[ Page 437 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Budget debate (continued)

The House met at 8:30 p.m.

Orders of the day.

ON THE BUDGET

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Transport and Communications.

AN HON. MEMBER: How's your computer? Broken again?

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): No, it's not broken again, but that's the same old broken record that you're playing.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say first of all that I'm very pleased to have this opportunity of making a speech in this House. I haven't had much opportunity so far this session. It's always nice to get up on one of those main debates, now that we're back on the business of the House and applying ourselves to the budget that was so ably presented by the Minister of Finance a week or so ago.

First of all I want to express my regret about the loss of Ned DeBeck, which was mentioned in the throne debate. He was a good friend of mine for many, many years. I first met Ned in 1939 when he was the inspector of credit unions and I was a director of the first credit union in the Province of British Columbia. From that day until he died he had always been a good and helpful friend to me.

Art Laing, of course, used to sit down here when I was sitting in that seat there from 1953 to 1956. He was a great British Columbian and one of the most able parliamentarians that I have ever met, and I learned a great deal from him in the three years that I sat with him. So with the others, I want to express my regret at the loss of those two fine British Columbians to the province.

The budget speech to which we're now addressing ourselves is — and I say this completely without prejudice — the best budget speech I have ever heard in this House in the last 20-odd years. I've listened to the comments which have been made in this House and outside the House by different people. The night it was presented, I was driving up island and I was listening to one of the hot-liners trying desperately to find something to criticize about the budget speech, trying desperately to nitpick his way through it, and when we came back into the House the following week, of course, we've been through a great deal of the same thing.

Before I get on to the budget speech, I think I should mention the communications field slightly and one of the major communications companies in the province, Premier Cablevision. Someone over there — I think it was the Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) — said that they're going to get all the money and support from their own membership. Well, I have in my hand a letter sent out by Premier Cablevision Ltd., dated November 6, 1974. Premier Cablevision is a pretty big corporation in the communications field. They sent this around the province to different places of interest, and they say:

"Dear Sir:
We certainly aren't promoting the interest of any political party, but I thought you might be interested in this paper, which summarizes the policies of the B.C. Social Credit Party. I draw your attention particularly to the article on page 5 headed 'Transportation and Communications Workshop.'"

And they enclosed a nice little picture of the mayor of Surrey, Bill Vander Zalm.

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Is he Social Credit now?

AN HON. MEMBER: He's a Liberal.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No, he's not a Liberal, is he? No, he's the man who wants to replace the present leader of the party. Yes, and he's talking about what should happen in transportation and communications. He says:

"From our point of view, it is very encouraging to see a political party with a strong, positive, intelligent policy in this area. The B.C. Social Credit Party is unquestionably the strongest alternative to the present government in most people's minds."

This makes this policy statement especially interesting. I think the past two and a half years have demonstrated very clearly that the establishment in this province, the industry in this province and those who are tied to the past are determined to go to any lengths to try and defeat this government. So here's Premier Cablevision supporting the Social Credit Party. Who owns Premier Cablevision? That fine Canadian company, the Columbia Broadcasting System, is the largest shareholder in this enterprise that controls communications through cablevision on the lower mainland. They're taking the money out of the lower mainland, they're investing it in Ireland, they're investing it in London, buying up cablevision and they're supporting the Social Credit Party in this province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Shame!

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That's just an example of the kind of people. Columbia Broadcasting, a completely U.S.-owned company, is the largest shareholder, not the major shareholder in that

[ Page 438 ]

corporation.

But then, when we want the right that is enjoyed in other provinces to set up an educational cablevision in this province, then all these little minds over there say: "Oh, we can't have politics. We can't have any government involvement of any kind."

Who do you think controls communications in this country? An organization set up by the federal government controlled by the Liberal political party. To infer there is something disastrous or wrong about having an agency of communications set up at arm's length in this province is, of course, simply a dual standard.

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: But to get back to the budget, I have listened to the doom-and-gloom boys across the way. Here is the February issue of Business in B.C.

MR. BENNETT: Berger was right.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: What does it say?

"The gloom-and-doom predictions of a few months ago have gradually swung around. 1975 is not going to be a great year, but it will not be a disaster. The sun will begin to shine sometime in the third quarter — the fourth quarter at the latest."

I read that badly-arranged, wrongly-conceived article that was in there, full of wrong predictions. Time will prove me right. But here is the British Columbia bankers' forecast of what is going to happen in British Columbia. Here is what the bankers are saying:

"Canadian prosperity does, however, depend heavily on foreign trade, and the worldwide demand for many commodities has shrunk considerably. In some cases, market prices have fallen to levels where returns to Canadian producers are barely profitable."

Then it goes on to say:

"Some bankers were more optimistic than others about the outlook for B.C., but there was general agreement that the experience of this province should not be much worse than that of Canada as a whole. They will look for resumption of economic growth in the latter part of this year, although some feel it will be 1976 before the benefits of improved lumber demands are felt here.

"The bankers named declining metal prices and reduced demand as the principal, immediate causes of the mining industry's difficulties."

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): What about Bill 31?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: This is what the bankers say: declining prices.

Then later on they say:

"The slowdown is certain to be offset by infrastructure developments which provide a fair amount of employment."

So they are not too unhappy about the prospects for the future, despite what you boys are saying. If you check what the Employers Council of British Columbia say, they say exactly the same thing. But you are working, you are digging away there furiously, trying to create a feeling of fear in this province, deliberately trying to hurt this province because of the things you say.

AN HON. MEMBER: They need help.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: You follow the straight and narrow-minded path because you are prepared to say anything, as long as you think it might hurt us. Yes, that is what you are doing. Straight and narrow-minded, right down that road.

The Leader of the Opposition said that this budget was a most politically expedient, irresponsible and dangerous budget.

AN. HON. MEMBER: Approve it. I don't care.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: There was the cry of the wrecking bird in full flight, determined to say anything at all that you think might hurt this province. And the Liberals are joining in that cackle chorus.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Relative to a crow.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, the Liberals are joining that cackle chorus. You talk about inflation, how our budget was inflationary and how we are spending all this money. I wonder what the Liberals say now after what Jean Chretien did this week? Jean Chretien tabled the main estimates two weeks ago. This week he tabled supplementary estimates — $1.9 billion supplementary estimates — two weeks after he tabled his main estimates. How do you like that? Shocking! Shocking! Done by a Liberal government.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): You won't give any facts.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Now, you talked about.... Mr. Speaker, could I have a little order, please?

[ Page 439 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. We either adjourn to the club or we be silent here. Make your choice.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, you know where you've been. I don't.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker....

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Facetious Speaker.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, they talk about unemployment in British Columbia. We have been through a charade twice this session where they talked about unemployment.

MR. CHABOT: Casa Loma Speaker.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: They talked about people being forced to live on the restricted income of unemployment insurance.

I want to ask them a question. I don't want any charades, any play-acting or any flowery language about desperation, inflation and all the rest of it. I want to ask them a question and I want them to answer me the question. Go through the estimates of expenditure....

MR. PHILLIPS: "How to Live on 50 Grand a Year in One Easy Lesson," by Robert M. Strachan.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I don't know how much you made as a car dealer, but I think you have done very well over the years.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'm going to talk about public funds.

We find that the cost of courts — and here we were helping the municipalities by taking over what was a cost item to them — is up from $4 million to $12 million. Should we cut that out?

Let's look at education: post-secondary education and training, up $75 million. Do you want us to cut that out? Do you want us to reduce that? Is that what you are saying when you tell us you are going to vote against this budget? Grants to school districts — up $105 million. Are you going to cut that one out?

Local health services — up $9 million. Are you going to cut that one out? This is what you are talking about when you use that wild, irrational language that you've been using.

A new item, ambulance services — $1.1 million.... I don't think you've read these estimates.

MR. PHILLIPS: Sure we have — we've read the estimates.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I don't think you've read them, because if you had read them you could not have made the wild, ridiculous, irresponsible, wrecking remarks that you have pursued this session.

Community services — up $9 million....

MR. PHILLIPS: Read the figures out of that budget about your Icky-Bicky. Why don't you talk about your own responsibilities?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'll get to that. Just be patient, my friend.

Community services — $9 million. Roads, bridges, ferries, wharves, et cetera — up $35 million; roads, bridges and ferries, capital construction — $30 million. Do you want to cut all that extra out of there? Is that what you say?

MR. PHILLIPS: Tell us about the increase in gasoline.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I heard a completely erroneous statement today about welfare being up, a completely false statement from across the way — so many millions for welfare waste.

MR. PHILLIPS: After last year, it's pretty hard for an encore.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Programmes for senior citizens and handicapped persons — up $74 million. Are you going to vote against that $74 million for programmes for senior citizens and handicapped persons? That's what you're going to be doing.

Community programmes — $16 million. Special programmes for the retarded an extra $9 million. That's what you've been denigrating for the last week — all of those items. That's what you've been tearing down. That's what you've been calling inflationary — $9 million extra for the retarded. I could go down the list some more, item after item.

You like to talk in generalities, but generalities are made up of the whole, item by item in that budget, in those estimates. But because you indulge in those flights of fancy about inflation, runaway, uncontrolled...tell me which of these items we should take out of there, and come to your senses.

What the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) says is the only answer is massive firing of civil servants. That's all we get from him.

MR. FRASER: He never said that.

[ Page 440 ]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, he did. He said: "Massive firing is the only way." That's what he said — there are the headlines, right there.

MR. CHABOT: He never said that.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The Leader of the Opposition also quoted a speech made by the federal Minister of Revenue in which Mr. Basford said:

"One of the most overworked slogans in the political lexicon is 'bring us together.' But that is precisely what this country and province needs:cooperation rather than disputes; tact rather than tantrums."

Then he went on to be critical of British Columbia because of some of the things that have been said in this province about Ottawa's attitude towards this province.

As the Premier said in his budget speech: "We came into office in this province determined to build a new relationship with Ottawa." And as the Minister of Highways, as a clear indication and a symbol of the fact that we were part of Canada, the first thing I did was take down those B.C. 1 signs and put up the Trans-Canada signs.

MR. FRASER: Big deal!

