobs in the lower mainland of British Columbia, jobs in the Cariboo, jobs in the Kootenays. It's all related, all tied up in one ball of wax.

We have to help, for instance, the municipalities, if we're going to provide jobs for the people who live in those municipalities. What do we say instead? We're going to give the municipalities $2 per capita.

MR. SPEAKER: There again, Hon. Member, there's a bill before the House and you're anticipating debate on….

[ Page 679 ]

MR. McCLELLAND: I'm having a hard time here.

MR. SPEAKER: I don't put them on the order paper, Hon. Member.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, the $2 per capita is in the budget. I don't recall a bill yet before the House.

MR. SPEAKER: It's on the order paper.

MR. McCLELLAND: O.K. Mr. Speaker, I won't touch on the bill that was delivered in the House today, but a matter that happened before the bill was tabled in this House.

This Government forced an economic halt in all parts of British Columbia with a wholesale land freeze — a land freeze on people on whom you're forcing an ever-increasing burden of not only welfare costs, you're certainly forcing an increased burden, Mr. Speaker, on these people who do not have jobs any longer.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, Hon. Member. There is a bill before the House and it doesn't relate to taxation, which is the subject of sub-amendment qualification in the wording of the sub-amendment, which has to do with taxation, not a land freeze. Therefore you're not on the subject of the sub-amendment.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, the land freeze is vital in relation to jobs in this province.

MR. SPEAKER: But that isn't the topic of the sub-amendment. The topic is the reduction of burden of taxation. It has nothing to do with the land freeze.

MR. McCLELLAND: The taxes in this province and the jobs in this province are vitally affected by this land freeze that was imposed by this Government.

MR. SPEAKER: But that is not the subject of the sub-amendment. If I can keep you to the sub-amendment, we perhaps may finish sooner.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, is the sub-amendment not about jobs and taxes?

MR. SPEAKER: Only that the relief of burden of taxation would assist in the matter of job activity and the economic viability of a region. You're not sticking to that.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I believe I can show that the land freeze has directly led to not only increased taxes but increased land values, leading to unemployment in many regions of British Columbia. That's all I'm trying to say.

MR. SPEAKER: But you're still going beyond the sub-amendment, Hon. Member. If you can't keep within it, I would ask you to sit down.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I don't want to argue but I just feel that I'm not going beyond the sub-amendment. I'm speaking about taxes as they relate to jobs in British Columbia and how the land freeze relates to increased taxation, which once again relates to jobs. It's as simple as that, in my opinion.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Talk about sex.

MR. McCLELLAND: There's a bill on the order paper about sex, I think. (Laughter).

MR. SPEAKER: You're either out of order because you're anticipating a debate on a bill that's before the House or you're out of order because you're going beyond the sub-amendment. Now take your choice. You're out of order on one of them.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, regardless of any claims that there isn't any personal tax increase in this budget — and personal tax increases relate to employment all over British Columbia — somebody out their is still dipping into the taxpayer's wallet. The taxpayer's coming out with the short end of the stick and he's becoming unemployed because of the policies of this Government.

I'd like to know, Mr. Speaker, what the effect on the individual in this province is of this Government's intention to invest in floundering socialist enterprises and putting people to work in other provinces, in Manitoba and Saskatchewan. That's contempt for the workers of British Columbia, Mr. Speaker, contempt for the workers in the Peace River–Liard area and contempt for all of the workers regardless of where they happen to be in British Columbia. And that's within the bounds of the sub-amendment. (Laughter). I hope. (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: It may be in Manitoba but it isn't in British Columbia.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, the jobs are in Manitoba rather than in British Columbia right now. The cost of shoring up these financial failures comes once again and sure as rain from the pockets of the taxpayers and the unemployed in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, the unconscionable increase in salaries for Members and cabinet Ministers, the unconscionable costs for the increase in staff for

[ Page 680 ]

government Ministers — all of these things hurt the job seeker in British Columbia, the taxpayer in British Columbia. That's an increase in personal taxes, no matter how you slice it.

