[ Page 847 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

An Act to Amend the Provincial Home Acquisition Act (Bill No. 104)

Mr. Gardom. Introduction and first reading — 847

Indian Reserves Mineral Resources Act Repeal Act (Bill No. 105) Mr. Gardom. Introduction and first reading — 847

Committee of supply: Premier's estimates Mr. McGeer — 847

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 863

Hon. Mr. Barrett— 847

Mr. Smith — 863

Mr. McGeer — 848

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 864

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 848

Mr. McGeer — 865

Mr. Phillips — 848

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 866

Mr. Chabot — 851

Mr. Chabot — 866

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 852

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 867

Mr. Gardom — 853

Mr. Williams — 868

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 856

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 868

Mr. Gardom — 859

Mr. Williams — 869

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 860

Hon: Mr. Barrett — 869

Mr. Gardom — 861

Mr. Williams — 869

Mr. Chabot — 861

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 870

Mr. Gardom — 862

Mr. Phillips — 870

Mr. McClelland — 862

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 870

Committee of supply: Department of Finance Estimates Mr. Richter — 871

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 874

Mr. Phillips — 871

Mr. Phillips — 874

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 871

Mrs. Jordan — 875

Mrs. Jordan — 871

Mr. Lauk — 875

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 871

Mrs. Jordan — 876

Mrs. Jordan — 872

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 876

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 872

Mr. Smith — 877

Mr. Fraser — 872

Mr. Richter — 877

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 872

Mr. Phillips — 877

Mr. Fraser — 873

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 878

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 873

Mr. Fraser — 878

Mr. Williams — 873

Committee of supply: Department of Agriculture estimates Mr. Phillips — 878

Mr. McClelland — 882

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 880

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 883

Mr. Phillips — 880

Mr. McClelland — 884

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 881

Reports Special Committee on Television Broadcasting No. 1 — 885

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 1973

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. First Member for Victoria.

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, we have in the galleries today a group of 25 students from the Vancouver Island Junior Academy at 1462 Hillside avenue, here in Victoria — a private school. They are accompanied by two teachers, Mr. James Hirschkorn and Mr. Dan Murphy and they also are accompanied by two parents. I would like you to give them a warm welcome.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Langley.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Also in the galleries today we have a group of about 50 people from the Langley Constituency Social Credit Association. I would like you to welcome them as well please.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, I would also like to make welcome in the Speaker's gallery the two gentlemen from Ontario: Mr. Parker Oliver, who was formally leader of the Liberal Party there and is now a member of a committee on legislative reform in Ontario, and his assistant. Would you make them welcome please.

Introduction of bills.

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

AN ACT TO AMEND THE
PROVINCIAL HOME ACQUISITION ACT

Mr. Gardom moves introduction and first reading of Bill No. 104 intituled An Act to Amend the Provincial Home Acquisition Act.

Motion approved.

Bill No. 104 read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

INDIAN RESERVES
MINERAL RESOURCES ACT REPEAL ACT

Mr. Gardom moves introduction and first reading of Bill No. 105 intituled Indian Reserves Mineral Resources Act repeal Act.

Motion approved.

Bill No. 105 read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Orders of the day.

House in committee of supply; Mr. Dent in the chair.

ESTIMATES, PREMIER'S OFFICE

(continued)

On vote 2.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognise the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Very quickly, Mr. Chairman. Last evening I asked the Premier a series of questions about the B.C. Railway. Among them was whether or not an annual meeting of the shareholders was held last year; if that meeting was held; at what location and at what time? What business was discussed at the annual general meeting? Was the question of the contracts let to Keen Industries raised at that general meeting? Does the Premier have any statement to make regarding the overruns on the contracts for that particular corporation?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognise the Hon. Premier.

MR. D, BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Chairman, unfortunately, I wasn't the president of the railway last year so I tried to find out if there was an annual meeting last year and I intend to attend this year's annual meeting.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, if you write me a nice letter and clear it through the Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan), I'll consider it.

The question of the contract with Keen. I have a statement from the Railway and this is the standard practice of the handling of such contracts according to this statement.

"All railway grading contracts are called on a unit-price basis, not a lump sum or gross basis, according with the American Railway Engineering Association specifications, modified for Canadian and British Columbia use. Unit-price, for example, means a yard of dirt or a foot of culvert or so much for rock, and a yard of dirt could vary anywhere from 50 cents to $1.

"In calling tenders, the Railway makes an estimate of the total amount of the various units involved in

[ Page 848 ]

the contract for comparison purposes. Weather and soil conditions often make this estimate difficult. Therefore, in the case of the. contracts of Keen Industries referred to, the contracts are not over their bid, as the. bids are. on a unit-price basis.

"If there is any error in connection with the Keen Industries contracts, it is in connection with the estimates of unit-price involved that were made by the railway for comparison purposes."

In other words, everybody who bids, bids on the unit price put forward by the Railway.

"The Railway does not restrict any company from bidding on contracts, but all bidders must have offices in British Columbia and be registered here."

Now, that's the explanation I received.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If this is directly on the same point…

MR. McGEER: Just a supplementary question, Mr. Chairman. If this is indeed the situation with regard to B.C. Railway, then it seems to me, Mr. Chairman, we are in the position of questioning the way the B.C. Railway arrives at their estimates. I don't need to detail for the Premier, I'm sure, the abuses we know have occurred in other departments of government where a company was able to bid very low on a tender but make money on the extras — and where the tender bids were not serious bids at all. I detailed some of these in this little book, Politics in Paradise, which some have read in connection with the highways department many years ago.

This, is the reason why we have to question, very seriously, estimates made by a government department or a Crown corporation, when those estimates result in tender contracts which are far below the true costs of the operation. The B.C. Railway is receiving Government funds. They are receiving funds from the pension plans of captive individuals in the province. We have had no opportunity to place any kind of controls or restrictions on that flow of funds to the B.C. Railway.

We find now that the estimates of the railway have been grossly inadequate and still there's no way that either the public or the Legislature can get a grip on this thing. I wonder if the Premier would care to make a statement now regarding the adequacy of estimates that are made by the B.C. Railway.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, first of all you must separate the pension funds. They don't give them money; they buy railway debentures which are guaranteed by all of us.

The Member has raised a valid point. I'm asking for a report on why the underestimating appears to be consistent. But you recall, Mr. Member, through you, Mr. Chairman, that I have already ordered a complete report by the Comptroller General on the whole auditing procedure and budgeting procedure of the BCR and the B.C. Hydro. As the fiscal agent, I made that request some months ago.

I can appreciate the disparity that the Member points out and if there's a reason for it I am not going to be placed in a position a year from now of having to stand up and say I didn't do anything about it. Mr. Minty, I understand, is now over completing the assignment with the B.C. Railway and the next is Hydro.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for South Peace River.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Chairman, during the Premier's estimates in the last couple of days I've endeavoured to obtain from the Premier some answers with regard to what steps he plans on taking to alleviate the unemployment situation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, Mr. Member. Would the Hon. Member be seated, please?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I answered all those questions when you left the House the other day. They're right there in Hansard — same questions, same answers.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would draw the attention of the Hon. Member to standing order No. 43 which says:

"Mr. Speaker, or the Chairman, after having called the attention of the House, or of the Committee, to the conduct of a member, who persists in irrelevance, or tedious repetition, either of his own arguments or of the arguments used by other members in debate, may direct him to discontinue his speech, and if the member still continues to speak, Mr. Speaker shall name him, or, if in Committee, the Chairman shall report him to the House."

Now, Mr. Member, I'm sure that the Hon. Member has something new to contribute in his speech and, therefore, I would not want to have to ask him to discontinue. So I would ask him to move to the new material, and he may again take his place providing that he introduces something new.

MR. PHILLIPS: I would suggest that you wait till you find out what questions I'm going to ask.

The Premier answered in a very vague way some of the questions that I asked but I asked the question last night what he was going to do, what his anticipated actions were with regard to an automobile plant which he was going to bring into this province — something that would help to solve the unemploy-

[ Page 849 ]

ment situation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please, Mr. Member. The matter that you are raising is the matter of unemployment which has been canvassed now for two or three days.

MR. PHILLIPS: That is a matter for the Premier, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member be seated again, please?

AN HON. MEMBER: Let him go, let him go.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Member may introduce a new matter, as I pointed out, but if he's going to canvass again matters which he's raised in previous speeches in this debate on these estimates then I would ask him to discontinue. If he raises a new matter then I will continue to recognize him.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. With due respect, Mr. Chairman, when you weren't here, I recall a former Leader of the Opposition asking a question 67 times. And I think that the Member deserves an opportunity to develop some new aspect of unemployment which we may not have debated yet in this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would remind the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) that the practice that was carried on was dealt with appropriately by the Speaker of the House of that day. (Laughter). I feel that as he was bound by the rules, so I am bound by the rules as well. Therefore, I would ask him to introduce a new matter.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for South Peace River.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Chairman, I will proceed then with some new thoughts then if I'm not going to be allowed to ask the Premier if he would answer some of the questions which I have already asked him. I thought we were going to have open government in this province.

lnterjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order.

MR. PHILLIPS: I have some new questions in my hand. I am not asking the Attorney General; the Chairman is running the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would just point out to the Hon. Member that the Minister concerned is not required to answer nor may a Member demand that he answer. He may ask for an answer but…

MR. PHILLIPS: Will you please let me ask the Premier again if he is going to answer my questions? I have five specific questions that I would like to ask the Premier and then I'll sit down and give him a chance to answer. Will you please allow me to proceed?

MR. CHAIRMAN: If the questions are a repetition of the previous ones, the answer is no. If they are new questions, the answer is yes.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I'll have to proceed then with a new line of thought then, Mr. Chairman.

The Premier campaigned in the August 30 election saying that he was going to put people first. He campaigned on jobs for people. Now I brought this up the other day and I'm not g o I n g to quote what I brought up. But this was part of his campaign: jobs for people.

I say that he has now turned his back on the jobless in this province and he's turned his back on the misery of the jobless in this province. He certainly hasn't given any answers in this House on what he's going to do about the jobless in this province.

I talked to some of the businessmen in my area this morning and business in the month of February was down some 50 per cent in some businesses. On the average, business in my area is down by 30 per cent. There are new people being put out of work every day. That is the situation February, 1973 versus February, 1972, Mr. Chairman. I would like to again ask what the Premier plans to do — what are the answers?

The Premier stated in a recent interview that…the priorities are the clearest in our minds at this point, of course, in terms of achievable goals, and are obviously in the social welfare field. This is the area where we put the most input and where we are the most "knowledgeable." This is a statement by the Premier of this province, Mr. Chairman, and I didn't say this the other day.

In other words, creating jobs is not an achievable goal for this province by his own admission; creating jobs is not an achievable goal by this government by the Premier's own admission. I say that this is an admission of defeat. The Premier cannot control the economy of this province, Mr. Chairman.

We are getting no input whatsoever from his backbench on this very problem and I don't know what they are going to do when they go back to their own constituencies and find out what's going on. I'm

[ Page 850 ]

not sure whether they're in contact with them now but when they go back they'll find out what has happened to the economy of this province.

So he says, "Social welfare…is the area where we put the most input." Well, I can agree that there should be some input into social welfare, but I say this is admitting that they are not concerned for jobs nor is the Premier concerned for the economy of this province.

Then he goes on to say that this is the area where he is the most knowledgeable. In other words, he's admitting that he's not very knowledgeable when it comes to running the economy of this province. It's another admission of defeat, Mr. Chairman.

I'm afraid the reason that the Premier has not given us the answers is because he doesn't have the answers. He doesn't know what to do. No wonder the Premier made such a feeble attempt to answer my questions.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You weren't even here in the House. You ran out.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: I read it in Hansard and it's a feeble attempt.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You ran out.

MR. PHILLIPS: He tried to make up a cover speech to make up for his inadequacies in dealing with the economy.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You ran out.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, the Premier goes on to say, "The social goals are fairly clearly defined. The economic goals are not all that clearly defined." In other words, we know what we're going to do with the social aspects of this province but the Premier clearly admits, and make no mistake about this, Mr. Chairman, the man whose salary we are voting on today clearly admits that the economic goals of this province are not all that clearly defined. That's why he can't answer the questions: he doesn't have the answers.

They have not set up the economic goals, Mr. Chairman, except on an off-on, no-growth, limited growth, in-out, up-down, black-white policy. One day it's no-growth, the next day it's sub-growth, and it's no-growth from all the backbench. While the Premier of this province has indecision, the whole economy suffers, Mr. Chairman.

Philosophically, we have defined them and he's talking about the economic policies of this Government. But the practical application is different, Mr. Chairman. The practical application of his policies for the economy of this province are different because he doesn't know what they are. He doesn't know how to apply policies that he hasn't made up yet. That's the problem, Mr. Chairman.

He should have gone on to say that it's different and we don't know how to apply them. We have no business experience and we don't know. That's what he should have gone on to say, Mr. Chairman. The Premier, the first officer, the Minister of Finance, the man who is leading the economy of this province, and — as I pointed out the other day — the man who makes the decisions, just doesn't know.

The Premier says he is not going to rush into this job — creating business. He goes on in this particular interview to say that he's talked to some lumberman from up-country. The lumberman says that in the lumber industry up-country it has created unemployment. So he takes one single specific job-creating industry and says that it has created unemployment. He fails to realize that in the last five years hundreds and hundreds of thousands of jobs have been created in this province.

Mr. Chairman, if we are going to follow a no-growth policy in this province, I would suggest to the Premier that he get right over to the Alberta border immediately and put up barriers and keep people out of this province because there are people coming to this province. There is a growing labour force every day. If there is not a policy made up by the Premier, Mr. Chairman, to create jobs, the unemployment figures are going to grow.

I don't care how many snow-jobs I get in this House, Mr. Chairman. I'm not convinced that the Premier shouldn't give us some clearcut policies as to where he is going to go to solve this economic problem.

"Open Government," he says. He certainly has lots of answers for the Press when they want to interview him in his suite. He's got all the answers for them on what he's going to do even though some of them are vague. I would suggest that he should give me some answers in this House.

The only thing that I can be sure of about our Premier, Mr. Chairman, is that he plans on staying in office only for two terms. I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that anybody who is running the economy of this province — a man in his position, a man who is being paid by the people of this province — his planning should not be for an intended eight years or an intended 10 years, but it should be for the next 20 years and 50 years. The economic solutions that he comes up with to the problems should be on a long term. A no-growth policy will just not work.

One of the former leaders of the Opposition in this province, Harold Winch said, "Facts are facts. There are others in the world besides us." I would like, Mr.

[ Page 851 ]

Chairman, to point out to the Premier, through you, that each year of the last decade has seen an average of 200,000 new jobs created in Canada. The high rate of unemployment at this point, in the 1970's, makes it painfully evident that the output of new jobs falls short of satisfying the demands of the fast swelling labour force.

An obvious answer lies in a higher rate of economic growth. That, Mr. Chairman, is why I would like the Premier to answer some of the questions that I have put before him. I'll sit down and see what he has to say but I won't say that I'm finished.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Columbia River.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Mr. Chairman, speaking on the question of unemployment, we in this province at this very moment have 9.9 per cent of our labour force unemployed. In British Columbia 95,000 people are unemployed today while the Government sits back and does nothing.

I posed this question as to what programmes the Government has to alleviate the unemployment that people in this province are facing today. The answers I got from that Premier, Mr. Chairman, were meagre indeed. They won't feed these people who are unemployed today. These people want to know what kind of programmes that Government has. They have a right to know. The people in British Columbia contribute to the well-being of the economy of this province and they're concerned about unemployment. They want some answers and they want them today.

I listened to the Premier. He gave me his outline yesterday of what he's going to do relative to the question of unemployment. He said, "We're going to invest $5 million in the Accelerated Park Development Fund" — half of what was invested last year. He's going to invest $5 million in the Accelerated Reforestation Fund for jobs — half of what was invested last year when unemployment was not as critical and as serious as it is today.

He went on to tell us that $10 million is going to be invested to create jobs — invested in land. The purchase of land, Mr. Premier, does not create jobs. Then he went on to tell us one more programme. Fifty million dollars will be added to the Home Acquisition Grant to continue the home grants and second mortgage programmes. But he doesn't tell us when some of these programmes will be instituted.

The serious problem of unemployment is now. You have no winter works projects on at this time to help these people who are seeking work in this province, where 10 per cent of the labour force is drifting, anxiously looking for work. You sit back and say, "We have these programmes. They'll come on stream, maybe when unemployment is not as serious as it is right now."

Now, we've established that $10 million in the land bank will create no jobs. I think it's important that we assess what kind of jobs you can possibly create by that $50 million in your Home Acquisition Grant and for second mortgages. Let us assume that 30 per cent of that $50 million is designated or earmarked for the purchase of older homes. That leaves 70 per cent of it for new construction — $35 million will go into new construction. I think that's a pretty reasonable assessment.

I think we should also look into the type of labour content that there is in home construction. Labour content runs between 30 and 33 per cent in the construction of homes or apartments or whatever you want in the Province of British Columbia. If you construct one new home — and the average cost of a home in British Columbia is $30,000 — you will have provided one man-year of employment by building one home at an average cost of $30,000. So $35 million will in fact create 1,166 jobs for the period of one year — 1, 166 new jobs will be created.