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The next thing I did — and the previous administration refused to even talk to the federal government about it — was to have a meeting in the Premier's office with Commissioner Smith of the Yukon Territory, the Governor of Alaska and the Premier. They came to see if we would move from that hard and fast B.C. position and participate in the construction of that road from Carcross to Skagway. We sat right in the Premier's office and we agreed. And it's been done. We are part of Canada. The previous administration would not participate in any of those programmes — none at all.

The next thing was the road from Fort Nelson up to Mackenzie. Under the previous administration the federal government had the money in the estimates to do their part of that road, but they could get no acquiescence from the Province of British Columbia. So then they moved their emphasis up into the Mackenzie, and that's where they're building. So what I did, and my successor has followed through the same, is to start up that road and when the feds are ready to move in, then we'll come together.

Those are three clear examples and a clear indication for the federal government that we are prepared to do our bit to help other parts of Canada also.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Delta): They didn't think they were in Canada.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: But when I was in Ottawa just a couple of weeks ago, Mr. Basford made a similar remark to me about things that were being said in the Province of British Columbia. He said: "There's no little group sits here in Ottawa and says what we can do to finagle British Columbia this week." I said that may not be the case, but I'm reluctantly coming to that conclusion — very reluctantly — because of the difference in attitude towards this part of the country and the other coast.

It's a pretty tragic story. We had to buy a ferry last year because of the urgent need and the growth in the figures, and they couldn't even let us put that ferry on the run until we had paid that $3.5 million in import duty. They wouldn't let us put it on the run. We applied to get it back and we still haven't got it back.

Mr. Speaker, here we are carrying the full load for ferries in this province — the full load. When we look at how it's done — I have the growth figures here but I won't go into them — it's about 200,000 vehicles from 1969, I think, until 1974.

But you look at what's happened and you find that in eastern Canada this is what happened due to the federal disbursement. The federal Ministry of Transport expended on the ferry coastal services surface transportation programme: operating — in 1972, $35 million, and in 1973, $41 million; capital — $25 million in 1972, down to $4.4 million in 1973. That was $61 million in 1972; $51 million in 1973.

Canadian Transport Commission, steamship and venture subsidies: 1969, $12 million; 1970, $13 million; 1971, $6 million; 1972, $6 million; 1973, $6 million. Added to that, capital expenditures include.... Oh, steamships and ventures include both vehicle/passenger ferry service and coastal shipping services.

In 1970 — $3 million for Saint John, a ferry terminal. A ferry terminal in Saint John, New Brunswick. In 1971 — $6.9 million. In Digby a $15 million write-off of loan balance for acquisition and construction of two vessels for the New Brunswick–P.E.I. ferry service.

A statement of additional aid paid in support of Atlantic region transportation.... I don't mind this one. This is the extra. This is subsidizing freight and transportation movements: 1969, $13 million; 1970, $19 million; 1971, $16 million; 1972, $20 million; 1973, $21 million.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, I'm tired of listening to you.

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That's all right.

Payments to the CNR: $21 million in 1969; $22 million, and then $21 million.

[ Page 441 ]

You know how they do it, Mr. Speaker? There was a rumour around here that I was going to lease a ferry. Now I know the Members are not interested in the problems of this province. They've demonstrated that very clearly in the last two and a half years. They're not interested in what's happening in this province. But what happens is that the Minister of Transport and his department either buy the ferries for the east coast of this country or they lease them. The federal government has just finished leasing a ferry from Sweden for utilization on the east coast at a cost of approximately $3 million a year. Then they give it to the CNR and pay them a management fee for running it.

Do you know all we've had in British Columbia? In the fall of 1972 they hired consultants to have a survey on west coast transportation needs. They came to see me; they visited the Department of Highways; they visited different other areas of British Columbia. I asked for that report a year ago, and I have the correspondence here.

I asked for that report a year ago. I got a reply saying yes, they have it, but they've sent it back for some clarification. I've written back and forth several times asking for the report. I asked for it two weeks ago at a meeting with the Minister. The Minister has not yet seen it. One of the individuals present said: "Well, the big problem is that the magnitude of the costs named in that report scared us."

They have a report that indicates the magnitude of the costs we face in providing west coast transportation needs, and they're holding that report back because they know that I would be after them to give us the help, as we have been. So far, they're still refusing to give us the kind of help that's given in other parts of Canada.

But, Mr. Speaker, we have a good ferry system in this province. We have a lot of problems, there's no doubt about that, but I think it's....

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I think it's time we had a fair.... Mr. Speaker, could we have a little order, please?

I'm sorry I didn't join them for dinner — they must have had a good time.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I can assure you I wouldn't miss you if you left.

MR. SPEAKER: And it wouldn't be as noisy, either, Hon. Members. I wish you would settle down.

AN HON. MEMBER: We can't be noisy if we're not here, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, Mr. Speaker, to top it all off, the federal government just purchased that ferry system that was operated by the CPR between Digby and Nova Scotia. Under the 1968 agreement, CP acquired the ferry vessel the Princess of Arcadia and the federal government agreed to provide the terminal facilities necessary for the operation of a service using it. At the time, Ottawa promised to buy the vessel if no satisfactory long-term operating arrangement could be reached.

On December 24, following complaints by Canadian Pacific that it was losing money on the service, Marchand announced that the government would make good on its promise. They've bought that ferry and they're going to continue operating it.

I think, Mr. Speaker, it's clear that we should have a better deal from Ottawa than they're now giving us. We have problems here — some fantastic costs facing us. They won't even tell us the cost of what their reports are. They certainly should give us a fair break. I hope my Liberal friends will carry that....

MR. GARDOM: Just like ICBC, Bob. Some deal! Great deal!

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Now, Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of talk: we shouldn't spend this money; we've been extravagant; the biggest budget; it's terrible; it's inflationary. I want to give you an example of just what happens when you don't go ahead with projects when you should go ahead.

My Socred friends may know a man by the name of Dr. Reynolds. I listened to him give a fine speech in Duncan a few weeks ago on the provision of medical services.

In Duncan, three years ago we opened an extended-care unit. At the time, they wanted to finish that particular building completely, but the then Minister of Health would not allow us to put in all the beds and the services. So we're now finishing up those 22 extended-care beds. Dr. Reynolds said that at that time it would have cost $30,000 to finish that particular building three years ago. It's now costing $266,000, according to Dr. Reynolds, because we didn't do it just three short years ago. So it's obvious that we have to spend the kind of money we're spending to meet the needs of today.

The motor vehicle branch. Despite what the....

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): When are you going to start your speech?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, I don't know. I know you have no interest in what happens in this province, Madam Member. I know that. You've demonstrated that very clearly. But if you don't want to listen, then go away. Go away.

[ Page 442 ]

MRS. JORDAN: Let's hear about ICBC.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'm talking about my department and my department responsibility. If you're not interested, then just let me go on my way, will you?

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, well, they know that.

The motor vehicle branch has had a number of problems in the last 12 months. One of them has been meeting driver examination requirements, with the result that on occasion there have been line-ups at the driver examination offices. So we decided on a new departure allowing those who had graduated from a licensed driving school to be given their certificate without the necessity of a driving test. But on the first day, we decided we would test all of them. There were three people who came in from the driving schools to get their drivers' licences. We tested the first three, and two out of the first three failed. My instructions then were to notify every driving school that we will be making periodic checks and that they must recommend the drivers who will be given the licences without going through the test. We'll make periodic tests, and if any school is getting too many failures, then, of course, we'll have to see what we can do about that.

MR. GARDOM: How many mobile testing units have you got, Bob?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mobile testing units? There are quite a number of them, if you want....

MR. GARDOM: I could count them on my hand.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: We've increased the number of mobile testing units around the province. There are three operating in the lower mainland alone. I'll send the amount over to you later; I can't find it right now.

There were 216,000 drivers' examinations in 1973 and 226,000 in 1974. The motor vehicle branch, along with the Department of Highways and ICBC and the Department of Education are now correlating and developing a safety programme so that we can make a unified effort to make the people of this province safety conscious.

In the vehicle testing, incidentally, there was another change made this year. We took a look at the reasons for rejection in motor vehicle testing and we found that 49 per cent of them had to do with headlights out of line or something like that. So we simply said, if it's a simple thing, just take it and fix it right there, which then removes the necessity of this man having to go get it fixed elsewhere and come back for a retest. So we've eliminated almost 50 per cent of the returns.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Pardon? Oh, no. The carrier commission has had a bigger year too. This is the body that handles the franchises for the trucks, and of course the increase in the cost of fuel and wages and everything else meant that the...

MR. FRASER: You're still away behind it.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: ...trucking companies had to apply three times in the one year for an increase in the rates. The Motor-carrier Commission was kept extremely busy keeping up to these applications for a review of the rates.

MR. FRASER: You're still away behind.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The department's also been busy in meetings with Mr. Marchand of the federal department in matters arising out of WEOC and the railway costs. Of course, we have had great difficulty with the federal railways. They absolutely refused to give the cost disclosures that were required and demanded and promised by the Prime Minister of Canada at the WEOC conference.

MR. GARDOM: Don't they answer questions on the order paper either?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It took us almost a year to get that cost disclosure from the railways, and the Minister of Transport (Hon. Mr. Marchand) had to threaten to bring in federal legislation. We are now getting the cost disclosures from the federal railways.

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. How can three people make so much noise?

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I had intended to give some time to ICBC. I want to tell you that ICBC has come through with flying colours. Make no mistake about that.

I wanted to read what the Minister from Quebec said when he was out here about the ICBC — what a great thing it is.

Interjections.

[ Page 443 ]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The minute you say "ICBC" they just go hairy over there.

But I want to draw your attention to the cost differentials across this country. I want to tell you this. In the City of Victoria, for a 1969 Dodge Charger for pleasure driving, the over-25 driver paid $83; in Vancouver, $97; Nanaimo, $87; in Chilliwack, $93; Kelowna, $93; Prince George, $120; Edmonton, $154; Toronto, $169; Montreal, $235...

MR. GARDOM: Consolidated revenue. How much?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: ...Halifax, $156; Charlottetown, $174; St. John's, Newfoundland, $218.

MR. GARDOM: Bingo!

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The lowest insurance costs anywhere in Canada. And these are the figures of July, 1974, published by the Canadian Underwriters Association.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Tell us about the subsidies.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: A 1973 Mustang — listen to this: Victoria, $125; Vancouver, $169; Edmonton, $337; Montreal, $534; St. John's, Newfoundland, $504. Tell the people that. Tell the people that. Those rates, in other parts of the country, have been up at least 20 per cent since then. Make no mistake, my friends. This is one of the greatest programmes.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Tell the truth. Tell the truth!