Mr. Speaker, every single move the Government has made since its election has had an adverse effect on the general economy and on the employment picture in British Columbia — every single move, Mr. Speaker. That's just as good as laying a man off or giving him an increase in his personal taxes.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to refer to the land freeze as it relates to employment. But I'm told I can't so I won't. Perhaps I can speak on the amendment again.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: You'd better complete your peroration now because you're getting into the amendment again as readily as a rabbit gets to the cabbage patch. Would you kindly finish your remarks.

MR. McCLELLAND: Are you telling me to quit? Are you stifling debate, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: I would hope so. I've been very patient. But if you want to talk, you say you want to talk on the amendment. Then you'll have to sit down until the vote is taken on the sub-amendment.

MR. McCLELLAND: I've just said, Mr. Speaker, that I would not talk on that area because of your previous rulings. Now if you're forcing me to sit down, then I'll be forced to sit.

MR. SPEAKER: I'd appreciate it if you would because I think you've exhausted the field of the sub-amendment.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member has just told the House that he wants to speak now on the amendment. As I'm pointing out to him, you can't speak on the amendment now.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I said that I would bow to your previous ruling and I would speak on the amendment later on certain points. Mr. Speaker, you didn't hear "later" but I said "later."

MR. SPEAKER: I'll continue to listen patiently, Hon. Member.

MR. McCLELLAND: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that. Mr. Speaker, I'll come to a close. I'll just say, Mr. Speaker, that I want to comment for just a moment on comments made by the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) in the House the other day — his accusation, Mr. Speaker, that anyone who had the temerity to criticize this socialist budget as it relates to jobs and taxes in British Columbia was a prophet of doom.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to say that in moving these amendments and sub-amendments, the Opposition are not prophesying. We simply report what is happening, Mr. Speaker, in this province today. Because people are losing their jobs. Many industries are endangered. The individual taxpayer is getting it in the neck, and the worst is yet to come.

Thank you for your patience, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey on the sub-amendment.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): May I speak very much to the point of the sub-amendment, Mr. Speaker, with the indulgence of yourself.

I believe that the Members for North and South Peace River (Messrs. Smith and Phillips), who've spoken on this subject this evening, need to be taken very, very seriously because an economic crisis has been created. One of the members, as we all know, comes from Dawson Creek and the other, Fort St. John.

I had occasion today to discuss the problem with Mr. Ben Knudson, who is the president of the Chamber of Commerce in Fort Nelson. There's a slightly different problem in that community, because many of the drilling rigs are on site. Therefore, they're completely committed for this winter's work. However, one lease has been cancelled by Hudson's Bay Oil, already throwing people out of work in the Fort Nelson area. If the rest of the exploration companies follow suit….

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Point of order. I draw your attention to Bill No. 94 on the order paper.

MR. SPEAKER: Unfortunately, Bill No. 94 may be on the order paper, but it isn't in the book. I don't think it's printed.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, Bill No. 94 is before this House when it's listed on that order paper as a subject for discussion.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. May I remind the Members that Bill No. 94, if I am correct, was put in by the Hon. Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis). Whether he gave it to the Press or not is certainly not relevant.

What is relevant is that it deals with the subject of

[ Page 681 ]

unemployment and it deals with methods of alleviating unemployment. Therefore it does restrict the debate to that extent.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I would hope that we're discussing the economic crisis in northeast British Columbia which has been caused by statements and announced policies of the Government.

I think it's completely relevant to the debate this evening for us to anticipate the crisis that will be created in Fort Nelson — according to the man who is president of the Chamber of Commerce and should know — if the oil and gas exploration companies who are already committed for work this winter follow the lead that has been established in the southern Peace River district — that is, in the Dawson Creek and Fort St. John areas. Virtually the total economy of Fort Nelson depends on this kind of work. 5,000 to 6,000 people will be out of work next winter if these drilling rigs do not go back on the job.

Mr. Speaker, I think the most perceptive analysis that has yet been done about the present Government and the problems that it's been creating for the economy of British Columbia was done by Mr. Hyman Solomon of the Victoria Colonist last fall. The headline had this to say:

"Will Barrett ever regain the trust of business and industry?"