I think we should assess really where the high rate of unemployment exists in the Province of British Columbia. Is it in the skilled trades or is it in those people who have no skills? In certain trades, certainly, there is unemployment but there are shortages in many of the construction trades in British Columbia right today.

No, I think your emphasis and your obsession with the accumulation of land and public housing is misdirected if you're thinking of that in relation to jobs. You're misdirecting your emphasis if you're thinking of creating jobs in this direction because the shortage of employment is among those who have no skills.

Then we look at your $5 million for accelerated reforestation and park development. Let's assume that that is entirely labour content, that there are no supplies to be provided. You can, in the course of one year, create — based on $2.50 an hour — a maximum of 2,000 jobs for the period of one year.

So, we've established that your programmes will or can, based on the figures that I've outlined here, create 3,166 jobs for the unemployed. We have 95,000 people unemployed in British Columbia today. Taking into consideration the type of job activity that these funds that you've outlined here will generate, you still have 91,824 people unemployed in British Columbia.

Still the highest figure ever in the history of British Columbia. And yet you tell us about your tentative programmes that you will eventually come around to. You have failed and you have failed miserably to create jobs when jobs are necessary. Jobs are necessary now. Yet you sit back and give us no clearcut answers as to what you're going to do to

[ Page 852 ]

alleviate the very serious problems that the people of this province are facing at this particular time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would like to make a point, Mr. Member. Just be seated for a moment.

I have allowed both you, Mr. Member, and the previous speaker a certain amount of latitude because of the importance of the issue. However, I believe that on two counts I must now ask you not to continue with that particular subject; first of all because it's been adequately canvassed, both in the debate on the Speech from the Throne and the budget debate and also for the last two or three days; also there is a bill before the House, No. 94, a private Member's bill, which is proposing many of the things which you are suggesting in your speech.

AN HON. MEMBER: What's the name of the bill?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Bill No. 94, Stimulation of Employment Act. Therefore, I would rule that you move to another subject at this time.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, with due respect, the facts that I have related to the House during the last few moments have never been stated in this House ever before, not only in this session but at any other time in the experience I've had in this House. I talked about the type of jobs that could be created by the type of funds which the government is proposing to establish. I've gone on to relate the type of jobs that could be created, based on the facts and figures that we well recognized in the construction industry in this province. For you to suggest that I'm being irrelevant and repetitious, in my opinion, is most unkind.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, Mr. Member. That was not the point that I was making. The point I was making was that this subject on two grounds has been canvassed a great deal. Even though it is an important issue and it is certainly always worth considering again, there is a bill before the House proposing the very same things that you're proposing — Bill No. 94.

Therefore, I would ask you to move to a new subject.

MR. CHABOT: Well, we can't talk about the funds which appear in the excerpts from the budget speech which the Premier talked about yesterday. I think that if you are going to allow this type of latitude to the Premier to discuss the funds and the type of job activities these funds might create, in all fairness to the Members of the Opposition, Mr. Chairman, I think you have a right to give us equal opportunity to debate these issues on the floor of this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I will make this point, Mr. Member, and that is — if it is agreeable with the Minister whose estimates are being considered that you make these remarks, then you can proceed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Get on with it.

MR. CHABOT: Now let's get on with it. If you hadn't interrupted me I would have been sitting down some time ago.

I think I'll leave these questions with the Premier and I hope that he will tell us really what he intends to do in view of the very serious problem facing British Columbia. I think he should be in a position, really, as the Minister of Finance in this province, to outline to British Columbia what his programmes are and how he's going to deal with this most serious economic problem facing this province.

I have a few more questions, but in order to give the Premier the opportunity to reply on this most critical matter, I'll allow him the time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Premier.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the somewhat dramatic presentation of the same questions which have been repeated over and over again. Perhaps there's no harm in going over the answers again.

We inherited the situation that the Member talks about — unskilled labour. We find pools of unskilled or wrongly-skilled people when we have vacancies in other areas. There is obviously a gap in the educational system we inherited when one industry wants 40 welders in one day and we can't produce them — yet we're spending vast sums of money in our vocational schools to train people for jobs. There's an absence of skills that we can't fill.

We've got to readjust the training programmes and that is already taking place. As I said, in one particular instance where an on-the-job training programme was started in full cooperation with Canada Manpower, the first time the Government of British Columbia has entertained the thought of cooperating with Canada Manpower — I welcome that cooperation — 50 per cent on-site in Prince George is being paid for by Manpower, 25 per cent by industry and 25 per cent by the provincial government.

In terms of the $80 million the Member speaks about, he knows very well that $80 million injected into the economy and job-producing isn't just confined to the skilled trades. House construction involves the services, the appliances, the unskilled work to prepare sites.

You can't build houses unless you have land, Mr. Chairman. That's why we're acquiring land. I want to inform those people in British Columbia who are concerned that land prices are going up. Land prices will come down as lease programmes and sales programmes by the provincial government are

[ Page 853 ]

initiated.

Now, Mr. Chairman, we've added $33 million to the Highways budget, so that will be job-producing. There's major railway expansion, again in cooperation with the federal government. Good for them. There's major railway expansion which will involve literally hundreds of jobs.

There is also the catch-up on schools and hospitals. We released over $25 million of bottleneck money so that schools and hospitals could get on with the job here in British Columbia — something that needs to be done.

The Member talks about the grey areas of the economy and attempts to paint a picture that there's something wrong with the economy, that the socialists are dangerous and tries to get across to the people of British Columbia that the economy is shaky and collapsing. I wish to inform the House that in January of 1971-72 the revenues of the provincial government for that one month were $127,570,000; the revenues for the Province of British Columbia in January, 1973, under the socialists is $149 million, a total of 17.3 per cent increase. The economy is healthy, it is expanding and it is expanding on a rational basis absorbing people.

No matter what answer we give the Member he's not satisfied anyway.

I'm also happy to announced that the best indicator of the economy, the sales tax, for the month of February is up by 14.5 per cent.

I don't think that the Opposition Members are deliberately attempting to damage the economy of British Columbia, but the facts should be noted that that is the present record of the economy this year.

I said in my budget speech that the estimations of revenue would be conservative. I also said that as the revenue patterns developed we would make funds available for extra projects so that jobs can be produced rather than hoarding money for the end-of the-year presentation of a great lump sum as a present for nobody, especially the unemployed.

This is the first year we have a chance to break that pattern. We intend to break that pattern as quickly as possible.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): I'd like to completely change the topic here. The questions I would like to ask the Hon. Premier are in the field of municipal affairs.

Before that I would like to say a couple of words about the oil tanker problem. There's no question, Mr. Speaker, that this goes completely beyond political lines in the Province of B.C. It's a terribly, terribly serious issue that is facing us. I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, to the Premier, that all hands should be utilized to do something constructive about it.

I would mention that the leader of the Liberal Party has done something constructive and that he's worked very hard and very long in fighting this tanker traffic. For the Premier to treat, as he did yesterday, the efforts of the leader of the Liberal Party and his not-inconsiderable expertise in a rather offhand manner I think at most was not only unkind but it was unfair. Even worse than that, I think it was silly.

If British Columbia, Mr. Chairman, is to stand up to the oil tanker threat, all of us in B.C. not only have to stand together but we should be working together for the common good. I would suggest to the Hon. Premier that he's not setting a good example by failing to welcome the assistance of the leader of the Liberal Party and indeed invite him to accompany the Premier to Washington. The leader of the Liberal Party has been there and he's done a job. I think B.C. well deserves the benefit of his assistance.

HON. MR. BARRETT: He doesn't want to go.

MR. GARDOM: Oh, yes. I understand you haven't even replied to his letters. Is that right or wrong?

HON. MR. BARRETT: You've attacked my going to Washington. Make up your mind over there.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. GARDOM: I think you could well do with his expertise and you know it. We've heard a lot of talk…

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member address the Chair, please?

MR. GARDOM: I beg your pardon?

MR, CHAIRMAN: I am asking the Hon. Member to address the Chair when he makes his remarks.

MR. GARDOM: I am. Indeed I am, Mr. Chairman. At all times.

We've talked a lot about the Columbia boondoggle. It was expressed many, many times by the New Democratic Party, when they sat in Opposition, that they never had any opportunity to form some part in the bargaining or the decision-making process concerning the Columbia River.

I think it's about high time we learned by experience. I think it's high time we decided on an issue such as this, which is not a political issue. We should stand together and work together. This is nothing more than an environmental issue and it could become a life or death environmental issue to the Province of B.C. I would expect the Premier to stand up after I sit down and say yes, he shall

[ Page 854 ]

welcome and invite the leader of the Liberal Party to join him in Washington.

Now I want to make a few remarks about the situation, Mr. Chairman, of our cities and of our municipalities and at the termination of these remarks develop six or seven specific questions to the Hon. Premier.

It was interesting to note in the New Democratic Party's election material, which I was reading from yesterday — there's a lot of good ideas in here. One of them was this:

"There's a new deal for cities. The central problem facing our cities is their chronic inability to pay for the services people need."

Yea, verily, they spoke the truth. That is a continuing situation today.

Then the socialists continue: "Under an NDP Government only services to property will be paid from taxes on property." Well, that philosophy I suppose has come to a complete stalemate. It seems to be the philosophy of the New Democratic Party, but it has not been accepted as the philosophy of the caucus of the socialistic government in British Columbia.

Mr. Chairman, I am not going to transgress upon a bill that is before the House, but it's interesting to note, Mr. Chairman, what has happened to our provincial revenues since 1970. If the Hon. Chairman will remember, 1970 was the last time when the per capita grants in the province were increased. At that time they were $30, and there's a proposal now before the House to bring it up to $32.

The budget, Mr. Chairman, of British Columbia in 1970 was $1.165 billion. The NDP budget, which the Premier read a few days ago to the House and of which we've all received copies, estimates revenues of $1.722 billion, and we think that the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) has come much closer to the facts by saying that it will come to $1.850 billion.

For comparison, Mr. Chairman, and this comparison is useful, we find that in 1970 — only three years ago — the province's revenues were $1.165 billion estimated. The Premier estimates $1.722 billion, which is a 48 per cent increase of revenues in three years. Using the perhaps more correct figure of $1.850 billion, we find a 58 per cent increase of provincial revenues in three years.

The contemplated proposal, under the bill I'm not going to discuss, estimates 6.65 per cent increase in per capita grants to municipalities.

They're called "creatures" of the provincial government. I think "paltry foundlings," Mr. Chairman, would indeed be a better way to describe the municipalities and the treatment they are continuing to get, from this new government who wishes to have a "new deal," as they say, for the cities. It's exactly the same old deal and the same old package.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's worse.

MR. GARDOM: Or indeed worse.

Mr. Chairman, there's obviously one very simple way to effectively cure this. That is to tie these entitlements — and I didn't use the word. "grants" — to tie municipal entitlements, which is perhaps described as a "grant" today in the province, into provincial revenues. If the provincial revenues increase, or decrease, so will the municipal or city entitlement. So instead of looking at a 6.65 per cent increase now, the municipalities, on the basis of the Premier's figures, could be looking to a 48 per cent increase — up to $44 from $30.

I want to develop the fact that the municipalities have a right, a definite right, to a fair entitlement of provincial revenues which they never have received. Because their costs are increasing, even if not in the majority of cases, Mr. Chairman, greatly in excess of provincial costs. In order for municipalities to effectively budget, to come up with effective planning or even, Mr. Chairman, to adequately perform — or even exist for that matter — they have got to receive fair entitlements from the Province of British Columbia. I would say, as I have said, fair entitlements must be tied directly to provincial revenues.

Even more than that, Mr. Chairman, the municipalities and the cities in the province have never received proper recognition in the philosophical sense. We need a new philosophy for our municipalities and most particularly for our cities. Whereupon they're no longer going to be regarded as creatures of the provincial government but as partners, with far freer rein from the province to guide their own destinies in planning and in taxation.

We need a complete review of the whole municipal tax structure. This has been advocated before and it's been advocated exceptionally well. The Plunkett study in British Columbia, Mr. Chairman, in 1971, was a darn good study. The former administration flirted with it. It first tried to get into the act and participate and then it went over the hill because, I suppose, those who were responsible for the decision-making process in the former administration — all of whom are not here now — felt that they didn't like the drift of the Plunkett report and the kinds of conclusions that they were coming up. They were devastating conclusions. It concluded that the Province of B.C. was avoiding its constitutional responsibilities for the assumption of municipal costs and was loading them onto the cities and municipalities in one way or another, denuding them of provincial revenues. So that was the policy. The municipalities were kept in the workhouse and if they came to the front to get a little bit more soup, well they certainly got the treatment. They were abused.

The orders of the day then seemed to be, "Divide

[ Page 855 ]

and conquer." There's no torrent of abuse today. I've no criticism of that. But the new proprietorship in the Province of British Columbia, Mr. Chairman, has not given any indication of any new system or any new style, insofar as the cities and municipalities are concerned — just the same old go-around and the same old circle.

We all know here what direction the cities and the urban centres are taking. Two-thirds of our population today is urban and pretty well every prophet has reached the conclusion that by the end of the century 9 out of 10 people within Canada are going to live in urban areas. Those urban areas are obliged, Mr. Chairman, to fulfil whatever responsibilities are assigned to them by the province.

In order to do that they've got to look to the province for handouts. So we find the cities having most of the problems and the provincial government most of the taxing powers.

Now there's a marvellous quotation from the Plunkett Report to which, because I've summarized it, I'm not going to refer. Certainly also from the Economic Council of Canada there are very, very grim warnings about the gap between municipal expenditures and their requirements.

I am asking the Hon. Premier to just state the position of his government concerning these points, which I shall now mention and some of which I have already referred to in my remarks this afternoon:

1) Does he agree that we need a complete reform and revision of all of our municipal, provincial and federal tax-sharing arrangements in order to face the realities, which it is now, of an urban society? Fair entitlements, be they grants, be they shares of personal or corporate tax or what-have-you.

2) Will he state that it is a policy of his government that we will have a department of urban city affairs in the province, with somebody at the helm whose mandate first and foremost would be the interests of the cities and who would work for them and not against them? Will he accept the philosophy that the cities are no longer to be regarded as creatures of the government but as partners of the provincial government with much freer rein from the provincial side to guide their own destinies in planning and in taxation.

3) We know that the municipalities have always experienced a terrific amount of difficulty, and indeed have almost been stifled by virtue of difficulty in raising money in the money market. Now in order to bolster employment, as has been suggested by the official Opposition in several excellent speeches, and in order to make these long range plans of the municipalities and of the cities feasible, the provincial government must hereafter guarantee all future municipal bond issues. All of them. Now, without the provincial side doing that, there is no way the municipal side can effectively plan. I would like to have the Premier's comments on that point.

4) The Province of British Columbia should be a pathfinder. We don't always have to look around and find out what other people are doing. We should take some positive and demonstrative and exciting steps ourselves. We should initiate in the Province of British Columbia income tax relief and indeed request the federal government to do the same thing — income tax relief to individual purchasers of municipal bonds, to the extent that the interest those purchasers would receive from those municipal bonds would be tax free in their hands.

This is a procedure that has been followed with quite some degree of success in the United States of America. There would obviously be a great deal of interest within the municipalities for such a proposal. It would certainly make their securities far more marketable, Mr. Chairman, and would be a very good incentive for the small investor.

The securities do have to be funded and this would be a good way to do it and a good way to attract investment capital at a reasonable rate. I think it is a first class idea and I would very much like to hear the Premier's acknowledgement of it, and indeed, I hope, acquiesce to it.

5) Mr. Chairman, the cities must receive, which they do not today — it comes in at about 50 per cent — the equivalent of full taxes on all provincial government and Crown corporations within their borders.

6) I'm asking these as questions to the Hon. Premier — we must have assurance from the provincial side that the cities and the municipalities will have their total zoning control over areas within their own boundaries, just the same way as they do with private developers today. I'm asking whether he will say, "Yes, the cities and the municipalities will be permitted to have zoning control over provincial government developments or what-have-you within their own areas." This was part of the very, very great problem that developed — zoning control over provincial government projects with municipal boundaries.

As an example, you can recall that a great deal of difficulty was experienced with the City of Vancouver and the proposed B.C. building when the City of Vancouver almost had to get to the point of deciding that it was going to close the streets and let the building be built from the air by helicopter or what-have-you, unless the provincial government would come in and make some kind of an equitable working arrangement as to the zoning and the plan and the design. I'm saying that the municipalities, within their own borders, should have a totality of zoning control.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Totalitarian zoning powers.

[ Page 856 ]

MR. GARDOM: Not totalitarian — that's your word, my friend, and your practice. Not mine.

Next, transit needs. Transit needs, obviously, Mr. Chairman, only relate at the present time, insofar as complete congestion is concerned, to the City of Vancouver, I suppose. This must be accepted as a provincial responsibility and not only be left in the doorstep of Vancouver as a city responsibility, because the greater Vancouver and New Westminster–Burnaby area will require, without any question of a doubt, a fantastic amount of economic stimulation and an infusion of dollars in order to prevent a transit crisis.