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Territorial equalization grants so that no matter where you live in the province you will pay the same rate: that's our objective. And we will reach that objective under this government.

You talk about disclosure. Until we became the government you couldn't find government aircraft mentioned anywhere in any report at any time in this House. But look in your estimates. Look in your estimates.

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, before I close....

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The logs will be tabled. There are three jets and there are two Kingairs.

There are areas of this province that hadn't been aerial photographed since before 1950. The most incompetent government in history! When you think what we can do with aerial photography. You ask the Department of Mines, the Department of Lands, and the Department of Forestry the good that came out of those two Kingairs last summer — the aerial photographs we were able to get. We're bringing this province into the 20th century, getting it out of the 19th century where you people kept it.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I would ask the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) to observe a little more silence. This is not the Senate. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Last September I was in Britain when the election was on there. I read the newspapers, and the first two papers I read were very much like the papers here. They were all against the Labour government — the editorials, the way the news was presented and the cartoons. Now that's normal. Then I picked up some other papers and I said: "This is completely different." I found there was a balance in the presentation of the news and everything else in Britain — some for the government, some against the government.

No government in the history of this province has been subject to the misrepresentation and the false accusations that we have been subject to.

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I asked myself why this was so, and suddenly I realized....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Are you the press?

HON. MR, STRACHAN: Suddenly I realized, Mr. Speaker, that two and a half years ago the people of the establishment, the people who had controlled the levers of power in this province for 100 years, lost that control. It is obvious that they're prepared to say anything, do anything, to try and get their hands back on the levers of control, and that's why we are being subjected to the sort of attacks that we are being subjected to as a government.

There is no balance in the presentation of the news of this province. These people across there are determined to do and say anything. Mr. Speaker, there are times when I worry because I sometimes get the feeling when I listen to what is being said out there....

[ Page 444 ]

MR. FRASER: The light's on that you put on.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: There are times I get the feeling, Mr. Speaker, that there are people in this province who would rather see this system destroyed if they can't control it, and I'm very sorry about that because....

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I explained to you in another country where our Mother of Parliaments is there is a balance: there are papers that support the government and there are papers opposed to the government. I think a fair presentation requires that it be presented either way.

But they print the sort of attacks and the sort of calculated statements that are made about us in and out of this House. They are the people I'm blaming, the people who controlled the levers of power. And because they lost them after 100 years of holding onto them, they're prepared to go to any length to try and get them back into their hands.

But they are not going to get them there because, Mr. Speaker, with this budget and these estimates, with the things and the programmes that are contained in this book, the people of this province are going to know that this is the most feeling, the most humane, the most forward-looking government this province has ever had. When that election comes — and it will come — I'll wave you goodbye, because you won't be back and we will.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): A point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Would you state your point of order, please?

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, that Minister has a habit in this House of accusing other people of using innuendo and smear and things like that. My point of order is that he made an incorrect statement in his speech regarding a company, Premier Cablevision, in which he said....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Order!

MR. McCLELLAND: The company, Mr. Speaker....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Member is out of order. I point out to him that you cannot correct statements....

Order, please.

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member be seated! You've already made your point. The point is that you are contradicting another Member, not in something he said about you but in your dispute with him about a point of fact. You have no right to do that unless you have your place on the floor, and therefore you are abusing the rules of order if you seek to raise a point of order on that point. I therefore ask you to remain seated unless you have a point of order that affects you personally.

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, you are very quick to jump and say that my point of order has nothing to do with me — and whatever you said — but you don't even allow me to state my point of order, and I don't think that's fair. I think that every Member in this House has the opportunity to state a point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the Hon. Member said that he had made a mis-statement regarding Premier Cablevision, and you're not connected with....

MR. McCLELLAND: I think that that Minister has to be responsible for his statements, and he is not being responsible for his statements. The control of that company is in Canadian hands and always has been.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Hon. Member is again abusing the rules of the House. It is not up to....

HON. MR. STRACHAN: CBS is the largest shareholder.

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. It is not up to any Member to contradict any other Member except in his own debate. The purpose of a point of order is: if you have personally had your statements....

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The only purpose of a point of order where you stand up is to determine whether some statement made against you is incorrect. You have the right to correct that Member, but you do not have the right to correct him in his speech with regard to his opinions. That is a basic freedom of parliament.

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): It's a

[ Page 445 ]

pleasure for me to take my place in this debate, Mr. Speaker, on the budget. What I'm going to try to do is to inject some reason into it.

We've had a lot of irrational statements from the opposition and a lot of irrational attack on this very excellent budget. But a number of areas in this budget catch the eyes of the people who live in my constituency, and that's what I am going to address myself to. I am going to try to ignore the kind of attacks that have been made on it which have no basis in fact.

Again, I'm going to speak about housing, Mr. Speaker, because housing remains a major area of concern in my constituency. I'm very pleased with the extra allocation made to the Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Nicolson). I'm hoping that these funds will be used and that a large sample of them will be earmarked to relieve the tenants presently living in that constituency who are presently living in good housing, in solid housing and older apartment blocks and in multiple dwellings. The City of Vancouver is allowing demolition permits to developers who are trying to accumulate and hold land and replace this housing with high-cost condominiums which people....

MR. GARDOM: You gave that speech last year.

MS. BROWN: That's right. And I'm going to give it again, because in point of fact this is one of the things that the Minister of Housing will be able to do with his extra allocation in his budget. He will be able to secure some of that housing for the people especially living there.

Now, the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) brought down his Liberal budget. It really was quite interesting because he cut all the departments that had to do with services to people and poured all the money into resources and mines. I thought it was interesting that he decided to cut money from the Department of Housing at the same time he was telling us that there was a need for housing and accommodation throughout the province. That's one of the contradictions, however, that we've come to learn to live with with Liberals. We've come to learn to live with their contradictions.

The fact of the matter, as I've said before and I'll say again, is that there is no shortage of housing for people who can afford expensive housing. There is shortage of housing for people on fixed incomes and low incomes. This is exactly the sector of the community that the private developer has never been interested in. He has never made any effort to try and meet the needs of these people.

With this extra allocation, the Minister of Housing will be able to do this in terms of securing housing presently in existence and helping those tenants living there, who may want to form a cooperative and buy that housing, or in developing new housing.

MR. GARDOM: That Minister?

MS. BROWN: That's right, the Minister of Housing. In Vancouver we're in the process of developing an area which is known as False Creek. I don't know how many people in here have heard of False Creek. One of the things that this Minister of Housing will be able to do with his additional allocation is cooperate in terms of financial input into that development.

What that means is that he will be able to insist that a percentage of the housing going into the False Creek area, a very high percentage of the housing — maybe 25 per cent, 33.3 per cent, as the case may be — should be earmarked for social housing for people who are living near the poverty line or even below the poverty line. I'm talking about the working poor; I'm talking about the single-parent families, the young families, the young married couples with children, senior citizens, handicapped people. The Minister of Housing, with this additional allocation, will be able to make that kind of demand on the City of Vancouver when they move in to develop the False Creek area.

The other thing that he will be able to do is involve himself in something known as infill housing, which is something that's coming out of the community groups in the area. They're suggesting that one of the ways we can deal with the density in the area, in a less expensive way than building new housing, is to go into infill housing.

In fact, this additional allocation makes it possible for the Minister of Housing to involve himself in all sorts of innovative and different ways of supplying the housing needs of the people in this area. These are areas in which the private sector, quite frankly, is not interested and has never been interested. So I certainly laud that section of the budget which gives this extra allocation to the Minister of Housing.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: I don't think I have to repeat for the benefit of everyone here that the housing crisis did not just start two or two and a half years ago. It started when the federal Liberals decided that they weren't going to allow the tax shelter any more for the lawyers and doctors over there who were investing in the private sector. Even when you had the opportunity, you never went into social housing.

MR. McGEER: Is there a housing crisis now?

MS. BROWN: There is no crisis for people who can afford expensive housing, Mr. Member. In the constituency of Burrard, we have condominiums

[ Page 446 ]

going for $110,000 and $120,000, sitting on the market waiting to be purchased. We have apartments there that rent for $400 and $500 a month, waiting for people to rent them. There is no shortage of housing for people who can afford high prices in housing. That is what the private sector is interested in building. They are not interested in people on low incomes. They never were, like you, Mr. Member, who in your budget decided to cut off all of the funds for Human Resources.

As far as Municipal Affairs is concerned, this is another area which seriously touches the lives of the people who live in Vancouver-Burrard. Again, I was very pleased to see that we are going to assume up to 90 per cent of the administrative costs for welfare in the city. What this is going to do is leave the municipalities with much more money and much more funds to deal with some of the needs that they have to deal with.

MR. FRASER: Did you hear what the mayor of Vancouver said?

MS. BROWN: I am pleased that we are going to assume the costs for the administration of the courts and for correction services, again leaving funds. It's the same kind of peanuts that they used to complain about when they were carrying those costs. Now we're relieving them of those funds — additional money in the pockets of the municipalities.

Through the Sewerage Facilities Assistance Act we are again relieving more funds for the municipalities. The budgets of the municipalities have been relieved up to almost $14 per capita for everybody that they are responsible for in terms of their operating budgets. Hopefully, the mayor is going to use all of this money which we are saving him in a constructive kind of way.

MR. McGEER: That's not what the mayor says.

MS. BROWN: Part of the allocation in the municipal budget, Mr. Speaker, has to do with transit. I'm sure that you will agree with me that this is one area that the mayor of Vancouver never ceases talking about. He's got tunnel vision — all he talks about is tunnels. He wants to put a subway through the centre of the city.

When the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) suggested to the mayor that the rail lines running down the centre of Granville Street should remain there when he was going to do this great beautification project of his, in a very irresponsible way, as he usually does, he decided no, he wanted those lines lifted out. At the same time, he's asking for transit. Now if those lines had been permitted to remain, light rapid transit would have become a reality much sooner. What happens is that at peak hours....

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: I would remind the Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) that he is out of his seat.

MS. BROWN: It's the First Member (Mr. McGeer) who's doing the chattering.