It says,

"Most damaging of all, perhaps, in assessing the sum of Barrett's press conference statements was his seeming lack of any real knowledge of how investment dollars moved and how economies functioned in the real world on a day-to-day basis."

"Thinking in some influential circles in the private sector goes something like this: If Barrett can display such lack of understanding of things economic, then perhaps there is no one in the NDP cabinet who knows enough to set him straight. If so, the only thing that can save the Government from a real mess is a recognition of its critical failing and a crash effort to bring in some experts."

We're beginning, Mr. Speaker, to see the fruits of that prediction because….

MR. SPEAKER: Point of order. Would the Hon. Member be seated for one minute.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I draw your attention to page 23 of orders of the day, where the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills has had referred to them An Act to Amend the Vancouver Stock Exchange Act, which has to do with investments in this province….

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. McGEER: I've been in this House 11 years, Mr. Speaker, and I don't think I've ever seen a Minister of Highways as uncomfortable as he is this evening. Because the pigeons are coming home to roost in the economy of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, what we're seeing in the northeast sector of this province is a spreading disease. It's only the beginning. As these companies fold their tents and move out of British Columbia, we're going to see more and more people laid off in this province. Because there is no understanding of the real world.

This isn't a social work agency in northeast British Columbia. It's tough territory that has to be won by people who are willing to work hard. It has to be won by people who are willing to work hard. It has to be won by people who are willing to take high risks in investment. They do it, Mr. Speaker, with some hope of reward. When that's taken away from them, they withdraw their exploration and their services. What happens is that we have unemployment in British Columbia.

There's a delicate balance at all times, Mr. Speaker, between what we can stand in the way of taxation and what we can encourage in the way of investment. When we transgress that line, as the NDP Government has so clearly done, what we do is create an economic mess in this province — which is what we have on our doorstep right now.

Mr. Speaker, I can only plead — and we will support the amendments put forward by the Members from Peace River — I can only plead that this crash programme starts in and for heaven's sake, that the NDP Government comes to its senses before it's too late.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Chilliwack.

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): Mr. Speaker, because of the lateness of the hour, I almost hesitate to speak to the sub-amendment. Yet I would hate to be misunderstood in having anyone in the House think that I am not concerned over the problem that exists.

I find it very restrictive, Mr. Speaker, to speak on the sub-amendment according to your past rulings. However, in the very strictest sense I wish to show in a few moments how relief from the burden of provincial taxation is falling to restore the level of job activity within British Columbia in general. I do believe that my area, the constituency of Chilliwack, falls within the area of British Columbia in general — and I hope that you'll allow me to speak concerning the constituency of Chilliwack.

It would be of interest, I think, to you and to the House, Mr. Speaker, that we in our constituency swell the labour force at an annual rate of approximately 1,100 high school graduates per year. That's just in our small area. What I wish to talk about today is the

[ Page 682 ]

fact that any relief from taxation that is not realized simply affects all of the graduates who come through our educational system and, instead of being able to put them to work within our constituency, they have to migrate out of the constituency and become a part of the great unemployed force who find themselves in the urban areas.

In the our area, perhaps the greatest occasion for employment is in our housing and construction area. A pattern that has been established in recent years is that the population is moving up into the higher parts of the Fraser Valley. Housing development is taking place at an increasing rate at the end of the valley.

However, housing has been restricted in the past while. Although I am not able to discuss it at length because of your previous rulings, I would like to allude to the fact that the freeze of land has restricted it in this sense. I wish you to allow me to continue.

The entire construction contracts that are let in a year are approximately $10 million in our constituency. Unless there is some alleviation of taxation, in whatever form that taxation may come — even if that taxation, Mr. Speaker, only comes in the form of a freeze, it's still a form of taxation — unless there is some alleviation we will not be able to continue, even in this little area of construction. They tell me that in order to keep up with the construction demands of the population increase, we require 700 building lots in our area — just to keep up. However, there are only 300 building lots available. The price of those individual lots — here is another form of taxation, indirect as it may be — has increased from where a lot was priced at $6,000 today, in just 90 days it's priced at $9,000. Unless we have some kind of an alleviation….