In order that they can start some kind of planning, some dollars should be isolated and set aside for that purpose. I would suggest as a fair formula to go ahead and see that the City of Vancouver can have ploughed back to it one half of the motor vehicle user taxes that are collected under that region each year. Which, I suppose, right now would be in the neighbourhood of about $30 million. That would provide impetus to initiate a rapid transit authority in which the provincial government would have to become, without any question of a doubt, a full partner.

Mr. Chairman, the cities in the Province of B.C. are facing urban chaos or urban survival. If the mountain won't listen to Mohammed, well Mohammed had better start thinking of opting out of the mountain. City tax states have been tried before and quite successfully. Maybe this should only be looked upon as a last resort but I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, to the Hon. Premier, that we are getting mighty close to the last resort. I do hope that I will be favoured with some response from the chair there.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Premier.

HON. MR. BARRETT: First of all, Mr. Member, there are a couple of things that I want to deal with. With regard to the question of your leader accompanying the Government to Washington, I want to refer you to page 458 of this year's Hansard of February 15, 1973 and I am quoting your leader: "We expected that this step would be taken," that is, President Nixon's step. Then he goes on:

"It was a logical step. We'd been told that it would be taken if we won on these grounds." — he's talking about the court case — "I should simply inform the House, Mr. Chairman, that I did put the position to Rogers Morton in June, I believe, of 1971, personally to him at hearings in the Interior Department in Washington, D.C. He has been informed constantly of the Canadian Government's position and in particular by a letter dated May 4, 1972, with respect to the Mackenzie line. I think he has all along been kept pretty well up to date on developments in Canada on this.

"Mr. Speaker, I mentioned that the decision to go to Congress with proposed legislation was taken by Nixon and was not unexpected. It's no cause for alarm for British Columbians. It's perfectly expected…. . "

Well, it's cause for alarm for the Government of British Columbia and it would be a little bit inconsistent now to have the Liberal Party appeal that they come along as a tag-end of the trip, after their saying it's no cause for alarm. I can only go by your leader's statements.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Then I think we should deal with a little bit of myth about going there. One thing I will say is that we are not going there just to criticize. We have alternatives. You will see them.

The next move is this question of conversation. I must say that I have invited all the leaders to my office, prior to the throne speech being released, prior to the budget speech, and I must say that the official House Leader of the Opposition came to my office before the throne speech and before the budget speech. I shared the speech with him, kept the confidence. I asked if there were any other questions. We chatted for a while about a number of things, and we had the opportunity to discuss things rationally as people should, informally in the parliamentary system. I must say the House Leader of the Conservatives chose to do the same thing.

On both occasions, the Liberal Leader did not come down to my office, did not avail himself of the opportunity. I hate to say this, Mr. Member, but you have made a point that somehow he is not getting to see me. On two opportunities, formal and informal, in terms of doing the traditional British thing, of making the throne speech available and the budget speech available and asking questions and answering questions freely, both the Conservative House Leader and the Social Credit House Leader were there. From the Liberals, in terms of the budget speech, I got a message: "Send it up by secretary."

Now, Mr. Member, you can discuss that with your leader. But that's a fact, so I hardly find your appeal having any kind of merit in terms of the…

Interjections by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, I'm not his social worker. It will have to remain that way.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I come to the…

MR. GARDOM: You may be one again!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, it could be and I'm willing to take all kinds of cases. (Laughter). That's one of the beautiful things about being a social worker; we are never surprised at any kind of

[ Page 857 ]

behaviour. Contradictory behaviour is something we have always dealt with.

I go on to the next number of questions. The question of reform of taxation is a matter of great debate throughout the country. Within our own jurisdiction we have looked at the inconsistencies in taxation in the Province of British Columbia and we made some moves of our own. I might say that I find the federal-provincial conference that I attended on the taxation adjustments in terms of one particular department, the Department of Health.

The informal session, where the politicians are left alone in a room — that afternoon of informal sessions was worth far more than kind of posturing through papers in front of media. I don't say that it isn't good for politicians to put their point of view forth strongly, but when the doors were closed the most frank discussion took place. To me that was a good sign that at federal and provincial levels there was some real exchange about feelings on taxation.

We did face some tax anomalies as soon as we came to office. The obvious protection was in the tax haven created by the former administration by limiting all industrial assessments to 10 per cent. Those large industries that had a low assessment base were locked into that low assessment base by the previous administration by the 10 per cent assessment. As all people who are familiar with the municipal administrations know, that was unfair. The homeowner in British Columbia was in fact subsidizing large industry in this province. As a result, we have removed the 10 per cent assessment limitation on industry.

The first consequences of this are to read the response of a number of outstanding municipal leaders, most of whom are not NDPers, incidentally. In that category is the mayor of Victoria, who has stated publicly that in his opinion, this Government's action has removed the burden off the homeowner in terms of subsidizing industry and, in actual fact, may cut homeowner's taxes by 20 per cent in the City of Victoria.

That's a good move toward municipalities and I'm sure the Member also would applaud that approach. It's not an additional tax on industry. It's just asking them to pay their fair share. They have been under-assessed. I'm sure when the vote comes, everybody will vote with us on that particular approach.

The other areas of taxation structure stated by the Member are matters of great interest. We are looking at the whole measure and a whole range of tax restructuring in the province. We're not going to do it on a crisis-by-crisis basis. The most obvious problems are ones that we dealt with when we were in Opposition — the 10 per cent assessment limitation and a number of other areas. In terms of long-term commitment, they should be more than just some kind of instant response.

The Member asked for pathfinder legislation. Well, if there's one thing we're getting kicked around for, Mr. Chairman, it's pathfinder legislation. I noticed that you did mention…

AN HON. MEMBER: I said "pathfinder", not "blind alley".

HON. MR. BARRETT: You see, when a government comes into office and is courageous enough, quite frankly, to take hold of a very important issue, that's pathfinding. It's not a very good haven for political skins. Nonetheless, if you're going to be responsible government, you must do some pathfinding and pathleading.

We'll stand or fall on that basis. We won't be a stand pat Government. We accept the responsibility of breaking into new territory and trying to find brand new solutions to old problems that have generally had lip service. I look forward with a great deal of anticipation to meaningful, thoughtful and fruitful debate on the tax bills and other bills that are in front of the House.

The transit needs and a Minister of urban affairs: we do have a Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer). There is a temptation to focus all of the administrative emphasis to the large cities. It's a realistic temptation in that the urban growth of Canada has been catalogued by demographers and sociologists and others for years. I would prefer to see this Government resist the temptation to put that much emphasis.

We've made a very clear start in terms of having an urban philosophy. We've taken a position against the third crossing. We've made it very clear that we will be involved directly in mass rapid transit in the urban areas. We've made it clear that we're concerned about their taxation patterns by the legislation to remove the 10 per cent assessment.

But I do not subscribe to the theory that the small town has lost its place.

AN HON. MEMBER: No one's said that.

HON. MR. BARRETT: O.K. But I think that if you have a contradictory ministry — a Minister of Municipal Affairs, who essentially deals with regions and small towns, and a cabinet colleague who has the responsibility of dealing with the cities, you immediately put up barriers of conflict between the two. Because the problems are the same. The scale is different but the problems are the same.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, but the emphasis has been different by virtue of…

HON. MR. BARRETT: Ah, the emphasis has been different because essentially, in my opinion — I don't

[ Page 858 ]

know if you agree with me, Mr. Member — the emphasis has been different because of politics.

HON. J.G. LORIMER (Minister of Municipal Affairs): I can handle them both. (Laughter).

HON. MR. BARRETT: My colleague says that he can handle them both. The emphasis has been different because of politics, but that's not unique to our jurisdiction in North America. In the United States the only way they could break away from that pattern was through a Supreme Court ruling that ordered the states to have redistribution, so that the power of the politicians more adequately reflected the people and the communities they came from rather than square miles on a map.

So this Government is obviously going to be committed to have some independent commission or independent person of high repute take a look at our electoral maps — unlike the last time, when we had a three-man commission travel around the province. They came in with a report and we brought the report in here. My friend, the other Member for Point Grey (Mr. McGeer), remembers. We saw the government take out its pencil and say, "Well, this is where we really want the lines anyway." That's what we voted on.

AN HON. MEMBER: That happened twice.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes. We're going to change that. We hope that within our term of office, long or short, there is a rational approach to the redistribution here in the province.

AN HON. MEMBER: In the nineteenth year.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Certainly before the next election.

So I think that that kind of political pressure that exists in favouring rural versus urban can be ameliorated. The other thing is that there is a transition period that I don't know whether or not we've really overcome in this province, in terms of parochial lobbying.

There's this great debate that goes on constantly about geographic representation versus population representation. Perhaps we should have some debate in this House about a combination of both. I don't know. Maybe we should put it to committee. But it seems to me that the most parochial time that comes out that emphasizes the point that the Member made is during the highways estimates.

AN HON. MEMBER: I'm just going to mention that now.

HON. MR. BARRETT: During the highways estimates, everybody closes the gates around their constituency and gets up and pleads with the highways Minister. He is the fellow, except on one occasion…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: O.K., O.K., almost everyone…except on one occasion, when the unnamed highways Minister was under attack for other things. Most times it was a kind of "Bring in your prayer rug, down on your knees and say, 'Can I have some blacktop, please, and can I have this bridge here?'"

It's a pathetic kind of performance. I participated in it myself as an MLA. It's part of the kind of politics that influences decisions. I'm not saying it's good; I'm not saying it's bad. It's a reality.

So when the Member talks about a ministry of urban affairs and you split Municipal Affairs into two departments, you're going to create conflict whether you like it or not. The pressures are going to be unequal, depending on how the scale is balanced in terms of areas of representation. I'd rather take the risks with one Minister, as we have now. But I would like a philosophy and that's really the essence of another level of politics that we rarely get to.

MR. GARDOM: That's what I said.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Now the philosophy that we have espoused, rightly or wrongly, is one of reviving the rural areas and keeping a life style alive in northern and central and eastern parts of British Columbia. We believe that a unique kind of life style can be maintained in this province. That philosophy is being shown more obviously in taxation bills and perhaps even more obviously in land bills which will be debated later on.

The philosophy is simply this. We believe that people should have the opportunity of multiple choices at a life style. If we urbanize too heavily — if the government doesn't translate its philosophy into policy and protect choices of life style by protecting farmland, by protecting areas of activity — then it loses for its people the opportunity to express their freedom of choice. Because economics — ruthless, harsh economics — dictate the choice of life style, rather than some rational planning within that economy.

One of the most dramatic illustrations of why I would be opposed to a ministry of urban affairs, through you, Mr. Chairman, came during my visit through the north to the town of Houston. I saw a whole life style in a region destroyed on the myth that urbanization and centralization would effectively be a good thing for the economy, and that bigness was best.

The previous government made a decision to

[ Page 859 ]

concentrate the economy of that particular sector in one town — Houston. A whole life style was lost because of that economic decision. The company involved, interestingly enough, was making its decisions back in Montreal. They lost $60 million in the process, what I consider to be a failure as a social and economic experiment.

So, Mr. Member, I would say that if we took your route and went into a ministry of urban affairs, there would be pressures by that Minister and on that Minister to continue a pattern of centralizing urban activity, both of industry and consequently of population. It would be a serious mistake.

Maybe we're wrong in having this philosophy. We'll have some time to prove it. But the philosophy, in essence, in terms of a life style, is that government should adapt itself to meet the needs of people so that people have a wide range of choices, rather than government conditioning limited choices through centralization through a ministry of urban affairs. I say, one Minister of Municipal Affairs, a great range of choices of life styles. The Government's responsibility is to protect that range of choices.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before the Hon. Member responds… Would you make your brief question and then I'll make some comments.

I recognize the Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. GARDOM: I'd just like to make a few comments apropos of the Premier's remarks.

The obvious need, Mr. Chairman, has been to place the emphasis because the response was never forthcoming. The Premier, with every respect to his very interesting and learned dissertation, has not given any specific indication that the response is forthcoming. That was the point that I was making.

What we obviously need is equity. We have not seen equity to the cities in the past and they have been badly shortchanged. You can remember, when you sat on this side of this House, that all your Members were making exactly the same kind of speech, perhaps better, perhaps worse than I am today, maybe not entirely with the same phraseology.

However, let us just look for one moment, Mr. Chairman, specifically at the City of Vancouver. This is why I am saying that you cannot continue to wait until this master plan evolves from somewhere or other. You've got to go ahead in a situation like this and do a little bit of ad hoc dollar entitling. That's what's got to be done.

The City of Vancouver has received the short end of the stick. Whenever you start comparing revenues developed within that area and what the greater metropolitan area and City of Vancouver has received from the provincial side, boy, you've got a pretty poor little old Cinderella insofar as the City of Vancouver is concerned.

You remember, Mr. Chairman, last year when we had that very long and serious debate concerning the hotel tax. Now here was a first class suggestion. The City of Vancouver wished to have this thing; they needed it; they wanted to plow that money into tourism and into the recreation and tourism industry. Okay. Fine. What happened?

The government of the time went headlong into a Supreme Court decision, came in with some legislation and emasculated the right of the City of Vancouver to do anything with that money. We had the tax. The tax came in, but it went into general revenue. I'm saying that this type of thing should be earmarked for the cities and for the municipalities because they are creating that revenue within their confines and they should be entitled to use it.

Just before I sit down, Mr. Chairman, I would say that the City of Vancouver has been shortchanged about $6 million over the past very, very short while. At one time the fines that were collected, for example, Mr. Chairman, used to pay for the provincial courts and the prosecutor's office and the juvenile courts and so forth and so on. Then that was changed when the fine system went out. Well, that's fine. The fine system went out throughout the whole of the province and then the province went ahead and decided it would absorb the magistrates' salaries.

But the shortfall to the city there would be the better part of $700,000. The shortfall to the city in not being able to have this hotel or bed tax to plow back into the recreation industry would, I'd say, be about another $300,000 — there's $ 1 million.

As the Premier said, this usually comes up during the Minister of Highways' estimates. But this is the appropriate time for this. Unless you're going to have certainly…how could I describe him? It's difficult to describe the former Minister of Highways (Mr. Gaglardi) and make any comparisons to the past. I'll leave that right there.

I would tend to think that this will have to be much more than a decision of a Minister. The Hon. Premier knows that as well as I do. This is a provincial government decision. But if the City of Vancouver had had the Highways Act applied to it, the same way it was applied to other municipalities, I gainsay that it would have had about another $3 or $4 million worth of revenue. Okay. That's the second point.

A third one — this business of the provincial government freeloading within the city insofar as its structures are concerned. The federal government pays grants in lieu of taxes and I gather that the rate that the provincial government has coming in is about 50 per cent of what it should be. These are rough figures. I can't give you the exact figures. They're the best ones that have come to my attention. But according to the information I have they add up — and the Hon. Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr.

[ Page 860 ]

Strachan) says I'm right — to about $6 million altogether.

So we find this principal city, the third largest city in Canada, which is really the hub of British Columbia… I agree with the Premier's sentiments about the joys of less-congested living and so does everybody in the City of Vancouver. But darn it all, they're faced with living within the confines of what they do and they have the mounting problems. They've been burgeoning and burgeoning over the 20-year period and you've reached the critical point. That's why I'm saying you cannot wait for an overall philosophical shift. You need now, purely and simply, some dough — money — to go from the provincial side back to the City of Vancouver, because it's been the best tax cow that this province has ever had.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Premier.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, I appreciate the debate very, very much. It's in the framework, all of a sudden, within 12 months, instead of a lateral debate. It's a different direction. It's good. The points are well taken and it's consistent. You haven't had the opportunity to get over here yet to test that consistency. (Laughter).

Nonetheless, it is consistent and it's absolutely valid.

The two decisions that we made in terms of Vancouver were in the area of roads and the question of assisting in financing at Second Narrows crossing. That money is still here, as was ascertained in an earlier question, and it is still earmarked in that general direction. We've said that we will participate in urban transit. We're not going to dump transit on the municipalities as another kind of punishment.

MR. GARDOM: You couldn't do it.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, yes, it was tried. But we wouldn't do it anyway. We don't agree with it as a philosophy. Transit is transit right across the board. Okay. So we're agreed on that.

The next thing was the question of the assessment. We've done that.

I had the Mayor of Vancouver in my office…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: It was weeks ago. He's not complaining. There are mayors of big cities, Mr. Member, and they're welcome in Victoria. It's a new experience.

The mayor came into my office with the specific proposal about taxation sharing. It's his idea and if he wants to discuss it publicly it's okay with me.

It was an interesting proposal. I suggested to him, "Mr. Mayor, if you take that concept back to the UBCM, and the UBCM as a body comes up with the framework of policy of taxation changes, rather than just the City of Vancouver, encompassing that idea, or having within it a policy with the germ of that idea, it's something that would find favour in Victoria." Now we're communicating on that level.

It's not as if we're going to pull out a master plan and dump it on them.

AN HON. MEMBER: If his thinking is pretty good, let's find out what it is,

HON. MR. BARRETT: If he wishes to discuss it. I'm not going to say, "Here, this is what he came to me with." We had a discussion in my office. If he wished to make it public I have no objection to that.