What happens is that at peak hours in the City of Vancouver we have a bus going down Granville Street at least once a minute. Now if we had light rapid transit, which carries a lot more people and moves much more faster and much more efficiently, we would have the transit going once every four minutes. This would certainly relieve the congestion and the cluttering which presently happens on Granville Street.

Instead of that, the mayor insisted that those lines come out. And he does not have the support of the regional district in his demands that he is making for a subway. As I said before, he's got tunnel vision.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs in 1973 tried to get the City of Vancouver interested in running a bus along 49th Avenue from Burnaby through to Marine Drive. No one was interested.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Right! How long did it take? This is the kind of thing that we have to deal with with the municipality. We're always a couple of years ahead of them. What happens in the final analysis is that it costs more and then they come shedding their crocodile tears, and here I'm quoting the past Member — the father of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett).

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: All I'm saying, Mr. Member, is that there are a number of ways in which this government has tried to help the municipality of Vancouver and the mayor has not availed himself of those services.

MR. GARDOM: It's a city, Rosemary.

MS. BROWN: I beg your pardon, Mr. Member. It's a city.

HON. P.F. YOUNG (Minister of Consumer Services): Picky, picky.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased to speak about the allocation in the budget to the Department of Consumer Services.

Again I notice in the budget brought down by the

[ Page 447 ]

First Member for Point Grey — the Liberal budget — that he suggested that Consumer Services should be cut by $1 million, another indication of his lack of caring for the ordinary people of this city and of this province. He doesn't care about the services this department provides — for example, debtor counselling — for the people.

MRS. JORDAN: What about ICBC?

MS. BROWN: He doesn't care about the storefront offices that are under the jurisdiction of Consumer Services. He doesn't care about the excellent job that they are doing in terms of helping people to budget. In this day of the cashless society and easy credit and credit cards, the consumer is under continuous jeopardy. He doesn't care about the invaluable service which this department offers to the people of Vancouver.

I am certainly grateful for the 28 per cent increase in this budget because I hope that it will help the Department of Consumer Services, for example, take a closer look at people like Hospitality Services. I want to tell you a little story about Hospitality Services.

MRS. JORDAN: How about ICBC?

MS. BROWN: On March 6, 1974, a couple needed the services of a housekeeper because the wife involved was very ill. She had cancer and had to be in hospital all the time. They paid $300 to Hospitality Services who guaranteed that in three weeks they would be able to secure for that family a housekeeper to live in and take care of that woman's family while she was in the cancer clinic. At the end of that three weeks they said that if they could not find someone, the $300 would be refunded in total after 30 days. Three weeks went by and they were unable to find anyone. Thirty days went by and they did not refund the $300 which was paid to them.

MRS. JORDAN: Sounds like ICBC.

MS. BROWN: In June of that year, three months later, the couple had to file in small debts court to have the $300 returned. The wife has since died, but I am told by the husband that they made at least 10 trips to the small debts court to try and have a successful resolution of this problem.

MRS. JORDAN: That does sound like ICBC.

MS. BROWN: In August, 1974, a judgment was issued. In October, 1974, this man had to go and pay over $200 to file a committal order to put Mr. Livingstone, the person from Hospitality Services, into jail unless he refunded that $300. Mr. Livingstone then applied for a motion of the order asking for permission to tell his side of the story and to have the committal order stopped. In November, 1974, there was a notice of the hearing of this case. Again, Mr. Livingstone failed to show up. We find 10 months later there is still no refund for the $300. The average person would have given up. In terms of time lost, in terms of income lost to keep going down to the small debts court, the decision would have been made to let the $300 go by. I received a phone call that on Monday, March 3, one year less two days from the original time that the $300 was paid, the case was successfully resolved. One year later.

It is of vital importance that we have an agency like Consumer Services that can take class action on behalf of people like this because not everyone has the stick-to-it-iveness, and not everyone has the time and the resources, to spend a year in court dealing with a small debts claim the way that this particular family has. This should be of interest to the Attorney-General's department too because I think what it indicates is that his department needs to take...

MR. GARDOM: Did you report it to him? Did you report it to him?

MS. BROWN: ...a second look at the small debts court.

MR. GARDOM: Are you just spouting off tonight? Did you tell him?

MS. BROWN: The file is being turned over both to the Consumer Services department and to the Attorney-General's department because I think that Consumer Services has to maintain a watching brief on Hospitality Services.

I am glad about the increase which went to the Attorney-General's department in this budget. I am hoping that that additional allotment will ensure that the unified family court project, which is an excellent project which grew out of the Berger commission report and which is presently in existence in Surrey, that the Attorney-General will find it possible to duplicate this unified family court throughout the province. All research has shown, and people who have visited this unified family court as well as the clients who have used the unified family court insist, that this really is the way that a family court should be run. The accent is not on the adversary system when the family breaks down, but rather is on cooperation and trying to deal with relationships with people. It is a slow process and it is an expensive process, but it certainly is an excellent process which should be duplicated throughout the province. The additional allocation to the Attorney-General's budget will make this possible.

[ Page 448 ]

MR. GARDOM: He is back now. There he is. Tell him.

MS. BROWN: The Attorney-General is here, so I would like to congratulate the Attorney-General on the upgrading of the provincial court judges. I have been keeping a close look on it. I notice that he has been appointing a number of young, bright judges, compassionate judges, and I would like to congratulate him on this.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): Hear, hear!

MR. GARDOM: Compassionate judges?

MS. BROWN: Well, maybe they are liberal judges.

I would like to tell the Attorney-General that I have noticed. Are you listening, Mr. Attorney-General? (Laughter.)

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, I am.

MS. BROWN: I am congratulating you, Mr. Attorney-General, on your appointment of 31 bright, young judges and wondering why only one of those 31 happened to be a woman.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON (Kamloops): Oh, oh!

MRS. D. WEBSTER (Vancouver South): Right on! Right on!

MS. BROWN: Maybe it was compassion. I don't know.

MR. GARDOM: Compassion or from passion?

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Why not?

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, the Department of Human Resources also touches the lives of many of the people living in my constituency. I really hate to keep coming back to the budget which was brought down by the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) — the Liberal budget. It is just that it was such a bad budget, actually; it was such a cruel budget...

MR. McGEER: No, it's the best budget we've ever had.

MR. GARDOM: Are you going to vote for it?

MS. BROWN: ...as far as people were concerned. I really couldn't believe what I was listening to and I had to get the Blues and underline to convince myself that he really did say that he would cut $93 million from the Human Resources budget.

MR. LEWIS: Shameful!

MS. BROWN: So I looked at the estimates for the Department of Human Resources to try and find out what he would be cutting which would add up to this $93 million figure. What I found was that he would be cutting the special programmes for the retarded, which came to $29 million; that he would be cutting the health-care services, which came to $28 million, and that he would be cutting the services to families and children. You add those three up and they come to $93 million, give or take $1 million here and there.

I really do believe it's shocking, Mr. Speaker, that that Member, himself a man of medicine, the most compassionate of all professions, should see fit to take $93 million out of the budget of a department like Human Resources, which deals almost exclusively with people in need.

I welcome the increased allotment to the Department of Human Resources because that department has demonstrated that it is meeting the needs of a large number of people in this province who are handicapped, who are over 60 years of age, who are sole-support parents or who, in one way or another, cannot survive on their own. Through this department we as a society are discharging our collective responsibility to them.

In addition, this department is also looking into the retraining of people over 45 and 50, trying to design services for them so that once they are discarded by the private enterprise work system they can find jobs in adult care, in homemaker services programmes, in services-to-children programmes, in the delivery of services to people and in other areas in which the private sector has never been interested.

Believe it or not, Mr. Speaker, there are large numbers of very talented people living in Vancouver-Burrard constituency. Some of these people are vitally interested in developing a film industry in British Columbia. The seed money for such an industry has to come from two sources: one through a cultural grant from the Provincial Secretary's department and the other through the Department of Economic Development. Therefore I was very pleased to see the allotment increase which was given to the Provincial Secretary's department.

As you know, the federal government made some kind of token gesture in the direction of Canadian ownership in the publishing business a couple of weeks ago. It suggested that the two large American publishers, Time magazine and Reader's Digest, should not continue to enjoy the tax shelter which they did in terms of advertising. Well, it did not take very long for the federal government to renege on this once again and to throw the Canadian publishing

[ Page 449 ]

business to the American wolves. They tell us that they are going to be able to monitor 80 per cent of the content of these magazines. That's this week. Next week it's going to be down to 50 per cent and then it's going to be down to 20 per cent, and in no time it's going to be right back where it is now.

However, I am talking about the film industry, and certainly the same thing is true of the film industry. But more and more people are beginning to find — and this is certainly the case of Americans too — that British Columbia is an ideal place for making films, and more and more people are coming here and using British Columbians as well as the British Columbia surroundings to make films. People of this province themselves are coming together and saying that they would like to develop their own film industry. Certainly we have the talent here and we have the people with the ability who are able to do so.

There are a number of people in Vancouver who came together and formed a cooperative, but what they would like is some funding and financial encouragement for the development of this industry on a cooperative basis. Although no one has anything against American films, and we accept that the two major distributors, Famous Players and Paramount Films, are American companies, the fact is that certainly a film industry should reflect the attitude and the feelings and needs of a country. Whether it is through a quota system or a rebate system, the Canadian audience should benefit, the producers should benefit and the Canadian artists should benefit. Certainly the best way to do this would be through helping to develop, through some assistance from our own economic development or through the Provincial Secretary's department, a film industry of our own in this province.

The Members of the opposition are always talking about creating jobs. Here is an opportunity that we have that this government will be able to assist in helping the creative people and the talented people of this province to find jobs and to find work in this province and not have to move elsewhere.

MR. McCLELLAND: I wish I could vote for you.

MS. BROWN: Another area which is of concern to the Provincial Secretary's department is the civil service. One of the things that the opposition Members have failed to do is to discuss, even once in all of their speeches on this budget, the question of poverty. Now this is not surprising because they are not interested in poor people. They do not see the poor as their constituents.

Both the Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) and the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey, when they were discussing low incomes, say, to people in the civil service, made statements to the effect that, depending on their place in the hierarchy, they were earning low incomes because that was the pecking order or they were earning low incomes because secretaries do not generate capital.