MR. SPEAKER: Excuse me, Hon. Member. You're not talking about reducing the burden of taxation. You're talking about the capital cost of land and how you could stimulate job activity if it didn't go up. That is not the subject of the sub-amendment. Would you kindly….

MR. SCHROEDER: I'm sorry you don't understand, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm trying desperately to understand.

MR. SCHROEDER: The other areas in which we can provide employment in our area are in the area of food processing — frozen foods — and the area of vita-grass. These are sort of para-agricultural industries. However, the taxation that we find revealed to us in the budget speech, as we see it, makes it almost impossible for these two areas of industry to provide extra jobs because the taxation allows for less and less of a profit. If the profit, even the operating sector of their individual budget, is decreased, it always comes out at the same end of the meat grinder: there are fewer and fewer and fewer jobs.

I would like to take just one more area, since the constituency of Chilliwack is primarily agricultural. I would like to show in a few moments how we must have some relief from taxation on farmlands. This has got nothing to do with the freeze now. I'm talking about direct taxation on farmlands. We must have some relief or else even those jobs which are being created on the family farm are going to be eliminated. I want to use just this one illustration and I shall be finished.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't rush.

MR. SCHROEDER: I don't plan to rush, sweetheart. I'm just going straight ahead here. (Laughter).

We have in our area what we call broiler hatching-egg producers, and that has no tie with what we just finished saying. These broiler hatching-egg producers have been put into the economic squeeze so that they have been subsidizing their own operations. By the way, these are family farms. They have been subsidizing their own operations in recent days to the tune of approximately $100 a day.

I'm glad to see that the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) is here, Mr. Speaker. He is aware of this situation and he will be able to agree with the statistics that I have to talk about.

They have had to subsidize their particular operation because the cost of producing these eggs, as you include the taxation which is theirs, has been raised to such a point that regardless of how often they press for a higher price for their product, they cannot make both ends meet. Now this is eggs and they're not really meat, but you know what I'm talking about. (Laughter).

AN HON. MEMBER: He can't even make one end meet.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's the living truth.

MR. SCHROEDER: It is necessary for the broiler hatching-egg producer to obtain somewhere between 96 cents and $1 a dozen for his product to break even. This is not to show a profit — that ugly, ugly word "profit." This is not even to pay him a $2 per day hour minimum for his labour. This is just to break even.

Because of restrictions of a marketing board, all that the broiler hatching-egg producer is able to obtain for his product at the present moment is 88 cents a dozen. They will increase that price by 7 cents or 5 cents per dozen which is a "hatchability" bonus.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): Point of order. Mr.

[ Page 683 ]

Speaker, there isn't one broiler hatching-egg producer in the whole of the Peace River.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SCHROEDER: Yes, my good friend, and there won't be anything else in the Peace either before too long. Now if I may continue, sir. The price that the highest….

HON. MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Does the Member wish to continue with leave of the House or do you wish to adjourn the debate. Or are you almost finished?

MR. SCHROEDER: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, the important part is still to come. (Laughter).

Mr. Schroeder moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Motions.

HON. MR. LORIMER: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave of the House to introduce motion No. 27 on the order paper, regarding the removal of the questions regarding the Gulf Islands to the committee dealing with municipal matters. (See appendix).

Motion approved.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly files answers to questions.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:00 p.m.

APPENDIX

The following motion is referred to above:

That this House authorize the Select Standing Committee on Municipal Matters to inquire into the question of the future development, including the development of community plans on the Gulf Islands and such other islands in the vicinity as the Committee may consider appropriate. Their study should include an examination of the existing sections of the Municipal Act and other Acts affecting local government and any orders made under these Acts, with a view to recommending any changes considered appropriate which may have an effect on the future development of these islands:

The Committee shall have the power to send for persons, papers, and records, and to hear representations from such organizations and individuals as may, in their discretion, appear necessary, visit and hold hearings on the islands, and shall report its findings and recommendations to the House from time to time.