AN HON. MEMBER: I hope he does.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Okay. That's fine. But that was the proposal, and I think he's gone back to UBCM with it. I think there's a prominent member of the UBCM here. In any event, they were preparing the material to go back with it.

Instead, Mr. Member, of being in a position of coming in with a great big plan and saying, "Here it is,"… You wouldn't want that. We want the input of the cities.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): On land too?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Certainly on land. You want to go into that? That's coming anyway. You bet. But the cities asked us to help them too in controlling zoning. There's a record of that.

MR. CURTIS: Which ones?

HON. MR. BARRETT: The cities are not opposed to zoning. There's a record of that.

MR. CURTIS: What cities? What cities asked?

HON. MR. BARRETT: The debate will come on, Mr. Member. I am sorry, Mr. Chairman. It's interesting anyway. Zoning is not a brand new concept.

So, Mr. Member, I am suggesting to you that we are receptive to ideas from municipalities and cities. We are anxious to cooperate with them. We're not going to impose taxation changes on them. The first moves we made were in the obvious areas, absolutely obvious areas, in terms of the criticism that we were a part of in the same manner that you are today.

[ Page 861 ]

MR. GARDOM: Just one question on this point, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you make it brief, Mr. Member.

MR. GARDOM: Yes, Mr. Chairman, it will be exceptionally brief.

One of the specific items which we're coming to will be the situation of dollars for metro transit. It seemed to be the accepted policy developed over the past years that, insofar as Vancouver was concerned, B.C. Hydro was going to do its level best to wean itself out of customer service, essentially by giving not the best service at all and developing huge deficits.

It came to the provincial government and received, if my memory is correct, $2 million — something like that. I believe that is exactly the same figure that is proposed again this year. But that, I gather, is insufficient to take care of the thing.

Now, I'd asked the Hon. Premier, Mr. Chairman, what exactly is his policy insofar as customer service by B.C. Hydro is concerned? Is it going to be improved; is it going to be big; is it going to be better; or are you going to let the thing follow the path of drift that it was following before?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, I ask you, beyond my framework or philosophy that it will be improved, to get the details from the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) who's intimately involved.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before I recognize the Hon. Member for Langley, I just want to make a few comments. I have allowed considerable latitude in applying the rules of the House because I understand that this is traditional when considering the Premier's estimates. However, it is now getting deep into the third day and I would point out to the Hon. Members that many of the matters that are raised and discussed should properly be dealt with in some other. For example I am sure that the Hon. Members from the official Opposition regard the matter of unemployment as an urgent and public matter. There is provision to raise a matter of that kind under standing order No. 35(1) rather than bringing it up repeatedly in the consideration of the estimates.

The second point I would like to make is that in municipal matters which were raised by the previous speaker, much of the substance of what he said could properly have been brought up under vote No. 180, under the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Although, certainly, there was some reference to the Premier's office in some of the comments that were made.

The third point is: on bills before the House, or motions before the House, it is not proper to debate matters which are contained in these bills or in these motions because the debate is anticipated and there will be, in fact, debate on these matters when these matters come up in their proper place. That is the time that these matters should be discussed.

The fourth point is: proposals that are made to the Minister whose estimates are being considered should more properly be made by motions and bills by notice on the order paper rather than suggested or urged upon the Minister considered, as we quoted from May yesterday.

Also if any Hon. Member disagrees with the ruling of the Chairman or with the way that the rules are being applied by the Chairman, the proper remedy is to raise a point of order; then, if he is not satisfied with the results, to make an appeal to the House.

Now, there is one last point. That is if any of the Hon. Members in the Opposition exercise the — you might say — the option, in terms of the latitude that has been allowed by the Chair, too extensively, the result will be more and more speeches by the Hon. Premier. Therefore, while I'm sure we consider the Premier an extremely good speaker…

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. CHAIRMAN: …it is my opinion that the other Hon. Ministers undoubtedly also have much to say about these matters. Therefore I would urge that all Members cooperate in expediting the business of the House.

I recognize the Hon. Member for Columbia River.

MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. If you are going to lay down all those new guidelines, rules, to when we can make proposals to Government, as to where…

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. CHABOT: I feel a draft, Mr. Chairman. I feel a draft from the backbenches. Really if you are going to lay down all these guidelines and rules, Mr. Chairman, in all fairness…you've indicated that we should present any proposals that we might have for the Government by way of motion or by the way of bill.

I want you to tell me now, at this time, Mr. Chairman, whether you will allow full debate on presentation of private Members bills. Will that be allowed? Full debate?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Member, if the Member will be seated I will respond to his point of order.

MR. CHABOT: Oh, O.K. I hadn't quite finished my point of order. But you complete this. I might have another one after.

But really, if you're suggesting that the Second

[ Page 862 ]

Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) is out of order — that he is discussing matters that should properly be discussed under the Department of Municipal Affairs — I think that that matter should be brought to his attention either by the Chair at the time that he raises the point or should be brought to his attention by the Premier, who should suggest to him that it could be better presented during the estimates of the Minister of Municipal Affairs. However, you've allowed the Premier to filibuster the reply.

He talked lengthily on the reply, a matter that you indicate he's completely out of order on. So really if you are going to rule, you should rule a little earlier. Or the situation should be brought to the attention of the House by the Premier if he feels that it should be discussed under another vote rather than his.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point of order made by the Hon. Member, I think is well taken; that is that the Chairman should certainly be more strict in the application of the rules in order to expedite the business of the House. However I'm acting in accordance, as I said, with the tradition of allowing more latitude in considering the Premier's estimates. All I'm asking for is the cooperation of the House in following the general principles which are the tradition of parliamentary procedure.

I recognize the Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. GARDOM: As you most correctly noted, Mr. Chairman, I was quite in order during all of my remarks. During the Premier's estimates it's certainly a most usual practice here — and I gather in all Houses — to question the Leader of the Government about the philosophical direction of the Government, and that is exactly what we've been doing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point is well made by the Hon. Member. In those matters certainly he was in order.

I recognize the Hon. Member for Langley.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I have only two or three brief questions that I want to ask the Premier and I'm glad to see him answering some of the questions by the Hon. Liberal Member. Because he hasn't been answering any up to this point on any of the important questions about jobs. Speeches and performances yes; answers no, perhaps.

Mr. Chairman, I want to ask a question about a comment made in the throne speech on page 14, with regard to the Home Acquisition Fund. We were told yesterday that we could talk about these funds generally. The comment was made that the Government doesn't agree with all of the details of this fund — and some other comment made outside the written text in the budget speech about methods by which perhaps there might be different areas in which this fund will be spent rather than on home acquisition.

Yet, and even though those details are not agreed with, there would be $50 million extra put into that fund. I think the Members of the House, Mr. Chairman, have a right to ask the Premier how that money is going to be spent, if it is not going to be spent in the manner in which it is laid out in the budget.

I would like to ask the question as well, Mr. Chairman, through you to the Premier, about the Community Recreation Facilities Fund: whether or not it is in operation at this time; whether you have had applications or not; whether or not you have, in fact, given approvals.

I wasn't satisfied, Mr. Chairman, with the questions about the Powerline Beautification Fund. But, in light of your remarks earlier today, I'll put that in the form of a written question on the order paper and it can be answered that way.

One other comment, Mr. Chairman, I would like to make and that has to do with the Premier's admission some time ago that there was a cabinet split in regard to the removal of taxes, education taxes, from farm land and residential properties in British Columbia. I would like to ask the Premier if he could explain how that split went; what the reason was for it; when we are going to get a direction of policy from the Government, with regard to the removal of these taxes from both residential property and farm property in this province?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Premier.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Three questions and three answers. The Home Acquisition Fund; I'm not happy about a number of things but before there can be any changes there have to be legislative changes. The Government is committed to legislative changes.

One of the things that I'm not happy about is the fact that native Indians on reserves are excluded. I'm not happy about that. I expect the Member who brought in his bills today, brought them in in anticipation of interpretation of my comments the other day. (Laughter). That's fair enough. It's O.K. We're agreed upon it anyway. It's obvious. Not only does it have to be done, but, it has to be retroactive.

AN HON. MEMBER: I mean, after that suggestion…

HON. MR. BARRETT: O.K. Well, so I don't agree with the Home Acquisition Fund in that way. That was one of the ways. The other way I don't agree with is in terms of limiting the use of the funds or

[ Page 863 ]

access to the funds. We have under active consideration a number of other methods of access to the funds so that more people can take benefit from it.

There is no attempt whatsoever — and it cannot be done — to destroy the use of the fund for home acquisition. It has to be broadened. Exclusions against native Indians is something that I didn't like and we hope to eliminate it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear.

HON. MR. BARRETT: So that is answer to No. 1.

No. 2, Community Recreation fund: nothing can be done until the bill passes. As soon as the bill passes you will note that — Mr. Chairman, I am sorry to refer to the bill — but it is retroactive to August 30. We have had a number of applications.

The cabinet is not split. They have a difference of opinion. There is nothing wrong with saying publicly, in my opinion — obviously it is not the traditional thing to do — that the cabinet has differences of opinion.

People have very strong opinions whether they are NDP, Social Credit, or Liberal or Conservative cabinets; perhaps less notable than Socred cabinets but certainly evident in Liberal cabinets and Conservative cabinets. People with strong opinions come into politics and I don't think that fact should ever be hidden. I think it's a good thing. I think that people have strong ideas and should express them.

We had a difference of opinion in the cabinet over the method of how we were going to remove school tax, not over whether or not we should do it. We have not agreed on the method, and that's what we're taking back, as I said, in the newspapers.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for North Peace River.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to pose a few very specific, very direct questions to the Premier, through you, sir.

The first matter I want to deal with is a remark that was delivered by the Premier during this debate a few minutes ago when he spoke about a unique lifestyle in several parts of British Columbia, and he referred to the northern part of the province as well as to the Kootenays and some other areas. Well, Mr. Chairman, we're trying to preserve a unique lifestyle, if you wish to call it that, in the north right now and we are having some problems, particularly economic problems.

I would like to ask the Hon. Premier, through you, if he would cooperate with the mayors and the regional district of the Peace-Liard area in trying to convince Ottawa that we should have area designation by the Department of Regional Development and Economic Expansion (DREE) for the Peace-Liard region. This is a matter that has been worked upon by many people; they've put briefs together, they have sent delegations to Ottawa, we've had talks with the former Minister and the new Minister in Ottawa, we had the support of the previous government when they were in administration here. I would like to know if the Premier would lend the weight of his office now to the request for area designation for the Peace-Liard region. Point number one.

The second matter that I would like to raise, through you, Mr. Chairman, to the Premier, is the B.C. Railway extension to Dease Lake. In recent days we have seen in the Press indications that some of the right-of-way may be considered and that the route that is presently surveyed and the route that is presently being used may not be the route that is finally used in that extension to Dease Lake.

We've also heard comments from the Hon. Premier indicating that he is approaching Ottawa to ask for financial aid and support for the extension of this railway. It's interesting to note, Mr. Chairman, that when the former Premier (Hon. Mr. Bennett) approached Ottawa in the same manner about the same particular problem, some people branded him as a separatist.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not me.

MR. SMITH: I didn't say you did, sir. But when the present Premier approaches the same people about the same problem, he's speaking because he represents the interests of British Columbia. What a difference a year makes.

What I would like to say though is this: Is that extension dependent upon financial participation by Ottawa? That's a specific question. Is there any intent on the part of the Government, should the funds that they're asking Ottawa for not be forthcoming, to cancel out any of the contracts and in fact delay the Dease Lake extension of the B.C. Railway?

One other question — it's not one of a major nature but one of a minor concern, I think, to the civil servants in this province. I have been told in the last few days that just today and yesterday, the civil service of this province received their T-4 slips for the current year.

Now I know that it's a requirement by law that the T-4 slips be in the hands of employees before the last day of February.

AN HON. MEMBER: Mailed out by that day.

MR. SMITH: Mailed out by that day? O.K., I'll take the Minister's interpretation for it. But the point that I want to make is surely with the computer equipment that we have at our disposal today, there must be some way that the government could place those T-4 slips in the hands of your civil servants

[ Page 864 ]

before the deadline, or a day or two earlier than the deadline. Surely we should be able to get those out to them by the first part of February.

I'll tell you one good reason why. We all know about registered retirement savings plans today and the benefits available to people under the tax Act to contribute money which they can then deduct from taxable income for the current year. If they do not have a statement of their earnings and their deductions prior to the final day of February they can place themselves in a position where contributions they may have otherwise made, a plan that they may have otherwise taken advantage of, would be lost to them.

All I'm suggesting is that there must be some way that we could get those T-4 slips into the hands of the civil servants in this province a little before the deadline at the end of February.

Three questions I pose to the Premier; I'd appreciate some answers.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Premier.

HON. MR. BARRETT: We have no objection to the area in question being designated under DREE. Sure, I'll support it; no question about it. If they want that support, I'll certainly give the support. But I wouldn't hang my hat on the results out of the DREE programme.

I say candidly and I think you agree with me, more can be done by direct involvement through provincial departments. That's why Mr. McEwan is up that way now.

In terms of the CNR and BCR, I can't really make valid comments about the interpretation of the previous Premier's position and mine by the newspapers. That's something that they have to do.

But you recall that I and my colleagues in the official Opposition, the Liberals as well, and the one Tory — I don't recall the debate the time he was there — I don't think ever attacked the former Premier on the question of asking for railroad payments. As a matter of fact, the former Liberal leader, caught in the embarrassing position of having to defend Ottawa and still take a B.C. stand, always stood up in the House and said, "Ottawa is wrong. They should give them the money, but…." and that was a good opening to his speech.

The demands asked by the former administration are ones that I agreed with in Opposition and I agree with now. However, they are not a conditioning factor as to whether or not that railroad will continue through the north. They are not. But they are certainly an ingredient in a negotiation and the negotiations include shared financing. So you can see what I'm saying.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, I'm saying that the railroad is going to go ahead. The federal government wants the railroad now just as much as the provincial government does, if not more, which is really a change of attitude.

That's perhaps why there is a change of interpretation in the media. The response in Ottawa in the past used to be, "Aw, he's a separatist," and the media carried that message. They're no longer saying that because the feds now want the railway. So that's what's changed, not the B.C. position.

I'm saying that the railway goes. The amount of money that I'm talking about that I mentioned the other day is part of the negotiations in terms of shared finances. Now we will not be "provincial" about the sharing of information or the sharing of goals. Those negotiations going on right now are very, very candid.

The T-4 slips; we'll look into it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: All right, your point of order, Mr. Member. Would the other two Members be seated for a moment?

MR. CHABOT: Clarification on whether you suggested that Members could best debate or discuss unemployment under standing order No. 35, sub-section 1. Did you make that statement?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I merely suggested that this might be one way in which it might be done.

MR. CHABOT: Would you be prepared to give us leave to discuss this critical issue at this time?

MR. CHAIRMAN: This would be a matter for the House to consider, not in committee. The instructions of the House to the committee are specific.

MR. CHABOT: If we should raise the issue as a matter of urgent public importance when the House is…

MR. CHAIRMAN: This would be a matter for the House to consider, not for the committee of supply.

MR. CHABOT: You've made the suggestion that this is the only place You're confining where the question of unemployment can be discussed. You're suggesting at this time that we cannot question the Premier of this province on the matter of the economic policies of this Government relative to the unemployment being created by their policies.

Is that what you're saying, Mr. Chairman? Is that what you're saying?

MR. CHAIRMAN: No.

[ Page 865 ]

MR. CHABOT: Well, where else? If you're suggesting that we can only do it by asking for adjournment of this House, where else can we discuss unemployment in this House?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will the Hon. Member be seated and I'll answer his point of order.

I made the point because the matter has been raised regularly over the last three or four days. Therefore it would appear to me that the matter is in itself important, rather than as a part of the estimates that we're considering under the Premier.

I also said as my concluding remark that if the Premier wanted to continue the discussion as part of the consideration of his estimates, then this could probably be done providing there was no objection from the House. We'll proceed to the next order of business.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I'll just conclude this point. The point is that it's been repeated and repeated and repeated. The issue appears to be a matter in itself of importance to the Members who are pressing the issue.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not of importance to anyone else.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Point of order, Mr. Chairman. I reject any idea that the Chair will determine the subjects that the Members wish to raise under the Premier's office, if they are legitimate subjects under my jurisdiction or any other Minister's. I would appreciate the Chair re-examining its position. The economic matters are matters of responsibility of the Minister of Finance. I'm prepared to answer the question.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the Premier would clarify one indication he gave. Has he given us today a firm commitment that there will be a redistribution of seats before the next provincial election and that this will be done on a totally dispassionate and nonpartisan basis? (Laughter). Did I understand him correctly that he gave that commitment, Mr. Chairman? The Premier only needs to nod. Was that nod in answer to that question, Mr. Premier? Just nod if that's so.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If the Hon. Member is including that as one of several questions, would he ask them all and then the Hon. Premier could reply to all of them. Otherwise, he could take them in term.

MR. McGEER: Very briefly, Mr. Chairman, I'd also like to ask him if he wouldn't reconsider the answer he gave to the Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) regarding the potential of the Liberal leader to assist him as a diplomat in Washington.