What the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall), through his responsibility for the civil service, has been able to do is to deal with the redistribution of income. Some of the contracts which have just been settled address themselves to just this thing. There are a number of people in this province who, despite the fact that they work very long hours, remain poor. And a number of these working poor were members of this very civil service. They were victims of the past administration which exploited its lower echelon workers and, in many cases, kept them living perilously close to or below the poverty line.

We heard from the Provincial Secretary last night that there were actually people working for this government who were trying to raise families on $300 and $400 a month. These people were poor. Although they were not collecting welfare and other services administered by the Human Resources department, it must have been impossible for them to enjoy or appreciate any of the benefits which should accrue to people living in a province as wealthy as this.

MRS. WEBSTER: Hear, hear!

MS. BROWN: I notice as soon as I start speaking about poverty that all the Liberals disappear.

MR. LEWIS: They went out to see if they could find some.

MS. BROWN: However, some of the settlements which were made deal primarily with this; they deal primarily with the lower income category. For this we were being attacked by the Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) last night and by other Members of the Liberal opposition who are saying that we are competing with private industry and that we're making things difficult for the private sector by paying a living wage to people who had been exploited while working for the government and for the people of this province.

I want to deal with one of the statements made to the effect that a secretary does not generate income. There are very few offices in this world which would survive very long without a secretary. Anyone who knows anything about legal secretaries knows that they are the ones who do the work, and all that lawyers do is collect the money. If anyone has ever had to go into a legal office, they will see that all the research, all the legwork and all the sweat work is done by those legal secretaries. The only thing the lawyer does is affix his signature to the work done by the secretary and then collect the bill for the work done.

[ Page 450 ]

This is why, at every opportunity I get to speak to legal secretaries, either individually or in a group, I say to them: "Organize, and get yourself a piece of the action. You are not secretaries; you are partners in the firm, and you should be treated as partners." I am certainly not going to stop until I see all the legal secretaries in this province organized and partners in the legal firms. Then we'll find out who is in the pecking order.

Interjections.

MS. BROWN: The last area which I would like to speak about, Mr. Speaker, does not primarily affect my area. That has to do with the Department of Agriculture.

I was very pleased to see the addition to the grant which is being administered through the Department of Agriculture to aid the developing countries, the major disaster area fund. This is the very first time since 1969 when that fund was first established that any moneys have been added to it.

I am pleased at the way in which the money was added. It wasn't just a matter of doubling the fund. The money was added in such a way that it involved the community. In other words, the onus is on everyone in British Columbia to contribute to this fund, and the government's commitment is to match this.

MR. WALLACE: Right on!

MS. BROWN: To religious groups, private groups, individuals — anybody who wants to contribute. This is going to really give everyone out there a chance to participate and to put their money, quite frankly, where their mouth has always been.

One of the things I'm hoping that the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) will also do is take a look at the whole concept of surpluses. I realize that this is probably something that should be done on a federal level. Certainly one of the things we can do is to send these surpluses to developing countries rather than have a system whereby our surpluses are dumped. So that our farmers can maintain a decent standard of living, they shouldn't be dumped on the market to affect the incomes of the farmers.

MR. LEWIS: Hear, hear!

MS. BROWN: They shouldn't be wasted. Rather than this dumping, this food should be sent through church organizations, through CARE, through UNICEF or whatever to developing countries. This would give us an opportunity to do two things at the same time.

The third area — and this applies, I realize, to the government as a whole as well as to the Minister of Finance — would be to look at the relationship between some of the debts that some of these countries are in with the federal government. A number of these countries are being held to ransom because they are indebted to us — the developing countries. They have high interest to meet, and so often we go in and we make contributions in terms of helping these countries develop their resources. But there is always a price tag affixed to it, and the interest increases, and in order to meet this debt they owe to us, instead of being able to grow food for themselves, they have to grow things like coffee and rubber and sugar for export so that they can generate income to pay off these debts.

So I hope that one of the things we will try to do is to negotiate with the federal government on behalf of some of these countries to see whether, if we cannot retire the debt, we can at least try and retire some of the interest.

This is an excellent budget, Mr. Speaker. It is geared to the helping of people, and I'm very glad to be able to support it. Thank you.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): It's a pleasure to once again stand in my place in this House and take part in the debate on the budget. I have a few notes which I will refer to from time to time.

MR. SPEAKER: Copious?

MR. SMITH: Not exceptionally so, Mr. Speaker.

I'm a little unhappy to see that the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) left the House again. I had a few nice things to say about him. Perhaps I can save those for a little while. As the lay lawyer from the opposition ranks, I had a few words of advice for the Hon. Attorney-General this evening. Without being biased in favour of the lawyers, sometimes it's a little easier to hand out advice from a slanted position or a biased position with respect to the training that one might have had, or not have had, in previous years.

I listened with interest to the remarks of the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan). Particularly I think that all of us in this House wanted to hear him spend some time on the subject of ICBC and how much it is actually costing the taxpayers of the province.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, while he was glowing in his remarks about ICBC, he very carefully avoided the matter of subsidies to that company. It is not too long ago that we heard the same Minister stand on his feet in this House and say that not one cent of consolidated revenue would go from the pockets of the taxpayers in the Province of British Columbia to subsidize any part of the operation of ICBC. I think that the question on the minds of everyone in this province tonight is not only the amount of premium

[ Page 451 ]

that they have to pay according to the notices that they receive; it's how much money is channeled from general revenue into the operation of ICBC. The people of the province have a right to know that.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): It's the automobile driver.

MR. SMITH: The people of the province have a right to know that — a direct subsidy to ICBC based upon gasoline tax. If that's the position today, how much more revenue is being siphoned off to subsidize the operation of ICBC? What does it actually cost us, including the subsidies when we get down to the total premium that is paid...

HON. MR. BARRETT: Are you against ICBC? You've very wrong.

MR. SMITH: ...for insurance in the Province of British Columbia.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You're very wrong.

MR. SMITH: The Second Member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) was a little critical of the shortage of rental accommodation, and I agree with her. There is a great shortage of rental accommodation in the Province of British Columbia. It's a crisis. But what has brought it about? Certainly it has been as a result, to a great extent, of the intervention of the government into the housing field, and the rules and regulations and controls that people have to live with today.

There was a time, not long ago, when 90 per cent of all the rental accommodation in the Province of British Columbia was supplied by private enterprise and private investment. At that time they were quite able to take care of the growth rate of the province. Much of it was built by small investors who invested their dollars in a condominium or a small apartment block for those people who choose to rent at least on a temporary basis.

But that has gone by the board. It has gone by the board as a result of government policies, as a result of the fact that no one today in industry, or with money to invest, would invest that money and expect a return under today's conditions. They know it is not there, and it is an unfortunate thing when we need accommodation as badly as we do in the province.

Interjection.

MR. SMITH: Oh, yes, Casa Loma would. The corporation now under the jurisdiction and control of the Province of British Columbia because that's an easy way to do it. You don't have to justify that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Maybe.

MR. SMITH: Maybe, that's right. We're not even sure of that.

I don't intend to spend a great deal of time speaking about housing tonight, because I think other Members of the Legislature have canvassed the subject quite thoroughly in debate and in question period. But I do say that....

Interjection.

MR. SMITH: What was the interjection? I didn't hear it.

HON. MR. COCKE: Your constituency said: "Do us a favour and don't say anything."

MR. SMITH: Well, someday, Mr. Minister of Health, perhaps you'll have cause to regret interjections of that nature.

Mr. Speaker, I don't think anything illustrates the NDP's preoccupation with red tape, with waste and extravagance at public expense more vividly than a brochure entitled "The Rentalsman and You." This is part of the housing problem in the Province of British Columbia.

You know, it must be the first time in the history of government that a department has spent so much money to explain a bewildering array of eight new forms. Eight new forms are now needed in negotiation procedures between landlords and tenants, Mr. Speaker, by the time the landlord and the tenant finish completing all of the forms required, I'm sure that one or the other will have died of old age, because there they are, a massive array. There's a form that's called "a notice to landlords." Another one is "a notice to tenants." And there's: a demand of payment of rent arrears; an application for consent to early termination; a notice of dispute; a security deposit notice to the rentalsman and the tenant; application for order to pay a rent to rentalsman due to lack of repair; application for order to pay rent to rentalsman due to lack of provision of assurance of essential services.

MR. BENNETT: Would you say the bureaucracy's running true to form?

MR. SMITH: I would say that true to the form of the NDP, whenever you have a problem to solve you seem to think you can solve it by printing another piece of paper — another form for someone to fill out, another excuse for hiring more people into the departments of government. But it won't build one apartment or one new house, or solve one problem that we have today in the housing field.

[ Page 452 ]

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It helps the pulp market.

MR. SMITH: The only bright solution has perhaps been offered by the Attorney-General when he says it helps the pulp market. Well, perhaps it does, and seeing we're in that business in the Province of British Columbia, it might be some small relief to the people of the province when they know they've had to pay the type of money that would be involved in printing this type of form.

It's interesting to note the vast increase in dollar figures at least in some of the departments, and wonder, as I do, what that money will be used for. For instance, in the Attorney-General's department, I notice that his budget is up a total of 65 per cent.

Interjection.

MR. SMITH: Sixty-four? Well, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, then, if you say it's 64. I know that you're an honest man and I'll take your word for it that it's 64. But it is up from $70 million to $115 million — an increase of $45 million, Mr. Attorney-General, in one year. This is really what I would call helping inflation feed upon itself.

How much would you take off the municipalities? Oh, you're going to give them a great big windfall profit when you sell some natural gas. We'll get around to that in a minute.

Mr. Attorney-General, with the budget in your department and in other departments, you're not helping to control inflation, you're part of the problem. There's good reason for us to doubt the figures that are down there respecting both revenue and expenditure.

It's possible that revenue has been vastly overestimated. Hopefully, expenditure has been vastly overestimated, because if not, we're in real trouble in the Province of British Columbia.

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): We deserve a break today from Macdonald.

MR. SMITH: I think we have a good example how the government of this province puts before the public information, and then forgets about it a few days later. In other words, as a government, you have little respect for your own edicts, but you put it before the public and tell them what you're going to do — the things that you have decided on as policy of government, and then you completely ignore it. It's forgotten; it's dead and buried.