Mr. Chairman, if I could just advance a brief argument to the Premier, the one man in British Columbia — probably in Canada — who is known and respected by President Nixon and Interior Secretary Rogers Morton on the pipeline-tanker issue is the leader of the Liberal Party. He's the one who has won a victory over the administration in the United States. It would seem strange indeed to the leading officials in Washington, D.C., if an official representative of this province, namely the Premier, were to go down without taking as his consultant the one man who understands the issue and has won the respect of the administration.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. McGEER: All I can hope for the Attorney General, Mr. Chairman, is that his record in the courts is better than his predecessor's in that post. They won't have to be very good for that. (Laughter). Well, the Attorney General will have a chance to disprove that statement, perhaps, in the next few years.

Mr. Chairman, very briefly, I'd like to ask the Premier why it is, if the economy of the province is so buoyant, if the sales tax revenues for January are up 14.5 per cent as he says, already vindicating the statements that we made in this House regarding the true state of revenues in the province, why it is impossible today to put the surpluses of the province to work, as indeed some Members of the official Opposition have suggested.

Why is it, Mr. Chairman, that it becomes necessary for us to present once more false revenue pictures to the province in order to build up still more surpluses, when the funds, Mr. Chairman, that have already been set aside against the advice and votes of Members of the Liberal group have not been used to further employment in the province but still lie idle, stuffed with cash. I refer, Mr. Chairman, to: the Accelerated Park Development Fund, with $5,600,000 in cash or short-term notes — they are the same thing; the Accelerated Reforestation Fund, with $5,500,000 in cash; the B.C. Government Building Fund, with $24 million in cash; the Greenbelt Protection Fund, with $18 million in cash; the Power and Telephone Line Beautification Fund, with $10 million in cash.

All told — in the answers that the Premier himself has given to questions placed on the order paper by me — there are $129 million in cash or its equivalent, which is short-term bank notes, in funds that have already been set aside. Then, Mr. Chairman, he stands up and says today, "Still more coming in in surpluses. Sales tax up 14.5 per cent."

As the Members of the official Opposition have

[ Page 866 ]

already pointed out today, the one thing we need in this province is to put that money to work employing people. The Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan) is laying off individuals. What happens? They get the money from the Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement (Hon. Mr. Levi).

Mr. Chairman, what it adds up to is lack of co-ordination by the Premier and the Minister of Finance — the Premier supplying jobs on the one hand and the Minister of Finance supplying the money. Same old thing — these two people can't get together.

As my final question, I would like to ask the Premier, Mr. Chairman, why it really was that he broke his promise to the public of British Columbia by not giving up that finance portfolio.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Premier.

HON.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, there will be a redistribution and it will be as dispassionate as possible. Certainly, we will not go through the experience that we went through in terms of red pencils flashing out over here on a couple of desks.

The next question is — Mr. Member, I find your line of questioning surprising. But then perhaps not, because you're being political. I appreciate that. Every one of us has a political role to play. But we can't spend the money until you pass the estimates and that's what we're doing now. The sooner we get on with passing the money, we'll spend it.

To indicate that I'm trying to hoard surpluses when I made it very obvious in the budget speech — and I'm giving you these figures right now — you're trying to say that we're trying to conceal something or be false. I'm giving you the figures now in a way that the people of this province have never had the figures before. That's a fact. Throughout the estimates I've given you the information.

Now, if you want to get on with the business, it's entirely up to you at this point. This is the wonderful thing about the checks and balances of parliament. Do you want to pass the vote so we can get on and spend the money and provide jobs or do you want to make speeches? It's up to you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Columbia River.

MR. CHABOT: A couple of brief questions. The Premier has suggested here that estimates probably have never been submitted to this House in previous years — that budgets have never been presented before. Facts and figures have always been here.

He suggests as well that we should get on and pass the estimates so we can get on spending the money. The money we're voting on at this moment, Mr. Chairman, is money for the year April 1, 1973, through to March 31, 1974. The money isn't required at this particular time and you know it.

Now, question number one. This morning I read some very disturbing news — disturbing to me, probably not disturbing to the Premier — in the Vancouver Province relative to a report submitted to the Manitoba government by one Eric Kierans.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Point of order, Mr. Chairman. I am not the Premier of Manitoba.

Interjections by some Hon. Members,

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): We're surprised you know that much.

MR. CHABOT: Just a moment. I bring out a statement and you haven't allowed me ample time. You're anticipating what I'll be saying. I'll tell you. Just relax. Don't get jumpy. It says this:

"Eric Kierans, a former cabinet Minister in the federal Liberal government, has urged that Manitoba bring all the province's mineral resources back under effective public ownership and control within 10 years and set up Crown corporations for basic mining. Kierans, also former Quebec revenue Minister and president of the Montreal and Canadian stock exchanges, who has been appointed economic advisor to the B.C. government, makes the recommendation in a 50-page report on a study of natural resource policy made at the request of Manitoba's NDP government."

Now, he has suggested in Manitoba that they take over the mining industry over a period of 10 years. I asked the question yesterday whether Kierans had been engaged.

[Ms. Brown in the chair]

But it has to do with the overall economic climate that might take place in the Province of British Columbia. Don't you think that some of the legislation and some of the statements made by the Premier of British Columbia relative to take-overs would affect the economic climate in British Columbia? Certainly.

It's quite obvious, and I know the Premier knows as well as I do, that even though Mr. Kierans was a former cabinet Minister in Ottawa and in the Quebec government as well, he is now being paid by the B.C. Government as an advisor on economic policy. He voted…well, just a moment. That's not true. Just a moment.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That statement is not true. That question has been canvassed in this House already. Mr. Kierans is not in the employment of the Province of British Columbia.

MR. CHABOT: Just one moment. In reply to

[ Page 867 ]

questions and on the order paper it was stated that he had received no salary but an honorarium is to be discussed. There are questions relative to his economic advice. Will he be paid?

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Highways): Ask me on my estimates.

MRS. JORDAN: Oh, keep quiet.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Do you want to sit down?

MR. CHABOT: Let me finish. Quite obviously his philosophy is much like yours. Last election, you know when he was voting in Montreal, in a constituency in Quebec, he made the statement that he wasn't going to vote for his former colleague, Pierre Elliott Trudeau, but that he was going to vote NDP.

AN HON. MEMBER: Anything wrong with that?

MR. CHABOT: No. He's a free man. But it goes to show you that his thinking is not too far off yours.

Do you support, Mr. Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Nimsick), the takeover of the mining industry by the provincial government? Do you support that?

MS. CHAIRWOMAN: Order.

AN HON. MEMBER: He says yes.

MR. CHABOT: He says yes.

MS. CHAIRWOMAN: Would the Hon. Member please address the Chair?

MR. CHABOT: Yes, Ms. Chairwoman, I'll address the Chair. People in British Columbia are really concerned. I think that the Premier should level with us as to whether Mr. Kierans will be coming to British Columbia and setting up an overall economic policy for the new government; whether the economic policy will be one of takeover of some of the primary industries in the Province of British Columbia; whether they're going to engage him in the near future.

I don't care whether he's being engaged under the Department of Industrial Development, Trade, and Commerce or not. It has to do with your responsibilities as the Minister of Finance in this province. I think it's a very important topic and one to which I think we're entitled to have some straightforward answers.

Ms. Chairwoman, the Premier did state here a couple of days ago, on the question of subsidy payments for the PGE, that he was going to pursue the matter with Ottawa. I certainly hope he will. It's a question which the former government has canvassed on numerous occasions. It's a question which I know I've raised on the floor of the House in years gone by.

However, I am a little disturbed with the weak bargaining position being established by the Premier. Because in December, 1969 a very thorough analysis and brief was prepared by the former government and presented to Ottawa on the basis of subsidies for the PGE — now the B.C. Railway. In that brief, of which I'm sure you have a copy, it was substantiated that the national government owed B.C. Railway $27,991,500.

This brief is one which I think details very seriously and very objectively what is due the Crown corporation, B.C. Railway. I'm rather alarmed really that you would start negotiating from a point of weakness, a point $9 million down from what originally has been suggested to the national government as due the B.C. Railway.

I wish you would clarify to me why you have suggested that it be $19 million — we'll move from there and probably upward. I think you should have used the figure that had been previously negotiated with the national government as being due the B.C. Railway.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Ms. Chairwoman, the approach I have taken is the one I have been left with by the previous administration. All the correspondence is available. The two positions taken by the previous government are the ones that I am taking — $19 million and up to $27 million.

My first meeting with the federal people involved Mr. Marchand, Mr. Davis, and Mr. Jamieson, and I advanced the same positions based on the same arguments. So that's it. I'm either handicapped or blessed with the position of the previous administration.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'd love to stick with it but I'm handicapped by the original request by the former administration for $19 million. I've got it by correspondence. I'll give you the letter. I was compromised by the previous government's caving in to $19 million.

Be that as it may, let's not, you and I, quibble, and I mean this seriously, because having advanced that position by the previous government — $19 million up to $27 million — there is no way that I as Premier of this province will let go of the argument that that money is due to the people of British Columbia. No way at all. It's as plain and simple as that. I answered the question, as related to negotiations, by the Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) on the same question. It was based on so much a mile.

[ Page 868 ]

Now Mr. Kierans. I have never met Mr. Kierans. He is not employed by the Government of British Columbia. As I said earlier, I anticipate meeting a lot of people, but I said yesterday — because we repeat the debate and sometimes you're not in — when I was asked about the same thing: Were you here when the same question was asked and I…

MR. CHABOT: I was here.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh. And do you remember my answer?

MS. CHAIRWOMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. BARRETT: What was my answer then?

MR. CHABOT: It was that you indicated he…

HON. MR. BARRETT: As a consultant. That's right. Then you asked me if I had ever met him and I said, "No." Then what was the next question? You wanted it again today.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'm not the Premier of Manitoba. The alarming thing is that the Member keeps on forgetting that he's being repetitive. I have never met Mr. Kierans. He is not in the employ of the Government of British Columbia. He has been used as a consultant by the Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) and the Attorney General tells me that he hasn't even submitted a bill. Now I don't know if that's a reflection on the value of his advice or not. That depends upon your own political philosophy. But that in fact is the case.

MS. CHAIRWOMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Thank you, Ms. Chairwoman. Mention was made of the Home Acquisition Grant Act a few moments ago and there was an indication from the Premier that there were going to be some changes in the accessibility of the grant moneys. May I just raise with the Premier, and he can make a note, that when this is taken under consideration, would you look at the availability of those moneys to individuals who have long-term leases from the Crown corporations upon which they build residences?

The fact of the matter is, Mr. Premier, through you, Ms. Chairwoman, if you have a lease of Crown land you qualify; but if you have lease of property which is owned by a Crown corporation, you do not. This is solely the result of technical, legalistic language in the appropriate statute. That's all that keeps them apart and I think it has to be corrected.

Ms. Chairwoman, I want to raise the matter of Howe Sound and Britannia very briefly; not to repeat the questions I asked yesterday — they are in the Hansard along with the no answers. Yesterday the Hon. Premier said that the public hearing which would be held would be into the matter of aesthetics only, and it would not deal with the economics of the Britannia port development. I accept that as your most final statement.

However, the day before, Hansard reports you differently, and I'd just like to have the record corrected. The day before you said, and I quote:

"We have made no firm decision. We are attempting to gather all the pertinent facts, lay them before the people of British Columbia, hold a public hearing and then we'll make our decision."

That's the end of the quote.

Now do I understand that that is not in fact the case but that the only public hearing will deal with the matter of aesthetics and that the economics will not be dealt with at the public hearing?

HON. MR. BARRETT: All the pertinent facts of the location at Howe Sound — and that goes beyond just Paish's report and the debate about aesthetics — there is also an engineering report, the detail of the report, all of that should be debated there. If the thing goes ahead, people who are opposed or who are in favour should see the location of roads; they should see the location of silos; they should see the location of recreational facilities. Those are the pertinent facts that I'm talking about.

There's no point in having a public hearing debating just the limitation of the aesthetics — how many ships can go by before you get upset. What they need to know is the engineering material on what's to be built there; what space is being taken up; what kind of capacity it has there. Those are all the pertinent facts. That's what I meant.

I have a report in terms of the engineering feasibility and a drawing. That will be released, again unaltered. There are comments in there that are gratuitous and I'll point those out when I release the report. But all of that information will be made public.

In terms of your first question, the deputy has agreed to look into this and see if we can come to some kind of lease arrangement.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I expected that the matter would go beyond just the narrow basis of aesthetics. What we will have at the public hearing for discussion will be the full physical layout of what B.C. Rail plans for that area. However, the matter of what it might cost, whether it is profitable —whatever that means — will not be a subject of

[ Page 869 ]

discussion?

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, because the economics of the whole matter don't confine themselves just to Howe Sound. There are other things. But we're talking about the pertinent matters relating to Howe Sound: all the engineering material, all of the pertinent facts and materials as you described, the drawings and everything else and other suggestions beyond B.C. Rail suggestions. We're not confined to just hearing B.C. Rail suggestions. There are openings for a lot of other opinions.

MR. WILLIAMS: I appreciate that and I can understand the Premier's point of view that at such a public hearing it may not be appropriate to discuss some of the financial details which will be involved in the complete operation.

I have two other questions to ask. One, can the Premier indicate that he now has estimates from B.C. Rail as to what the total capital cost will be for all the works required to transport and ship this coal?

My second question is if he has those figures and they are to form part of the negotiations with the companies which may mine the coal, is he prepared to have this discussed by the mining and railways committee of this House so that the Members may know?

I suggest, Ms. Chairwoman, that the Members of this House have a right to know. This must surely be basic to the operation of the government, the operation of the Crown corporations — that we have a right to know not after the fact, but before some of these momentous decisions are made.

It isn't simply the matter of a Crown corporation which borrows the money from the government. Year after year after year revenues of this province have been plowed into the capital stock of B.C. Rail even though we owned it all. That's an outright grant. Those are revenue moneys that could have been used for other purposes.

I think if the people have so willingly given to B.C. Rail it's just not right that all those decisions be made behind the closed doors of B.C. Rail. If you want to have the sessions in camera, that's fine. But I think we're entitled to know that the information that is given to you, Mr. Premier, as president of the railway, really stands up to analysis and examination.

The First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer), in connection with matters he raised about work that's being done in the north, raised serious doubts as to the ability of B.C. Rail to make estimates. You yourself indicated that this matter was being looked into and that Mr. Minty was in Vancouver looking into this whole thing right now. Well, if their estimates in that case are so bad, maybe their estimates of costs with regard to Britannia and the whole Sukunka thing are questionable too.

If you want to have the hearings in camera, that's fine with us and we can treat the matter confidentially. But let's examine and see whether we can accept the basis of the decision that you must make.

HON. MR. BARRETT: It's a decision that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council must make and that's delegated. There are estimates. I have checked the estimates. I have given the House as much information as I can in terms of negotiations we're in. My friend, through you, Ms. Chairwoman, knows very well that no government in the middle of negotiations would go into committee.

The matter has to be scrutinized. The government is responsible to make decisions. We're cautious. We're not making frivolous decisions based on where we found ourselves because of political commitments. The matter is one that is being canvassed with a great deal of caution, professional assistance and just straight horse sense. There's no way that we could go into a House committee in terms of where these negotiations are at this point.

MR. WILLIAMS: I appreciate that you're getting the best consulting service you can get. But let me say, Ms. Chairwoman, that the consultants that you have advising British Columbia Rail with reference to the Britannia site are the same consultants that put British Columbia Rail into Squamish and into the Mamquam blind channel.

That's the way they take their instructions. They take them from officials of B.C. Rail. They will give you whatever answers you want on an engineering basis. That's right. You say, "Build me a port there." They'll tell you how to build it and they'll tell you exactly what it will cost but they aren't going to give you any gratuitous advice as to whether it's a good idea or not. As to whether those estimates are right or wrong, that can only be tested if you're prepared to disclose what they are because you don't know whether they're right or wrong.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, that's your opinion. But I'm not prepared to cast reflection on professionals who work as consultants to the government. I think that's a mistake and I hope you don't mean it that way. When anybody asks for professional consultants, the frame of reference is given to the professional consultant and the professional consultant gives the answer.

I hope that there's no attempt — and I don't believe there is any attempt — to interpret that their professional advice is really not needed, that it's some kind of game, that the advice is such that it's just a cover for a decision to be made. That's certainly not the motivation by this Government and I don't think it was the motivation of the other government. I certainly do not know of any professional who will

[ Page 870 ]

allow himself to be used that badly — certainly not the lawyers that we've engaged privately to assist us.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I have yet to find a lawyer who wouldn't offer his opinion for a fee. The only kind of thing where I've seen that condition is in a courtroom when two psychiatrists are hired to either prosecute or defend a defendant. If the Crown hires the psychiatrist, there's a predilection that he'll come out saying that the guy is sane and ready to stand trial. If the defence hires the psychiatrist, the idea is he should come out and say that he's insane and shouldn't stand trial.

I don't buy that theory. I don't think professionals operate that way.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, I do. I do think there is a professional ethic. We're asking for professional advice. We're getting professional advice. I would not like the idea cast — I'm sure not intentionally — that somehow they're giving a reflection of what the Government wants. There has never been a statement by me to any consultant that I've dealt with. Unless you can bring evidence to the contrary — and I'm sure you can't…

AN HON. MEMBER: What are the terms of reference?

HON. MR. BARRETT: The terms of reference to the scientists dealing with it are in terms of the location of the port, in the same manner that was dealt with with Mr. Davis on every single step of the way. I just don't understand how you attempt to twist that.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I certainly didn't.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's exactly why, because it's a matter of ecology. It is the nature of the issue that there should not be any terms.

But when you hire an engineering firm and you're finding out how much it costs to build a bridge, then you expect them to tell you how much it costs. But you don't tell them that we want the bridge to be safe and we want the bridge this, that and everything, but aside from that we only want x number of dollars spent. Not at all. We certainly have not given that kind of advice to any of the consultants we've asked. None at all.

I just don't want to leave the impression that somehow we're compromising professionals. I think it's a mistake.

MS. CHAIRWOMAN: Shall vote 2 pass?

MR. PHILLIPS: Before we have the vote, and I certainly don't want to prolong it, would the Premier give me the courtesy of commenting on the question I asked him last night with regard to passing on of farms after the death — if you're going to take it into consideration.

Because of your comments on the economics of the railway and Britannia Beach — you said that the economics shouldn't be discussed in public; they're not being discussed — I wonder if you would give me your comments on the questions I raised on the Paish report in directing certain comments to the teachers in Richmond. I would appreciate before your vote passed if you would give me your comments.

HON. MR. BARRETT: On terms of the house and the farm passing, they are now exempt if the house and the farm are in one unit. We are looking into the other problem in terms of the separation of the house and farm.

Mr. Paish is free to make any comment he wishes. He is not a civil servant. He is not an employee of this government as a civil servant. He is a consultant. We do not intend to compromise or suggest or advise how any consultant of this government should behave.

He is not privy to the policy decisions made by the cabinet or at the Deputy Minister level. Mr. Paish or any other consultant that we hire is free to make any comment or any interpretation that he cares to, but he's not at the policy-making level nor is he a full-time civil servant.

MR. PHILLIPS: I would ask the Premier, if you were having a specialist do a survey on the finances of British Columbia wouldn't you expect him to keep his comments to himself? Now this is a very important part, he could vote afterwards…

HON. MR. BARRETT: On the contrary, Mr. Member. It seems to be that your opinion and the view of the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Williams) are in conflict either in terms of theory or in practice. It is not the intention of this government, when hiring a consultant for a specific job, to tell that consultant what his personal frame of reference can be in terms of his own behavior and his own comments. It's just as simple as that.

MS. CHAIRWOMAN: Shall vote 2 pass?

Vote 2 approved.

[ Page 871 ]

[Mr. Dent in the chair]

ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 57 pass? Vote 57 approved.

Votes 58 to 60 inclusive approved.

On vote 61:

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Boundary-Similkameen.

MR. F.X. RICHTER (Boundary-Similkameen): The past practice has been to call the vote, the number of the vote, and the amount, as we have had in the past, so that the Chairman can then call the passage of the vote.

Vote 61: Consumer taxation, $1,676,440.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for South Peace River.

MR. PHILLIPS: Here again I raised a couple of points last night. I would like to have the Minister of Finance comment on the tax on mobile homes before we pass this vote. Do you have any intention of looking into it, of taking it off, considering it is real estate, and also the tax on Hydro bills and telephone bills?

HON. MR. BARRETT: The whole matter of mobile home taxation is currently under review by the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer). He has just had a meeting this last weekend concluding a series of meetings of representatives of mobile home associations, and we expect some changes. The changes will be forthcoming. There are recommendations that the cabinet has not yet met on.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall Vote 61 pass?

Vote 61 approved.

Vote 62: Real Property Taxation, $583,056.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for North Okanagan.

MRS. JORDAN: Perhaps the Minister of Finance would clarify for me whether the subject of taxation of Indian reserve lands comes under this vote. If so, would you clarify the position that the Government is now taking in regards to taxation of the lands belonging to the North Okanagan Indian Reserve on Okanagan Lake as that land is leased without legal leases to citizens of British Columbia and other parts of Canada and the United States.

If the Premier is not aware, people have been using the Indian land for summer cottages and it did appear before the court. The right of the province to tax reserve lands when they are used by non-status and non-reserve Indians was upheld, and this was amended by Bill No. 3 last year.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Premier.

HON. MR. BARRETT: The native Indians who live on the reserve lands are exempt. When they lease lands, they are taxable. The problem that we're faced with now is getting the information and I'm advised that the department and Mr. Calder are presently looking into it. It's the difficulty in getting information.

MRS. JORDAN: I think, Mr. Premier, that that has been the problem all along and is what brought it to a head. I wonder if you would give me your commitment to keep me informed as these negotiations are taking place.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Any time you want to write the department, we'll keep you informed. My information is that we have difficulty getting on the land.

MRS. JORDAN: That's true.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, nobody's been scalped so far, but…

MRS. JORDAN: Nearly.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, but apparently the peace pipe is being smoked with my colleague, the Minister without Portfolio (Hon. Mr. Calder).

MRS. JORDAN: It is a highly sensitive situation and I would suggest it is a situation where white people are exploiting in their own favour. I would like to be kept informed if this could be passed on from your office.

HON. MR. BARRETT: It's going on. The Minister without Portfolio is now directly involved. Apparently they're meeting to resolve the question of somebody getting on the land. That's the hurdle that we're trying to overcome.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 62 pass?

Vote 62 approved.

Vote 63: Income Tax Branch, $361,816.

[ Page 872 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 63 pass?

Vote 63 approved.

On vote 64: Assessment Equalization Act, $296,910.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for North Okanagan.

MRS. JORDAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman — a specific question in relation to the policy that the Minister of Finance will adopt. The first one is, when you speak in terms of removing the limit of 10 per cent on commercial property, does this include tourist commercial? That's my first question. Then if it doesn't, I have no further questions. If it does, I do.

HON. MR. BARRETT: There's a bill on the order paper which refers to residential and farm. We'll handle this at that time.

MRS. JORDAN: Will I be able to discuss the tourist commercial aspect at that time?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The matter will be able to be discussed at that time.

Shall vote 64 pass?

Vote 64 approved.

On vote 65: Purchasing Commission, $596,826.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Cariboo.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): I mentioned earlier in one of the debates about the tender system in the Purchasing Commission, and what I would like to ask the Hon. Premier is it appears there are two sets of specifications used, and I wonder why.

I particularly refer to the forestry department which with one set of specifications can apparently get better quality equipment than in this case of the highways department.

Now, I think this is the proper place to bring this up because the Purchasing Commission issues all the tender calls. It's quite obvious to me and, I might say, to the public servants in the field. All the people in the highways department know they are getting lesser quality equipment than the forestry department, and I would like to know why this exists.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Each department draws its own specifications. It's not the responsibility of the Purchasing Commission to draw the specifications. Each department must present their own specifica-

[ Page 873 ]

tions to the Purchasing Commission.

The Purchasing Commission, I'm advised, only intercepts those specifications if they feel that there is something they have to question in it. It is the departmental responsibility, and the Purchasing Commission facilitates the departmental requests.

If there is a difference in terms of forestry and highways, then you ask the Minister of forestry and the Minister of Highways, either one or both, why the discrepancy in terms of specifications.

The Purchasing Commission is only the facilitator, not the initiator.

MR. FRASER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The only observation I have — would you see that the man that draws the specs for highways gets fired?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall Vote 65 pass?

Vote 65 approved.

On vote 66: Langford warehouse, $10.

Vote 66 approved.

On vote 67: Homeowner assistance, $395,060.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Cariboo.

MR. FRASER: I assume this is where the second mortgages and so on come under. I've had a case brought to my attention, and I'm wondering how many there are, where a person sells a home and the buyer makes arrangements for a second mortgage.

The person in the case that I have owned the home outright. When the mortgage was granted and the cheque was issued it went to the buyer of the home but the seller still hasn't got the money. Now they have to make recourse to garnishee the wages. In this case it happens to be a public servant who received the second mortgage funds and never turned them over to the seller or the owner of the home. It happens to be a recent widow. She is told her only recourse is to get it by garnishing the salary of this public servant. There seems to me to be a real loophole here, Mr. Chairman, to the Premier. If there's much of this going on, I think it's terrible.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I would suggest that that particular case be brought to the attention of the department. If there are other problems they should be brought to the immediate attention of the department.

MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, may I just say that

you got a letter in your office this morning about the case I am referring to.

HON. MR. BARRETT: For another reason I haven't had a chance to get to my mail today. I hope tomorrow to catch up on a great deal of my mail.

Vote 67 approved.

Vote 68: Director of data processing, all departments, $28,704, — approved.

On vote 69: Department of Finance, government agencies, $3,072,027.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Cariboo.

MR. FRASER: Under government agencies, I'd like to say in passing that I think all our government offices do an excellent job, the staff and so on, but I think they can do a better job. I've raised it in this House before in prior years. I cannot understand why we cannot give better service to the citizens of this province by having all these government offices open during the lunch hour.

As an example, in my riding of Cariboo we have a lot of loggers. They go to work at 5 o'clock in the morning. They come home at 6 o'clock at night. How are they going to do their business with the provincial government? They have to arrange to take a day off work, or a half-day, or an hour to do it. It would be a great convenience to the public if it were open in the lunch hour.

Now the answer I got before was that this wasn't convenient to the public servants. I don't think this is a proper answer at all. Let's be concerned with the general public. It's certainly not convenient to them and I'd like, through you, Mr. Chairman, to request the Premier to give this serious consideration and stagger the lunch hour. Everybody else is open during lunch hour. All municipal offices are open. All business houses in the province are open. What's so different about the largest business of all that they can just arbitrarily close from 12:00 till 1:10 so that they don't have the trouble of supervising staff over a two hour period? I think that's a real weak excuse, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. BARRETT: This is a matter that has been complained of before. There was no change in government policy. I can say that at the present time members of the public can phone ahead and someone will remain back during the lunch hour and accommodate that person. Beyond that I would say there will be continuing discussions on the problem. But people can phone ahead and someone will remain back during that lunch hour — if they call ahead of time.

MR. FRASER: In closing, I particularly think of the citizens in my riding where there aren't any telephones.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's another matter of public debate at this moment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, on the same matter, could the Premier indicate whether or not his department may also be considering the relocation of some of the boundaries of the agencies as listed in this vote? I refer to one in particular. It serves people who live in the Pemberton Valley, for example. There was a time when the main route was usually north through to Lillooet. The Lillooet agency is the one where the government business is carried on. Yet now, since the highway has been open and so on, the tendency is that the people come south to Squamish and on to Vancouver. As a consequence, the continued use of the government agent's office in Lillooet by these people is no longer a convenience at all; it's very much an inconvenience, because you only get there by train, although there's a pretty good logging road available now. I think that we should, as traffic patterns change throughout the province, that we should give some consideration to shifting agency business.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Premier.

HON. MR. BARRETT: They are not on defined boundaries that are rigid. There are now requests for six new agencies and some of them will be opened. Lillooet is one of the ones being considered.

Vote 69 approved.

Vote 70: Court of Revision, $52,500 — approved.

Vote 71: Assessment of Appeal Board, $69,250 — approved.

Vote 72: Public accounts, estimates, bonds, revenue receipts, licenses — $130,000 — approved.

Vote 73: Temporary assistants, $220,000 — approved.

Vote 74: Incidentals and contingencies, $100,000 — approved.

Vote 75: Civil Service Superannuation Act, $10 — approved.

[ Page 874 ]

Vote 76: Member of the Legislative Assembly Superannuation Act, $10 — approved.

Vote 77: Interest on trust deposits, $1,200,000 — approved.

On vote 78: Cheque reconciliation expenses, $40,000.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for West Vancouver—Howe Sound.

MR. WILLIAMS: There was no amount estimated for expenditure in the last fiscal year. Would the Premier advise us what this expenditure is for?

HON. MR BARRETT: The sorting of cheques done by banks. There's been a big upsurge in the number of cheques that involve sorting since the Mincome programme. These are charges that we have to pay.

MR. WILLIAMS: Is it a bank charge?

HON. MR. BARRETT: It's a bank charge. Yes.

Vote 78 approved.

On vote 79: Salary contingencies and adjustments, all departments, $11 million.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for North Peace River.

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There seems to be a substantial increase in this vote this year from $9.7 million to $11 million. If the Premier could tell us — I presume this vote now covers the increases that you will be paying the civil service during the year. Could you give us an idea of what percentage figure you have in mind or what has been agreed to in that respect?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, nothing has been agreed to. We set aside a sum and we will be involved as I understand it in bargaining. That's where it stands.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, we'll try and keep the ballpark as small as we can.

Vote 79 approved.

Vote 80: Expense contingencies $175,000 — approved.

Vote 81: Motor vehicles and accessories, $100,000 — approved.

On vote 82: Rural power subsidy, $3 million,

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for South Peace River.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Chairman, I notice that there's no increase in the rural power subsidy this year. I would like to ask the Premier if he's going to look into the Lone Prairie Power extension. He has a letter on that particular extension. It's held up due to the fact that about 6 1/2 miles of this line goes through Crown land.

This is the last major rural power extension that is really required in the South Peace area. As I've said in this House before, Mr. Chairman, and I'll say again, the people in that area look at those power lines, those sentinels passing overhead, taking the power from the Peace River dam out of the area down to the lower mainland and yet in this particular neighbourhood, in this particular village, the residents of Lone Prairie still go without power. I wonder if the Premier would make some comment. Well I know the comment I'd like the Premier to make and I'm sure he'll make it. He'll just get up and say, "Yes it's going to go ahead." Would you do that, Mr. Premier? Would you…

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, we will follow through the question raised by the Member on hydro. Hydro administers the funds. It's the Lone…

MR. PHILLIPS: Lone Prairie.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Lone Prairie power extension, six miles. How many people in the area, are they following the formula? Is that the…

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, the formula can be followed. There is an area where there is nobody, they want the people of the area to pay the powerline costs through about 61/2 miles of Crown land. Now this is really the reason it has been held up.

HON. MR. BARRETT: How long has it been held up?

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, it's been held up since — well, it has never gone through. It's always been held up. If you know what I mean. The application went in about two years ago. You have a letter on it Mr. Premier. I haven't got all the statistics with me. You've been moving ahead so fast that I haven't had

[ Page 875 ]

time to go get my file.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I was tempted to make a comment, but I won't. (Laughter). I'll suggest that it will be looked into.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for North Okanagan.

MRS. JORDAN: I too would like to express some concern that this fund isn't enlarged this year. I think you have to take into consideration that there has been an aggressive assistance programme in rural electrification over the years. We are now getting to the point that if we are going to provide power for the last few remaining people, as much as possible, these last power lines are longer and more expensive than ever.

While the Premier is looking into things under this point, I wonder if you would look into the situation — and I have one in the area I represent — where you have people leasing government land. In this instance, they lease government land on a lake where the government owns the majority of the property. They serve as a public park-site as well as having a lodge. These people took it over — it isn't serviced by electricity by the way — they built up the lodge, they cleaned up the grounds and they made major improvements.

They were burnt out two years ago, at a great loss to themselves. They didn't run away. They turned around and rebuilt the lodge and rebuilt the cabins and have put in new park grounds. They are now faced with the problem of putting in either hydro power or their own generating unit because of pollution control regulations and health regulations.

It has about a 40-day income year, at best. Probably considerably less, as our last two summers have been going. It's strictly fishing, and as I mentioned they do provide a public service.

Their lease is fairly high, and you can imagine if they put in their own power unit and they did leave, this is likely to go with the property and the assets of the property, for which they will only get a limited price because it is essentially a government establishment, run by private people.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: Yes, I've taken it to Hydro. They now have power within five miles of them. But they are only between five and seven families in that interim five miles.

HON. MR. BARRETT: What Lake is it?

MRS. JORDAN: It is the Echo Lake Lodge on Echo Lake.

HON. MR. BARRETT: When was this last turned down by Hydro?

MRS. JORDAN: They are reviewing it again. It was turned down last year. We're reviewing it again this year. I go back every year. But still the problem arises that there are not enough people on the line — the five miles — to make it economically feasible. These people all along this line are marginal farmers.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Have they been turned down this year?

MRS. JORDAN: Yes, on the basis that unless they can get more…

HON. MR. BARRETT: What year were they turned down last?

MRS. JORDAN: Well they were turned down last year and the year before that and the year before that. Don't play games, Mr. Premier.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I've allowed latitude, but would the Hon. Member address the Chair please.

MRS. JORDAN: It will be turned down this year unless there are more people in the area, and there are not more people in the area. I'm just asking you to have a review of this policy in light of these circumstances. I would like your commitment on it. Not your silly answers.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. Shall Vote 82 pass?

Vote 82 approved.

On vote 83: metropolitan trust subsidy, $2 million.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Second Member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): I would like to ask the Hon. Minister of Finance one question after making a brief comment.