I'd like to quote an example from some of your own material. A memorandum over the signature of the Deputy Minister of Finance, Mr. Gerald Bryson, issued December 30, 1974, ordered all government departments to halt hiring, purchase of office equipment, all recruitment, and even imposed limitations for car mileage allowances. I'm sure that the Deputy Minister did not do that on his own accord. He was following the advice of the Minister of Finance on December 30. I'm sure all responsible Ministers of government received a copy of that memorandum.

My question to the Attorney-General, then, is what did you do with it? Throw it into the wastepaper basket? You must have, because on January 16, 1975, just two weeks later — order-in-council 149, public service, Department of the Attorney-General, increased by 48 positions in various branches.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. SMITH: Is that the way you pay attention to a memorandum of, I would say, major importance from the Deputy Minister of Finance? Two weeks after the memorandum was published and certainly in the hands of all the Ministers of government, you increase the personnel of your department in various branches by 48 positions. Is that the way you try to help control inflation?

HON. MR. COCKE: Justice will prevail. (Laughter.)

MR. SMITH: I think the public in the Province of British Columbia expect and have a right, above all else, to truth in all matters where the public purse is involved. What we should be reasonably able to expect and what we are presently receiving are, in my opinion, poles apart.

I'm surprised that the Attorney-General in his capacity as the chief law enforcement officer in this province has not launched an action against the Minister of Finance for misleading advertising, particularly with respect to the most important document of the year. I refer to the budget. I'm sure the Attorney-General must agree with me that the publication of a summary of that document includes misleading advertising. I'm sure he is going to carry out his duty to make sure that action is launched forthwith against the Minister of Finance for allowing the publication of misleading advertising.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, get out of here.

MR. SMITH: Just what did it say? It says, first of all, when you speak of municipalities, that the municipalities will receive one-third of all revenue above $1 per thousand cubic feet when and if Ottawa approves an increase in the export price for natural gas. Sounds good. Sounds great. There's a suggestion that that will amount to at least $20 million a year and then go up if the price goes beyond $1.35 per

[ Page 453 ]

thousand cubic feet, and so on. I presume this was predicated on so many million cubic feet of exportable natural gas per year.

Well, tell me, then, Mr. Attorney-General, how do you account and what calculations were taken into consideration, if any, for the reduction in natural gas that we have experienced in the last year? You can tell me about it when you have an opportunity to speak in the budget. It's not question period. Sit down and I'll finish my questions to you, which I presume you'll take note of and answer in good time, perhaps in your estimates. I want to be fair with you and give you an opportunity.

What happens if the present trend of reduction in the amount of natural gas producible in the Province of British Columbia continues? Are we going to experience even greater shortfalls than we have in the past? If we have no exploration, it's going to continue to decrease because it is an exhaustible resource. It is an exhaustible resource; it's diminishing in supply. So if you do receive an increase in price, what you're doing is offering the municipalities one-third of nothing, Mr. Attorney-General, and you know that.

No increase in personal income tax — so this nice document says — or sales tax. But what about the 2 per cent increase in the price of gasoline?

In order to get the revenue side of the budget up to the figure of $3.2 billion, you had to project a 40 per cent increase in the province's share of income tax. Is that not taxes against people? I think it is. I think that the people of the province have every right to expect a more honest appraisal of the budget than we see laid out in this.

The only person who is happy with this is Dunsky because he got paid well for setting up an ad such as this in the Province of British Columbia.

You talk about taxes to homeowners and school tax. "Each homeowner and family farmer will receive the benefit of a doubling of the limit of the school tax removal programme."

It's not true, Mr. Speaker. Some will reap the benefit of a double grant. In actual fact, others will receive less than they did last year.

I would suggest to the Attorney-General that it would be nice if he would consider becoming the ombudsman for the citizens of this province. Ensure yourself, Mr. Attorney-General, of political immortality. Become a little bit more courageous, a little more fearless, Mr. Attorney-General, in the operation of your department. I'm sure that if you do you will go down in history as one of the greatest Attorneys-General in the Province of British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: Wait till he gets home. He is going to go down in history.

MR. SMITH: When you leave the chamber tonight, advise your department to start a suit forthwith against the Department of Finance and the Minister for publishing misleading advertising such as this. I know that if you were to do that, the Dunsky advertising company wouldn't like you very much, and the Premier wouldn't like you very much. You would then probably be removed forthwith from the No. 2 position. But the people of British Columbia would proclaim you as a great, stouthearted defender of the rights of the individual.

Do you know, you might become a household word in the Province of British Columbia? I can just hear everyone saying: "This man, who defended our rights and pointed out the deception in the advertising and the fact that our taxes were going to be increased, is a great man. Macdonald is the great legal lion of British Columbia."

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: That is what you could be. So don't be a little pussycat. Come on out. Do the job that you were put in charge of when you became the Premier....

AN HON. MEMBER: Order me a hamburger.

MR. SMITH: The Premier? No, the Premier's adviser — the No. 2 Premier in the Province of British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: Put your decals on.

MR. SMITH: I'd like to spend a few minutes now talking about vote 14 in the book of estimates. It is a new vote and under it we have legal services and advice to government departments — something new that the Attorney-General has decided was a good idea. It provides a good deal of money for this particular function, advice to government departments.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Quit picking on the Attorney-General.

MR. SMITH: I would like to know. I am sure that in good time the Attorney-General will advise us what type of advice he intends to disseminate to the public. Are you, Mr. Attorney-General, going to advise the government on how to build large bureaucracies? Is that one of the duties?

Are you going to advise government departments on how to recycle all the controversial problems and send them back through the system so many times that people become so frustrated they give up in disgust because they can never get any answers?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Time's up.

[ Page 454 ]

MR. SMITH: Are you going to use the advice of this department to help lick inflation and inefficiency? Is that part of the advice that this department will give the other departments in government? Are you going to advise the Minister of Housing that in the future it would be better if he looked before he leaped — that perhaps, instead of becoming so involved in public housing with Dunhill Development Corp. and Casa Loma and Meadowbrook, he might be well advised to encourage the private sector to build more accommodation in the Province of British Columbia, and see about what could be done to get the price of property down to a reasonable, acceptable level?

Perhaps he would even give the Minister of Housing some advice on the acquisition of property. Do you know, the Attorney-General is great for accusing the people in the real estate business of being less than frank sometimes with the public in the Province of British Columbia.

It seems to me that the Attorney-General — not that he would have to do it personally, but through this department which is set up to advise government departments — would suggest to the Housing department that when it comes to the purchase of property, they would be well advised to be a little more frank with the people in the Province of British Columbia. Will he suggest to the Department of Housing that it is really not cricket to lean heavily on the elected municipal officials in the Province of British Columbia, that it is really not cricket to try to make them bend to the will of that particular Minister, to grind them down or tell them they will suffer the consequences?

Perhaps the department, under the advice of the Attorney-General, would speak to the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) regarding the indiscriminate use of power in his hands and in his department — that there is a great feeling of insecurity among the people in the logging industry today and in forestry with respect to cutting rights and timber leases and the fact that this could very well be taken away from them for no justifiable reason. There is certainly a strong feeling of that throughout northern British Columbia.

MR. CHABOT: Right on!

MR. SMITH: Perhaps the Attorney-General, through this department, would provide some advice for himself that he would consider having the department advise him with respect to an unreasonable verbal vendetta against the mining, the petroleum and the gas business in the Province of British Columbia, and those companies that are in the exploration and production of gas.

Perhaps he would even ask his own department to investigate and advise him on what I would term the sloppy, ineffectual manner in which a number of cases have been handled through the Attorney-General's department.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: We want Nicolson.

MR. SMITH: There was a case of a couple of football players, Mr. Attorney-General.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, what about them?

MR. SMITH: What's happening there? What's happening there?

AN HON. MEMBER: They're not with the Alouettes, either.

MR. SMITH: They were first taken before the courts and then released.

Interjections.

MR. SMITH: Lack of action...is it? I'm suggesting that through this new department you set up you should investigate this, or have the department investigate this if you yourself are not going to do it.

Then there's the question of another case: the Sanucci case. What is being done in that particular case?

HON. MR. BARRETT: What is being done in that case?

MR. SMITH: I'm sure that the people who are relatives of the person who was involved, namely Mary Jones, feel that the case was improperly handled and that for some reason a person who committed a felony in the Province of British Columbia just suddenly went out to the United States on a....

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

HON. MR. MACDONALD: On a point of order. The point of order is that the Hon. Member, through misadventure, has said that a certain person committed a felony in the Province of British Columbia. That person was found by the courts of the province not to have committed an offence. He should not, therefore, be branded as having committed a felony. I wish he would withdraw that.

MR. SMITH: I'll correct the statement. There certainly is, at the present time, reasonable doubt in the minds of many people in the Province of British

[ Page 455 ]

Columbia, who were personally involved with the lady whose life was lost in this case, that justice was not done in this particular instance. Justice was not done.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: There was a full court hearing.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Are you blaming him for that?

MR. SMITH: I'm asking him, through this new department, to take another look. After all, the Attorney-General has been great with a statement that says he is always prepared to let a little sunshine in. Get on with it, that's all. There's a provision for $390,000 in your budget to advise other government departments, and I presume that that means you can give advice to your own department as well as to other departments.

It would seem to me that there's ample reason for investigation of just two of the facets of law enforcement and dispensing of law in the province that I have named in the last few minutes. A good place to start would be within your own department.

I believe that the Attorney-General, in good time, will tell us how he intends to operate this department, but I believe I've given him a few suggestions this evening with respect to some of the things that the public will be watching very closely in the operation of a new venture in the department under your jurisdiction.

After all, $390,000 is included in the budget for this new experiment. Let's see some justice done in the Province of British Columbia and where abuses are perpetrated on other people, regardless of whether it's by an agency of the Crown or by edict, look into the matter so that the public interest is put ahead of the interest of big government in this province.

I'd like to spend a few moments now speaking about the part of the budget which refers to northern affairs. There's a short paragraph in the budget on page 17 referring to northern affairs. It says:

"Our government is developing policies for the northern region of the province through consultation with those most intimately affected by such policies — the northern residents. The northern affairs office to be established in Prince George, with the necessary support staff, will liaise with government departments and advise on northern matters, expand the public consultation programme, and undertake studies on matters of particular interest in the north."

Mr. Speaker, we've had studies done in the north, I believe, until they're about ready to run out our ears.