It seems to me that soon in metropolitan Vancouver and especially in the downtown core, the situation will be serious indeed with respect to traffic congestion and the use of the automobile. I find it most imperative that some general plan — I realize the Hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) is presently in the throes of preparing one — but some general plan for mass public transit for Vancouver be established. I would ask what plans are being made at this stage; whether any announcement

[ Page 876 ]

can be made. Secondly, what estimates of the cost to the province, the provincial Treasury, is being made with respect to public transit? I've heard figures such as $200 million and $300 million that may be expended for public transit in Vancouver within the next 5 to 8 years.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Premier.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that the Member ask the questions of the Minister of Municipal Affairs. He has been delegated by the cabinet to that area.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 83 pass?

Vote 83 approved.

On vote 84: Elderly Citizens Renters Grant Act, $3,500,000.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for North Okanagan.

MRS. JORDAN: Would the Premier please tell us how many people received the elderly citizens grant last year? How much was paid in over all expense to that account? What was the estimated number of people that will receive that grant this year?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Premier

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, you'll have to put that question on the order paper to get the exact answers. Sorry I don't have the information with me.

MRS. JORDAN: 1'd like to ask you a general question, Mr. Premier. Why did you not raise the elderly citizens grant this year? There is an acute apartment shortage in British Columbia. There are a number of reasons for this, The papers are full of it. Essentially, they are in the area where it started when the federal government changed the Income Tax Act.

There was no way that an apartment building that was losing money could be written off from any other form of income tax. The shortage is compounded by the fact that if people want to build an apartment building and they go to the city assessors to find out what their projected taxes will be within that year.

Frequently they can't get an answer and it has been brought to my attention that these often run in a difference as much as $10,000, $15,000 and $20,000 from the original estimate — which puts an increased burden of cost on the building and thus the tenant.

There also is a feeling of uneasiness in the economic community in British Columbia. The government has talked, before becoming government and since becoming government, about rent controls. This has caused people to raise their rents in anticipation of rent controls. As the Hon. Minister of Finance knows, it also has caused an undesirable use of the Strata Titles Act. It is causing a lot of people to be literally turfed out on the streets from these apartments.

Mr. Premier, your government has increased the pressure on this area by a bill before this House which will relieve the control on assessment increases. This is putting a further increase on the storage of apartments all over British Columbia. It's not just in the metropolitan area now, it's in the smaller communities.

I am really amazed. When the Premier was a Member of the Opposition, he frequently talked about the plight of the elderly people who rent. I am sure he is concerned about them. But I cannot understand, with this in mind and with this knowledge and in light of some actions that have taken place in British Columbia, and the knowledge that these apartments are becoming more and more scarce and that the rents are going up — why you haven't done something about it?

Mr. Minister of Finance, I ask you for a commitment. Will you please, for this interim period until there are enough apartments for people, raise the Elderly Citizens Renters Grant Act to $100 a month.

It was a problem before. It's growing greater. It's a problem now, it is going to grow greater in the future. This is also a commitment that was given by the former government when this Act was established — that there would be an annual increment in the Elderly Citizens Renters Grant Act to help alleviate the problem of older people who can't afford to own their own homes, or don't want to own their own homes.

I would ask you for this commitment of this increase this year, until such time as some form of relief can be worked out for older people who have to rent apartments — as far as a more abundant supply of units is concerned — to take the pressure off these rent increases and to meed the commitment made to the older people of this province by the former Social Credit government and not to tie this in any way to income — that it apply across the board to all citizens over the age of 65 who are renting. Will the Premier give me a statement on this?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Premier.

HON. MR. BARRETT: It is the Government's commitment to guarantee a minimum income as a first step of adequate services to senior citizens. We've done that and we're continuing this programme as well.

[ Page 877 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 84 pass?

MRS. JORDAN: Does this mean that there will be no increase in the Elderly Citizens Renters Grant Act in the year 1973 in light of this current crisis that there is in British Columbia? Some people who are supposed to be getting the supplementary are getting another $3 or $4. That's not going to take care of their housing. Does this mean, Mr. Premier and Minister of Finance, that there will be no assistance to the elderly renters of this province? Is that your policy?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member be seated for a moment? Shall vote 84 pass?

Vote 84 approved.

Vote 85: The Nancy Sloan Act, $3,556, approved.

On Vote 214: Public Utilities Commission; Funeral Services Act, Pre-arranged, Cemeteries Act, Public Utilities Act, $306,642.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for North Peace River.

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to bring to the attention of the Premier one particular matter with regard to the Public Utilities Commission and a duty that I think they should perhaps be performing.

The gas company which serves Fort Nelson obtains their gas from the plant at 285, which does all the processing and scrubbing of natural gas up there now, and they serve the town as a utility. It's a private utility firm incorporated in the Province of British Columbia. The mayor and council of Fort Nelson are very concerned over the price they have to pay for natural gas in Fort Nelson as compared to other parts of the province.

I'm told that part of it is the result of heavy expenditure in transmission lines and the system within the town as compared to other places because the number of people that were available to take gas originally was quite small in number compared to many other places where they've had natural gas installations.

I know that the council have made their problems known I believe, to the Premier himself and the Public Utilities Commission. I think really what they would like is a hearing. The gas company voluntarily, about two months ago, did reduce the price of natural gas slightly to the consumers in Fort Nelson. They did this though without giving Fort Nelson an opportunity to present their side of the case or indicate in a formal matter what they thought should be charged for natural gas or why the reduction should be greater than it is.

I think it would only be fair to a budding municipality to assist the mayor and council in Fort Nelson to see that they do get a proper hearing between themselves and the gas company before the PUC to allow them to make their case in a proper manner. That's all that I'm suggesting.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, through you, Mr. Chairman, the whole matter of energy control is under review. I anticipate an Act before the end of this session. I would suggest that under that Act there are new avenues. If there are not, then raise it again. But we'll be dealing with a new Act this session.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Boundary-Similkameen.

MR. RICHTER : I wonder if the Premier could tell us whether the Government has received a report and recommendations from the Public Utilities Commission in regard to the hearings they held last year on the Vancouver Island gas pipeline.

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, we have not yet received a report.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 214 pass?

Vote 214 approved.

On vote 215: Motor Carrier Act, $391,140.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for South Peace River.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I've complained about this Act before. I don't see why it is necessary — I've said it before and I'll say it again — to license a farm truck. Why does he have to buy an "H" plate to carry his produce to market?

The basis of this Act is to regulate public carriers so that they can be bonded, so that they know that the mail is going to get through on time, so that the buses can run on time if there's a schedule, so that they know that there's going to be a truck running carrying their produce every day. I can certainly understand the purpose of this Act.

Plus, it also produces a great deal of revenue.

But I still can't understand for the life of me why an individual farmer or an individual contractor has to buy an "H" plate to haul his own merchandise. You get the case where one farmer cannot go and carry farm produce for another farmer… (Laughter). I don't know what's so funny about that…unless he gets paid for it.

[ Page 878 ]

I asked the last time I was in this House that this be regulated and that individual trucks down to, say, a capacity of three ton, where they're individually owned by an individual producer, by an individual farmer, do not have to buy an "H" plate. Maybe the Minister would care to comment on this.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Premier.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I don't know anything about it but I'll try to find out for you. We're at a blank.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for South Peace River.

MR. PHILLIPS: I appreciate the Premier's honesty and sincerity and I hope you do look into it. I think you'll find out how stupid it is when you look into it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Cariboo.

MR. FRASER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. To the Premier, I've mentioned before that I can't understand why this Motor Carrier Act is under the Public Utilities Commission. I would like you to sincerely consider transferring it to where it properly belongs — to the Commercial Transport department. Again, for the convenience of the general public and in view of your recent remark that you don't know anything about it as the Minister, I think that it properly belongs over there.

This is the licensing, as we know, for trucks and taxis and so on and so forth. It has no place in here whatsoever and I'd like you to consider transferring the jurisdiction.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I think you may be right.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 215 pass?

Vote 215 approved.

ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

On vote 3: the Department of Agriculture, the Minister's office, $54,968.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for South Peace River.

MR. PHILLIPS: Agriculture is a very important industry in this province. I think that before we pass the Minister's salary, we should have some discussion on it certainly.

It has been my feeling, Mr. Chairman, that agriculture sort of plays second fiddle to most other industries in the province. I sometimes think that when the Ministers of Agriculture are appointed that they're sort of the last person they want to give a job to. Somebody that they want to find a job for, they say, "Well, we'll give him the Minister of Agriculture's job because that isn't that important anyway."

I think that attitude should be changed. I think that agriculture should probably take the number one spot in this province. After all, it is not only the basis of economy in many areas but it is the basis of a way of life in many areas.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: What was that?

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, we're not going to discuss Bill No. 42 right now, I hope. Are we?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member please address the Chair?

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) might get away with it but I'm sure that the Member for South Peace River would be called to order immediately.

I certainly appreciate the things that this Government has said about agriculture, that it wants to preserve agriculture as a way of life. I don't know whether freezing their farm land is going to preserve them. You cannot preserve a farmer by freezing him to death.

When you get right down to it, Mr. Chairman, there was really not much in the budget in dollars and cents, and I cannot see much right in these estimates that is really going to preserve farming as a way of life.

In Saskatchewan they've put their money where their thoughts are and they've come up with $15 million to preserve agriculture as a way of life. I don't want to get into the cattle industry which is agriculture, but I appreciate that there is a bill before the House to assist farmers getting into the cattle industry. As I say, I can't discuss it at this time.

I would like to suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the Minister of Agriculture along with the other Ministers of Agriculture in all of the provinces, get together with the federal Minister of Agriculture and spend some time — and I don't mean just a short conference, but really have a soul-searching session — on where agriculture in this province is going to go.

It's unfortunate that we have another change of agricultural Minister in Ottawa just recently due to the election — maybe it's fortunate. But I mean it's

[ Page 879 ]

unfortunate that we had a change at that particular time because now we have another new Minister of Agriculture. The other one was just getting to know his job a little bit.

The reason I say that I don't think we know where we're going in agriculture and that I don't think there's enough attention paid to it, is that just about two years ago the then Minister of Agriculture put out a plea to western farmers to plant grass instead of grain. That was just two short years ago.

As a matter of fact they were going to pay the farmers $5 per acre for planting grass instead of grain. Now, just two short years later, the now Minister of Agriculture comes out and says, "My gracious! I hope that all of you farmers in western Canada will plant grain." This is just within a space of two short years.

The reason I am bringing this up is that, as I say, this is not proper planning. I think that agriculture should have some long-range planning. If the Ministers are going to change every second election, there should be a body of civil servants who work both on the provincial level and on the federal level and have at their disposal a group of top economists who can do some predicting. I think this is one of the problems we have in agriculture.

Right now there's a shortage of beef in British Columbia. We produce only about 25 per cent of the beef that we consume. Mr. Minister, you can correct me if I'm wrong, but what could happen here — and don't get me wrong; I'm not against the bill that you have in the House — but what could happen here in a very short period of time is that a lot of farmers could go into the cattle industry so that we could be supplying all of the needs in British Columbia.

Then the next thing that happens is that there's a glut on the market and down goes the price of beef. It's happened before. So that all of the farmers who have diversified, changed — and you just don't step into the cattle industry overnight; it's a science all of its own. You know, Mr. Minister of Agriculture, the difference there is between raising grain and having the winter off, and raising cattle.

As I say, what I am afraid is going to happen here is that we're going to put some emphasis on the cattle industry, and as soon as everybody gets into the cattle industry the price is going to go. We have an instance right now in the Peace River area where farmers up there, if they were producing lambs for market, could be very prosperous. They're only producing a very small percentage of what the lower mainland can consume, in spite of the fact, Mr. Chairman, that they are competing against lamb flown in here from New Zealand and Australia.

They can still compete. It's a better quality because it's fresh, and the price is competitive. The reason that they can compete of course is that New Zealand and Australia directly subsidize the lamb industry. Every bit of mutton that comes over here is subsidized.

Supposing these farmers develop a good lamb market. Then all that has to happen, if they shove out the market that New Zealand and Australia have, Mr. Chairman, is that the New Zealand and Australian governments will take a look at this and say, "Oh, my gracious, we've lost our market up there in Canada. It's being supplied by the Peace River farmers." So they'll up the subsidy, and then the lamb will start coming back and there'll be a glut on the market and our farmers, who have gone into it, will be in dire straits again.

The reason I am asking for some body to plan for long-range planning is that if the farmers in western Canada, and in particular in New Brunswick, could be assured of a market and could be assured of firm prices, then they would be able to go into the industry and plan it on a long-term basis.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: What was that? Mining? Planning. That's what I'm talking about, long-range planning backed up by market research; backed up by some kind of a governing body that isn't going to change every time the government changes.

There have been many suggestions made in this Legislature about how farming in various areas can be helped. I'll mention again the cubing plant which we were talking about for the Peace River area. This cubing plant is going to solve some of the problems in the Peace River area but it's not going to solve all the problems. These are short stopgap methods.

What I am asking for, Mr. Chairman — and I'm going to sit down very shortly and ask the Minister of Agriculture to comment on this — is some long-range, solid planning backed up by a body that, regardless of whether the government changes or not, that body's going to be able to go on. It is going to be able to assure the farmer of markets.

Then you can take each segment of the industry, whether it be raising lambs or cubing alfalfa, and you can perfect it. The farmers can perfect it because they know they're going to be able to stay in that market for a number of years.

I say this has been the main problem that we've had with agriculture. Somebody gets up and complains about agriculture in a specific thing and the Minister of Finance or the then government says, "Okay. Well, we'll give them some dough and we'll keep them quiet for a while." This isn't what I'm asking for. It's not going to solve the problem.

I'll probably have some supplementary questions. As a matter of fact I know I'll have. But I, at this time, would like the Minister of Agriculture to make some comments on the points that I have brought up.

[ Page 880 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Minister of Agriculture.

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Chairman, the Member's concern seems to be really that we have a federal government that we have to reckon with in this country. He has been asking about co-operation with the federal government and about trying to arrange planning with the federal government. He recognizes the problems himself in planning with a federal government that doesn't really know how long it's going to be the government. Certainly these are problems.

One of the problems that I was made aware of soon after taking this post was the attitude that the previous government had in dealing with the federal government. They didn't really want to recognize that there was a federal government. They didn't want to co-operate. They didn't want to work with them in any way.

The result was that, not just in agriculture but in most departments, there was a feeling that perhaps there would be a new era of cooperation between the provincial government and the federal government. Certainly as the Minister of Agriculture I'm hoping that that will be reflected in new agricultural policies.

With respect to planning, yes, I agree with you. Socialists certainly do agree with long-range planning. I am pleased that you endorse the idea that we should try to plan ahead, not for six months, not for one year, not for two years but for many years. Of course there are problems in planning, too.

Who could have planned, for example, that the Peace River would have had the shortages or would not have produced the crops that it hasn't produced in the last five years?

Now the question of planting grass: the Peace River was encouraged to plant grass, not just because there was a surplus of grain in the country but because, with a history of grain crop failures in that area, it was obvious that many parts of the Peace River never should have been planted to grain.

They should have been kept in grass production. So the policy of converting them to grass, I think, was not just to reduce the amount of grain that was in the country, but also to convert some of those areas from grain into grass where they should always have been.

It is my hope when the federal Minister of Agriculture was urging Canadian farmers to grow more grain and hoping that they would vastly expand their grain production, that the people in the Peace River will not take this as encouragement to go back and plant the acres that they were paid not to plant to grain previously.

Perhaps it's not just a hope. We are considering policies at the moment that will encourage them to plant grain where they should be planting grain rather than where they should be leaving it in grass.

The shortage of beef in B.C. — again long-range planning and the problems of where beef is going to come from. It is not just a shortage in B.C., it is a shortage in Canada and, of course, even the States. There is a shortage all over of beef. Right now, with my limited knowledge of the situation, it is hard to imagine that we could expand our beef production so much that we would have a surplus that would bring the prices to the farmer down drastically.

I think we can stand a tremendous expansion in the Province of British Columbia. As you said, we are producing some 20 per cent of our own beef in this province. We can stand a tremendous expansion in B.C. — which would not be much of an expansion in the country as a whole, but it would help our farmers and help feed our own people, as long as we have the land to run the animals on and to grow the feed.

I think perhaps that is where it begins. We must have the resource in the first place.

The land subsidies, again: I am sure you are aware that this was a federal programme; that the federal government made this arrangement to allow so much in the way of lamb into the province from New Zealand and from Australia. Those countries did subsidize this. But the provincial government also has been trying to encourage lamb production in this province. In the Peace River there has been some talk of doing something about killing plants up there, of trying to up-grade facilities in the area.

Beyond that, the provincial government — the previous government — did promise to contribute something to a freight programme that would assist the farmers in flying the lamb carcasses down to the Vancouver market.

The present Government actually paid the money toward that subsidy. I think we will wait and see how the experience is and see how it is measured up there. Whether or not we continue that programme next year, I think, will depend upon the evaluation of it, the evaluation we would undertake with the people affected.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for South Peace River.

MR. PHILLIPS: If your departmental budget were increased sufficiently to allow you to contribute a group of men — we'll say five — towards an overall planning body in Canada; and if each other provincial…this has to start somewhere. Maybe you as Minister of Agriculture could start it.

I am sure that if the provinces all got together and set up this planning board — and it will take a lot of money because I think you are probably going to have to hire, as I have said before, top-notch

[ Page 881 ]

economists so that you can gather the data. You could find out what the requirements are going to be in various areas of the food industry over the next 10 to 20 years. Do you not think that Ottawa would go along with this?

Maybe this is pie in the sky, but I really feel that if Canada started this, then you could get together — I don't know whether through the United Nations or how you should do this, but I think it should be explored — so that you have a world food bank which is set up on computers, so you know what various areas of the world consume in the way of beef.

I think you are also going to have to, Mr. Minister of Agriculture — and I have felt this for some time — combine the fishing industry under agriculture, because you are actually harvesting the food of the ocean. Maybe the Department of Agriculture is wrongly named. Maybe it should be the Department of Food Production, because that is what agriculture is all about.

There is some talk now, with the affluent society that we have in British Columbia, about a number of so-called farms that do nothing but raise horses. They can't raise them for meat in this province and yet they come under the Department of Agriculture. I think more aptly the fishing industry should come under the Department of Agriculture or the Department of Food Production — call it whatever you want.

We get this properly termed; then under this "Food Production" it should be broken down into vegetables, cereal grains, livestock, poultry, et cetera, with specialists in each department; with a planning section either on a national basis or on a world basis; planning the consumption of all these products so that we know where we are going.

There is one vast thing that will hamper your planning, of course, and that is the disasters from climatic conditions in various areas. Suppose Russia has a disaster in their grain crops this year and we might not; therefore, you are setting up something. So far as I am concerned, Mr. Minister, you would make some progress in the food industry in this world. It may be hard for some people who think of agriculture as a necessary evil…it may be hard for them to grasp what I am trying to say here today.

I would like your comments on this if you would.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Minister of Agriculture.

HON. MR. STUPICH: The standing committee on agriculture, I think last year or the year before — I have forgotten now — did recommend that the name of the department be changed. Now, it is one of the things that we just haven't had too much time to think about in the last five month. There likely will be another session of the Legislature sometime possibly in the fall, if not, next spring, and by then hopefully there will have been some opportunity to consider possibly a change in name, possibly increased responsibilities. That is something that will be considered in the time ahead.

Again, I feel I have to come back, in answer to your question, to this question of cooperation with the federal government. I am not sure whether or not you are aware of it, but the previous administration just didn't feel that there was anything to be gained, really, in letting staff from our department — whatever the level of staff — meet with staff from other provinces or with the federal government staff indeed.

Examples were quoted to me where the federal government was prepared to pick up the tab on all of the costs of having a staff member attend a meeting, say in Ottawa — that is in excess of $50, the province was to pay $50. These were turned down — in the last two years in particular, automatically — without any consideration.

The Minister did not have the authority to approve travel of any kind east of Winnipeg, I believe the jurisdiction was, with respect to agriculture. Since I have been in office, I have looked at every one of these. I have had to approve all of them up to the present time. That's been the policy.

I can't recall an instance where I haven't, in discussion with the deputy or whoever has been presenting the case, agreed that something was to be gained on behalf of the agricultural industry in this province by having that particular staff representative meet with his counterparts in other provinces, in an association of western provinces for example.

At the moment there is a joint programme among the four western provinces to participate in a programme of western export research, to see what the possibilities are for exporting agricultural produce from the four western provinces.

Now this will not be nearly as important to B.C. as it will, say, to Saskatchewan because they are exporting a good deal more in the way of agricultural products than we are. Nevertheless, in the spirit of cooperation, and in the hope that someday some of our products will be able to find export markets that haven't up to this point, we are cooperating in that programme.

We have met with the federal government. We have discussed research. We have discussed not only the problem that you are talking about, the long-range planning of our own production — I'm not sure, I think you said "planned consumption." I don't quite follow you there. I don't know quite know how we can plan consumption. We have to measure it and forecast it but I don't think we can plan it. We are not quite at that stage of socialist planning yet, and I don't see how it can be done.

In any case…

[ Page 882 ]

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. STUPICH: I think you said "planned consumption" and that's the way I took it. Plan production, estimate the consumption, forecast the consumption, forecast the markets — the export markets; we are doing that. We are cooperating, particularly with the western provinces, but in any case so far with all of the other provinces, and with the federal government, in every programme.

We have suggested new areas of cooperation, new areas of discussion and we will be pursuing those as well as other ideas that come up. If you have any specific proposals other than the one of just general long-range planning, any specific ideas…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Yes, as I say, that has not stopped us to this point. If we think it is a worthwhile suggestion, then we will pick it up. To this point that has not stopped any project that been considered worthwhile.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Langley.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, two areas of concern that I would like to ask the Minister of Agriculture to comment upon. The first one has to do with the situation with regard to the broiler hatching egg producers in British Columbia 34 of them in the Fraser Valley. They all belong to an association which is very upset about their particular situation at this time.

They find themselves caught in the middle of a squabble between two marketing boards whereby the board that sets their prices, the Egg Marketing Board, has said that they must charge a certain price for their eggs. Yet the board that sets the prices for the hatcheries who have to buy the eggs says they won't pay that much.

So we have two marketing boards who have two different ideas about what the price of these eggs must be and here we have these poor hatching producers in the middle. It's not their squabble. It's not their concern, yet they are fighting a battle of principle for somebody else. As a result they are being forced into a situation, and it's at those producers' expense that they're being forced into that situation.

The one marketing board, the Broiler Hatcheries Marketing Board, finds itself in the marvelous position of having the best of two worlds whereby it can protect its price from both ends. It protects it both buying and selling. I don't think that was ever the intention of what a marketing board should be able to do.

I want to make it clear, Mr. Chairman, that all of these farmers think that the marketing boards have done a tremendous job for the farmers and for their industry as well, But in this particular situation they find that they're in a lot of trouble and it's through no fault of their own. They've arrived at a kind of a shaky settlement at the moment whereby they are finally selling their eggs but for a price which is far less than allows them to make any kind of a living.

I might just quote some statistics for a moment, Mr. Chairman. In a recent study it showed that the average gross revenue of these broiler hatching–egg producers is about $42,000. Their expenditures — and this doesn't include any farm labour at all, and we know that all of the family works on the farm in most of these operations — are $33,400, which leaves them a net operating revenue for the year of $8,600.

If you couple that with all of the fantastic increases in feed that these people have had to put up with as well — I can think of one seven week period just after November of last year when there was a 20 per cent increase in feed. That increase has been going on steadily, steadily, steadily ever since that time. Rape seed meal in one year increased 108 per cent. Soybean meal — 86 per cent in one year. Fish meal — 62 per cent in one year. It's a terrible situation because the cost of feed is about 61 or 62 per cent of the cost of producing these eggs. So any increase in feed prices is drastic for these people.

We talked about the total revenue left of about $8,600. That makes the income to the farmer about 19 cents a dozen, for the information of those people who are complaining about egg prices. Their capital investments — most of them average about $80,000 in these farms — is a pretty hefty investment. The Egg Marketing Board tells these people that they should have an $8,000 annual return on an investment like that.

Obviously, if you take maybe even $5,800 a year, which would be the minimum wage, to pay these people eight hours a day, seven days a week — and none of us have to work seven days a week. Even if we say: "O.K., we'll work seven days a week," give them $2 an hour for eight hours a day — it's $5,800 a year and they've only got $8,000 total to begin with.

So, Mr. Chairman, their position is critical at the moment. I think what they really need and what they want is a pricing formula for their whole industry — an entire formula right across the board. The whole problem is so ridiculous; in fact, there's even a shortage of these eggs yet we're making them more difficult to get.

The Minister did step into this dispute to some degree at least. He asked them to get together anyway, after first saying that he really didn't want to become involved at all. But I appreciate his at least getting involved to the extent that he's told the warring parties to get together and he's asked them to

[ Page 883 ]

come up with some kind of solution.

Unfortunately, what happened here was that they did get together for one meeting but the hatcheries walked out. The hatcheries people walked out of this meeting and said, "I'm sorry, we don't want to be involved with it anymore." Not without some justification, I might add. The hatcheries have said in a brief to this Government and to the Minister that they want the Minister to rescind the authority of the Broiler Marketing Board to set the price of day-old broiler chicks. That's part of the problem involved in this whole situation — we have two boards now setting the price for one industry.

I'd like to just say too, Mr. Chairman, that these people — and I realize there aren't very many of them, you know, so it isn't a big problem — there are only 30 some odd in the valley — they took a real beating in January of this year, a very serious beating. They couldn't afford to take that kind of a beating. Before this present settlement was reached, the hatcheries were refusing to take their eggs. For a couple of weeks they were piling up in the barns and rotting there at the rate of about half a million a week which is a crazy situation in this day and age.

The Minister, I think, has to go little further than what he's done now. I think he's got to actively step in and get this situation resolved one way or another. There's a lot of jobs involved here too, Mr. Chairman. As well as the 34 farmers, there are their families of course. Some of them have hired men. More important than that are the 600 people working in the various processing plants. If this industry goes belly up, those people go with it — 600 jobs right there. So it's an important issue even though there aren't very many of them.

I think the Minister or his Deputy must step in and arbitrate this thing now and say to these people, "You will get together. We'll arbitrate some kind of a settlement." If you can at least get them together and talking I think they'll come up with a settlement themselves.

Mr. Wood, the new poultry commissioner, chaired the original advisory meetings, as I understand. Perhaps he could be named chairman of an arbitration meeting of some sort to come up with a final solution for this problem.

I'd like to have the Minister comment on that, Mr. Chairman, and one other brief question that I'd like to ask. This isn't entirely within his own department but I'd like to ask the Minister if he will get together with other Ministers who are responsible for diking in the Surrey-Cloverdale-Nicomekl-Serpentine area and see if we can get that situation cleared up. As I pointed out in the House on one other occasion, we can at least double the production in that area if we can get those people on the farms more months of the year.

Unfortunately, they're off the farm too much of the time because of water. Much of that water is not normal rain water or drainage water, but it's water that's coming down from the hills where it's built up.

The houses have been allowed to build up there. It's a beautiful residential area but it's causing a serious problem for those farmers in that rich farm area which is the richest vegetable growing area in western Canada. If we put houses on there I know very well that we'd have drainage there in five minutes. But because there are no houses on it, we just let it sit.

I'd like to have the Minister comment about that. Will he work with the other departments to try and get that situation cleared up as quickly as possible and at no cost to the municipalities? The municipalities can't afford it. If we put that charge onto the municipalities, then all we're doing is making sure that the problem does not get solved.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Minister of Agriculture.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I share the Member's concern about the Serpentine-Nicomekl area. I realize that is one of the important areas and certainly as long as I'm here in any position of authority at all there will not be houses and it will be saved for farming.

As far as the broiler hatching–egg producers. You know, I keep going back to the previous administration, but there is a change and a different way of looking at things. One of the differences that we've tried to emphasize in various areas — the Department of Education has done this, the Minister of Labour and myself — is that where there are two or more disputing parties, we try to stay out of it as long as we can rather than get in on the wrong side. We're not really Solomons.

Naturally, we would not allow a situation where hatching eggs are piling up in a barn going rotten to exist very long. We were aware; we knew what was happening; we were watching. Nevertheless, it is our general policy throughout to try to let such situations like that work themselves out by getting the various parties together and not to interfere on either side. In the early stages of that negotiation, all we did was supply a chairman — the present poultry commissioner — to sit in to chair the meetings and to encourage the parties to get together.

Sometimes this works and sometimes it doesn't. I recognize the problems. If the hatching eggs go up, then the cost of the chicks goes up, then the broiler people are also faced with increased costs of all kinds including the same feed that the hens are consuming. This has to be passed on to the consumer and then the consumers are concerned about the cost of feed. Then maybe pressure is put on the federal government, as apparently is being done right now in some

[ Page 884 ]

areas, to allow imports to come in more freely.

We're very concerned about all these things. In the case of the broiler, we're concerned not only about marketing in B.C. but national marketing. You will recall that the egg producers have joined the national agency in the hope of better managing production in the whole country. The broiler producers are very near joining that same agency. They haven't signed yet but they're very near to signing now. It's been a long struggle but the eggs have signed up, the broilers are near, the others are still talking about it.

Whether we're going to be wise in every case or not in staying out, I can't say. It has paid off, I think, in the particular case that you're talking about. The egg producers' board on behalf of the broiler hatching–egg producers and the broiler producers met Friday, arrived at an agreement of 92 cents a dozen right now and at a 6 cent bonus. They have agreed that when the cost of feed — which of course is the main item in the increasing costs — increases by another $9 a ton, they will again get together, evaluate the situation and agree between the two boards as to what the change in prices shall be.

The Member may not have had an opportunity to hear about this but it happened on Friday when this agreement was reached. I'm certainly happy that they were able to reach it without any direct interference on the part of the government. I would like to see things work out that way in the future, but as I say, we may not always be that lucky.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Langley.

MR. McCLELLAND: A supplemental question, Mr. Chairman. I wasn't aware of the recent settlement, but at 92 cents it's still not enough.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Neither was I.

MR. McCLELLAND: Good, we're in the same boat then. At 92 cents it's still not enough. It's a temporary settlement, in my opinion.

I agree with the contention of "Stay out as long as you can and let the people settle their own problems." But I feel that this is a special situation in that there are really more than two disputants here. You've got the two disputants and then you've got the farmers caught in the middle. That seems to me to be a special situation.

With the hatchery people walking out and not interested in talking you must be talking in a vacuum, because you haven't got all of the people who are involved in the problem together. At this time it would seem that we haven't got them all together and that maybe the time is now to at least offer to supply an arbitrator and get to a permanent solution rather than to a temporary one. What the hatching people would like is $ I rather than 92 cents. That's only really four cents more than they were getting in the temporary settlement.

HON. MR. STUPICH: I appreciate this and of course everybody's hoping that the steady rapidly increasing cost of feed will slow down, in which case there will be some opportunity to catch up. I recognize that the farmers are always the last ones to suffer the losses of deflation. That's the way agriculture always has been. I hope that we will be able to improve that as we go ahead, at least in the Province of British Columbia.

However, in this case again it's the producers' own organization. The hatching egg producers are represented by the egg board. That's their organization. They have accepted this arrangement — not just the 92 cents plus the bonus for today, but they've accepted this arrangement for the future. I suppose they're all hoping that if some of their costs do slow down that then the producers will be able to get some organization is willing to accept it for the time being

MR. McCLELLAND: You don't like it?

HON. MR. STUPICH: I don't suppose anybody likes it. You said earlier none of us has to work seven days a week. I'm not sure if that applies to all of us right now and I'm not sure how much we would like it. Well, I guess if we didn't like it we wouldn't be doing it.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. STUPICH: That's true. Yes, However, they don't like it but nevertheless their own organization has accepted it as the solution for the time being. As long as they accept it, I'm going to accept it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Minister of Education.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the Chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports progress and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

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

[ Page 885 ]

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I would like to rise on a point of order. I would like the Speaker to advise the House at this time what the mode of apparel is going to be in the House. I notice the Member for Richmond (Mr. Steves) this afternoon appeared in an open-neck shirt with a bandana.

I think I'm quite at liberty to bring this point up because in 1967 I appeared in this House one night in a turtle-neck sweater which in my opinion looked better than an open shirt with a bandana. I was at that time severely reprimanded by the then Speaker of the House (Mr. W.H. Murray). I would just like the Speaker to advise if any mode of apparel is going to be permitted in this House or just what the situation is.

I know we're in a fast-changing Legislature here, but would the Speaker please advise me of his comments?

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): He should tell you to keep your shoes on in the House. (Laughter).

MR. SPEAKER: I have to wear a very strange costume myself. I think the Members will have to be guided by their own good sense and good taste.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, would you kindly advise us on whether a turtle-neck sweater or an open-neck shirt…

MR. SPEAKER: There wasn't any question of your good sense or your good taste. But that's an individual impression that we'll each get from each other.

Presenting reports.

Mr. Lea from the Special Committee on Television Broadcasting presented the committee's first report, which was read as follows:

Report No. 1, legislative committee room, February 28, 1973.

Mr. Speaker, your Special Committee on Television Broadcasting begs leave to report as follows:

Pursuant to motion of February 12, 1973, your Special Committee on Television Broadcasting was convened to consider recommendation No. 8 in Mr. Speaker's first report made pursuant to the Legislative Procedure and Practice Inquiry Act which recommended:

(a) that the House appoint a Special Committee on Television Broadcasting to examine into educational television and the obtaining of broadcast facilities for dissemination of proceedings of the Legislature during its sessions and that it be composed of Members Curtis, Young, McClelland, Lea, Hartley, Dailly and such others as the House may wish to appoint and that the committee report its recommendations to the House;

(b) that the said committee consult with and advise the Speaker with respect to placement and use of television within the chamber should cameras be permitted to record the proceedings.

Your committee recommends that the Legislature approves in principle that television cameras be permitted in the House to record the proceedings. Your committee further recommends that the Special Committee on Television Broadcasting study methods by which this may be carried out.

G.R. Lea,
Chairman.

MR. LEA: I move that the rules be suspended and the report be adopted.

Report adopted.

Filing reports.

Hon. Mr. King files the Annual Report of the Workmen's Compensation Board of British Columbia for the year ended December 31, 1972.

Hon. Mr. Cocke files answers to questions.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:55 p.m.