It would seem to me that there are many people living in the north who have a great deal of expertise on not only some of the problems but some very good ideas on the solution to those problems. If the purpose of this new department is to enter into some sort of programme of continuous study before they come up with any solutions to some of the problems, then all that will be done is to set back the development of northern British Columbia even further than at the present time.

Other than hear the Minister Without Portfolio in charge of northern development (Hon. Mr. Nunweiler) thump his desk once while the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) was speaking in this debate, I can't recall of any other contribution made. Certainly it requires more than a PR job and the Minister meeting with individuals and organizations throughout the north to solve the problems.

Mr. Speaker, they have known about these problems in the north for some time, and they have some very good ideas about solutions. They'd like to know, for instance, why the development of rail lines and transportation communications is not progressing faster than it is. They'd like to know why Churchill Copper had to close down, and Bradina near Houston. They'd like to know why Granduc had to cut back production at Stewart, and Gibraltar at Williams Lake, and Lornex at Kamloops.

HON L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): Want me to tell you right now?

MR. SMITH: Oh, yes. You're going to say: "All because of the price of copper." Well, it would seem to me that rather than blame all the problems on the price of copper, the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources would have been well-advised to take seriously the advice of the chamber of mines when he brought his legislation into the House.

It is not enough any more for the NDP government to flit around the north and pay lip service to the problems that exist there. We need certain services. There's no question about it. We have communities up there that are behind in terms of adequate water and sewerage facilities, recreational facilities, and hospitals and schools. It's improving, but it could improve much faster.

We need to develop a system which will help and encourage people who want to get ahead in life, to seek a chance and an opportunity in the north. The opportunity was there. Hopefully it will still be there in the future.

Talking to people will not solve the problems because they have been known for some time. But development of the natural resources and, eventually, the creation of secondary industry will. We do not want to see large metropolitan cities in northern British Columbia, but we have a reason to wish and

[ Page 456 ]

hope for adequate communities, well serviced, where people can live with their families and enjoy the same type of amenities and life that a person enjoys if they live in Vancouver or the lower mainland.

That's all the north asks: some cooperation and help in developing the resources that they have in abundance around them, and the right to live the way they wish to live with a minimum of government interference.

This budget was large in figures but small when it came to providing adequate solutions to the many problems of the people in the Province of British Columbia. For that reason I have no hesitation in voting against it.

MR. C. LIDEN (Delta): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise and support this motion and to compliment the Minister of Finance for the presentation of a very fine budget.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. LIDEN: It is hard to understand sometimes what the opposition are saying around here, and what they are doing and some of the things that have been said not only by the opposition in the House but by some of those outside. Last night I mentioned the political wanderer from Surrey who has bought himself a ticket on the Titanic, the one who is out looking for headlines all the time.

MRS. JORDAN: The Member for Surrey on the Titanic. Right on!

MR. LIDEN: I said the politician, that politician wanderer out in Surrey, the mayor of Surrey (Mr. Vander Zalm) who is out always looking for headlines. It is in that place where we have stories where the mayor one day wants a railroad through the area to develop the industrial area, and the next day he doesn't want it. He wants an oil refinery one day, and the next day he doesn't want it. You know, it depends on what kind of wind is blowing.

HON. MR. BARRETT: He wants to be a leader and the next day he wants to be a cabinet Minister.

MR. LIDEN: He's sort of a champion, like they all are in that group. They're champions for the municipalities, but all they're really doing is making headlines.

They made some headlines some years ago, too. In March of 1974, there was a headline that said:

"Bennett Attacked for Slur on the Cities. Charges Misuse of Road Grants. Premier W.A.C. Bennett was accused Friday of casting a shadow on the conduct of municipal officials from all over the province."

MR. LEWIS: How could he do that?

MR. LIDEN: "The municipalities are misusing the funds. They've caught themselves in their own glue," he said. That was the Premier in 1967, W.A.C. Bennett.

Another headline says: "Bennett Slaps Down Crying Civic Heads."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. LIDEN: "It's just 92 per cent crocodile tears." That is the headline of 1967.

Then some things go the other way too. In March, 1967: "Bennett Lashed Over Funds Charge." And there's an interesting comment here where it says:

"Saanich Reeve Hugh Curtis, who also sent a telegram to Municipal Affairs Minister Campbell demanding retraction of a charge, said he hoped the Premier's charge was only hasty comment in the heat of debate."

Then he added:

"If, however, this reflects the attitude of the Premier as Minister of Finance, then it is essential that this allegation be supported by facts."

MR. PHILLIPS: No more! No more!

MR. LIDEN: It goes on:

"Curtis said the municipal taxpayers and the public in general are entitled to have full details of any misuse or mismanagement of funds which have come to the government's attention."

That's what he was saying in those days.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Where's Hugh now?

MR. LIDEN: On April 17, 1967: "Smokescreen, Cries Campbell." There was a demand for a royal commission by the municipal people. What does Campbell say? He says: "Demand for a royal commission study of provincial-municipal fiscal relationships is only a political smokescreen originating with the Liberal Party."

MR. LEWIS: Who said that?

MR. LIDEN: The Minister of Municipal Affairs, Dan Campbell, said that on April 17, 1967. "Mr. Campbell made his charge during a press conference he called to answer Mayor Stevens' demand at the weekend for a royal commission." He wouldn't refer to Mayor Stevens as the messenger for the Liberal Party, but somehow or other the municipalities were asking for a royal commission and the Minister of Municipal Affairs of that day decided it was the

[ Page 457 ]

Liberal Party.

What did Campbell say? He said: "The best formula for education, health and welfare assistance in Canada — these are not static and would be changed to keep pace with the times." He said that B.C. had made 30 changes since 1952 up until 1967, and had developed the best assistance for municipalities in all of Canada and the best formula for sharing those costs. But in spite of those statements and his statement that there'd be no investigation, he would not go for the royal commission that was asked for; by September of 1969, he decided to go a route of his own.

In a speech he made in Kamloops, he said: "A 30-day blitz to find out where British Columbians spend their money will be launched next week by the Minister of Municipal Affairs." He said: "Starting next week, 10,000 questionnaires will be mailed out to a select group of taxpayers in the province."

MR. LEWIS: All Socreds.

MR. LIDEN: All to find out what's happening in the municipalities. Then what happens? In 1970, they got the result of their little questionnaire and they made a decision. I see in 1970 that the president of the Union of B.C. Municipalities said that social welfare is a case where administration costs have risen without the municipalities having any control over them. He said the cost-sharing ratio changed in 1968 when Campbell was the welfare Minister and the municipal share was increased from 10 per cent to 20 per cent.

MR. LEWIS: Increased?

MR. LIDEN: The municipal share was increased from 10 per cent to 20 per cent. That statement was made by the president of the Union of B.C. Municipalities of that year, who was the mayor of Saanich, Hugh Curtis.

MR. H. STEVES (Richmond): Hugh who?

MR. LIDEN: He was very, very critical of that kind of move, where the government of the day increased the municipal share of welfare.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Where's Hugh now?

MR. LIDEN: He's left. He's gone out.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, he's not left. He's way to the right.

HON. MR. BARRETT: When he's in here, they all leave. When he's gone they all come back. (Laughter.)

MR. WALLACE: That's what it's like to be alone.

MR. LIDEN: It doesn't really look like the Unity group.

There were a lot of headlines in those days where the Minister said that the biggest share of outlay was unlikely from the province. He was talking about the sharing of the finances with the municipalities. That was in June of 1971. He went back and forth from time to time where Campbell was Minister of Municipal Affairs, was very critical of what was happening in the municipalities. The mayor of Saanich, once again, in 1971 only had one word on Monday night for a letter from the Minister of Municipal Affairs. He said: "It's incredible. It can only be described as an incredible letter," he told the council.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Who was that?

MR. LIDEN: That was the mayor of Saanich, Hugh Curtis, in 1971.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Is that right?

MR. LIDEN: He was complaining about what was happening under the Social Credit government of British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where is he now?

MR. LIDEN: And what's happened now? He has become a political tourist. He's touring around from one place to another. I am not sure, but someone said that this was an example of someone who had sacrificed personal ambition to achieve political power. Now he is touring around the political movements of the province.

I suspect that at one time he had a future. That was when he was one of two. Now he is one of eleven, and the evidence is that he has been told to be quiet. He has been told to be quiet because they have to focus all their attention on the man that takes the powder in order to get into the headlines.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who is that?

MR. LIDEN: You have got to watch out for those fellows behind them. But you know, when the Member for Saanich and the Islands took a look at the weather report here last year.... It reminds me of when we were working at sea. We always listened to the weather report, but we would take a better look than what he took. He took a look at the weather report and he saw breaking clouds. He thought there was some sunshine coming through over there. But, really, he didn't realize that there was a wind blowing to break those clouds and it was

[ Page 458 ]

blowing a long way. They're going a long way.

HON. MR. BARRETT: And Scott won't take him back.

MR. LIDEN: At that time he was making a lot of headlines; he seemed to have an effect somewhere in this province. Now, with his new-found leader or foster parent, whatever he has there.... I'm not sure who is slapping whose hand, but he is certainly playing a low-key role. His leader said one day that they are critical of the unemployment situation in the province, and the political tourist is critical of the government getting involved in Can-Cel. I wonder if he has ever thought of what would have happened to Prince Rupert if it hadn't been for the government involvement in Can-Cel.

The mayor of that town told me: "You can use my name any time and say that the government action at Can-Cel has stabilized Prince Rupert." It's stabilized Prince Rupert.

MR. BENNETT: What's the mayor's name?

AN HON. MEMBER: Pete Liden.

MR. BENNETT: Good man, Pete Liden.

MR. LIDEN: He says that the government involvement in Can-Cel has stabilized the town. Now what's happening there now? What's happening to Prince Rupert? Prince Rupert is booming.

[Mr. Dent in the chair]

There is a shopping centre under construction — two shopping centres under construction — housing projects going ahead and the second stage of the port, the development of a major port in Prince Rupert that has been developed on the initiative of the Government of the Province of British Columbia, working with the federal government. I think the Member for Saanich and the Islands in his suggestions had really better take another look at the weather report.

The tourist from Saanich is the same as the political wanderer from Surrey, the mayor there. They are both after the leadership. And it's awfully difficult to decide which one is going to get him.

HON. MR. BARRETT: What about McClelland?

MR. LIDEN: Who's the leader now? It's either the millionaire mini-Wac from Kelowna, the Surrey wanderer or the Saanich tourist. I don't know which one, but they are all carving away.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about Langley?

MR. LIDEN: There have been some interesting speeches made in this House but some of them have been pretty badly researched; some of them very badly researched. I understand that the Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) made the same speech today that he made on February 25. I checked Hansard to look at some of the things that he said about the Member for Delta (Mr. Liden) and he said: "The Member for Delta, I recall, was in Delta council. He went to them and said: 'I would like you to tell me how you'd like to spend this extra money that we are going to get from increased oil.'" Not very well researched. "He said: 'It would be really nice for you to tell us how to spend that money.'" Well, I was at the Delta council meeting — I've been there more than once — and what I asked the Delta council was to make representation to Ottawa to support the province's call for an increase in natural gas.

The mayor for Delta at one time was a Member of Parliament. I asked him to use his influence in Ottawa to see if he couldn't help us get an increase in gas prices. And you know what he said? The mayor of Delta said he agreed with what we were doing and, if it would provide more funds for the municipalities, he would be right in there supporting us. That's what he said.

Interjection.

MR. LIDEN: What else did that Member for Langley say? That Member for Langley, when he was critical of the oil refinery, said a number of things. I want to just examine those because the record needs to be set straight. We can't allow that kind of badly researched speech to stand as a record in this House. He said:

"...the Fraser Valley now provides 70 per cent of the farm produce of this whole province, and you know that only 6 per cent of this province is arable. Any reduction or contamination of farmland, and almost every bit of that land is in the land reserve, is unthinkable.

He was talking about the oil refinery proposal in south Surrey. Can you imagine that, when you think about the things he said when we were in discussion on the land bill? Can you imagine what he said? He campaigned in favour of all land being used for whatever anyone wanted to use it for. He didn't want it saved for farm purposes, not then and not now.

AN HON. MEMBER: The old switcheroo.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Short fuse and short memory.

MR. LIDEN: Then he goes on to say:

"...the whole of the lower mainland has to be

[ Page 459 ]

affected — from Hope, to Chilliwack, to Abbotsford, to the Hazelmere Valley, to White Rock, to Delta, to Semiahmoo, to Tsawwassen.

The whole area from Hope to the Gulf of Georgia. What was he talking about? He was talking about the possibility of an oil refinery in south Surrey.

He said that the additional cost to build an oil refinery today with the cost of pollution control would more than double and triple the price that was talked about a few years ago. So on one hand he is talking about pollution control that he knows this government will bring in — he knows this government would have full pollution control on any oil refinery, no matter where it's built — and then on the other hand he says it's going to pollute the whole of the Fraser Valley.

MR. LEWIS: Does the oil run up hill?

MR. LIDEN: He also said:

"...I don't know whether you know this or not, Mr. Speaker, but the government never went to the local council. They never went. They were buying up 1,500 acres, 2,000 acres in the local community but they never went to the local council to tell them about that. I don't think you knew that because you'd be shocked if you knew that. It's terrible that they never went once to the local council."

Well, I think it's a matter of record that the mayor of Surrey has stated that he was involved in discussions at the very outset. He was involved; he knew exactly what was going on in taking the options; he knew exactly what was going on in the way of studies. He has made no bones about that. Somehow or other, the Member for Langley says something in the record here that is totally and completely untrue.

HON. MR. COCKE: What else is new?

MR. LIDEN: He goes on and repeats that into the next page.

Interjection.

MR. LIDEN: Then he goes one stop further and he says:

"...that whole area which is being purchased is in the land reserve, and yet they're going to put a petrochemical complex in there without ever consulting with the Land Commission. Now is that fair? No, it's not fair."

That's a statement from the Member for Langley.

MR. LEWIS: Irresponsible.

MR. LIDEN: Well, if he did a little bit of work — the maps are available — that area is not in the agricultural land reserve. There is a thin strip on the western side of it that's in the agricultural reserve — one-quarter of the site. That makes him three-quarters wrong. It's been said around here that sometimes people are 50 per cent right and 50 per cent wrong, but not the Member for Langley. He's 100 per cent wrong and 75 per cent wrong.

HON. MR. BARRETT: In his case that's an improvement. (Laughter.)

MR. LIDEN: It is, because earlier in his remarks he was 100 per cent wrong. Then he improved to where he was 75 per cent wrong.

If we're going to look at the possibility of an oil refinery in British Columbia, no matter where it's going to be, you should look at it very factually and try not to deal with it emotionally.

The first question that has to be looked at is whether or not we need an oil refinery in British Columbia at all. When you look at that question, you find we're running a deficit today of 20,000 barrels per day. By 1980, we'll be running a deficit of 70,000 barrels per day. Either we're going to have to provide those kinds of oil products for the people of British Columbia or we're going to have to change our lifestyle. That means we cut out the driving of the car and we cut out heating our homes with furnace oils. Those are the kinds of things we have to consider. Either that or we're going to be awfully short of oil products in the very near future. That's part of a study that's taking place right now.

The second question that we have to look at, if the answer to the first question is yes, and we need an oil refinery, is where. Where should it be? I don't suppose there's a site anywhere in British Columbia where there isn't some environmental consideration, whether it's at Roberts Bank in Surrey, in Merritt, Highland Valley, or wherever.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

It has been suggested that we look at all of those places, and studies have taken place. The reports are being prepared and put in the hands of the petroleum corporation and from there on they'll be dealt with by the government of the province. But, you know, for all the fuss that's been made about the Surrey site, there's one thing that we should make clear, and that is that there's an official community plan: "The District of Surrey." It's up to date, and it shows here an order-in-council that was passed in 1966, on June 30, that approved this site as an industrial site.

MR. LEWIS: Industrial?

MR. LIDEN: And you know who it's signed by? W.A.C. Bennett, that's who it's signed by; in 1966, on

[ Page 460 ]

June 30. There was a bylaw passed at the same time, signed by the reeve and the clerk of the municipality. I have a copy of that report. It shows very, very clearly the industrial site that's set out on a map that's shown as Schedule A in the report. It shows the site in question as an industrial site and declared as such by the former administration of this province.

MR. LEWIS: For industry? That's bad.

MR. LIDEN: For industry. Today they're taking a different position. You know, if we are going to look at an oil refinery, we have to look at the kinds of refineries, as well. And we have to look at who should build it, if we do decide that we're going to have one. I say that the case is clear: the next oil refinery in this province should be built by a Crown authority, not by the private oil companies. They control 99 per cent of the oil production in this country today, and we've got to put a stop to that. We've got to provide the alternative. If it's done by the public corporation, then we can have the kind of refinery that will allow us to have it pollution free.

Interjection.

MR. LIDEN: There are such refineries in the world. We don't need to have the pollution that we've had with the 50-year-old ones that we've got, so far, in British Columbia. The site in Surrey that's still a possible site really consists of 2,000 acres, as the Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) indicated. He was correct on that score. But, you know, only 600 acres are needed for the oil refinery site and the tank farm. The rest of it becomes a buffer zone around it. That's good planning. That kind of planning can be done by the Crown in developing the kind of site that we need.

Mr. Speaker, I submit that the Member for Langley hasn't made use of the researchers that this government has provided for that opposition group. He's just taken figures out of the air; he's never really gone into the situation properly.

MR. LEWIS: Do you think we should help him?

MR. LIDEN: Mr. Speaker, I want to deal with one other issue, and that's an issue that's in the budget: a provision for $1 million to pay the interest on loans that are obtained under the farm products industry assistance programme. That's to provide farm products industry assistance to get them going in this province. There are some interesting things that have been stated. There are some things that have happened in western Canada that certainly we have to look at.

There's a book that's been written by Walter Stewart, and he refers in one chapter to, "Old Macdonald had a farm, but now it belongs to McCain's." What's happened in eastern Canada is that a large monopoly — a food organization — has bought out the farmers in many instances and has made poor men out of them while the company has become very, very rich. McCain's Food Ltd. is a perfect prototype of the agribusiness. It's a credit to the theory of vertical integration. And what do they say?

"They own practically everything in sight. What they don't own, they run, and what they can't run, they have under contract. Anything they don't own, or run, or hold under contract, they watch very, very closely indeed. The McCains are big. Their companies had sales last year of $100 million, double the take of 1969, but they pay lousy wages. They have their own airplanes, two of them, and they're kept in their own hangars and flown out of their own airport at Florenceville."

MR. PHILLIPS: Have you ever been there?

MR. LIDEN: They house their families in a row of mansions. The Member for South Peace River may know more about New Brunswick the way it was years ago, but if you went back there to see what's happened to the farmers, you'd find that their homes are run down and some of them are vacant, and so on. But it goes on to say that:

"The McCains drive huge cars. They are forever popping up all around the world: in New York, in the Netherlands, in Uruguay, in Greece...

MR. PHILLIPS: You're against everybody!

MR. LIDEN: Just a minute, now.

"...and yet the farmers back home, who provide the crops that keep the McCains rich, are still dirt poor. They're hard working, and they're getting nowhere."

AN HON. MEMBER: Shameful! Shameful!

MR. LIDEN: You know, if you're a supporter of McCain's, Mr. Member for South Peace River, then I think you better take a look at what they're doing and the possibility of what can happen if you don't have a government that's prepared to work with the farm community and do things.

McCain's story is not only a classic tale of agribusiness; it is also a classic tale of capitalism. In other words, they inherited a bundle from their father, benefited from the astonishing generosity of governments, both federal and provincial, and now they sing their never-ending hymns of praise for free enterprise, thrift and the rewards that go to the deserving. Very, very interesting indeed. That's the sort of thing that's been happening in the Maritimes

[ Page 461 ]

in the agriculture business. They have developed an industry that they completely control. All the potatoes are grown under contract.

Interjection.

MR. LIDEN: I don't know what the former Minister of Labour (Mr. Chabot) is saying but I know he's speaking about people where he had no friends, and that was in the labour movement. Labour leaders all over the province recognized his role.

MR. CHABOT: I'm talking about your Commie friend, Homer Stevens.

MR. LIDEN: I've got friends throughout the working class that you will never have, my friend.

Here's what happens to the farmers in the Maritimes. They contract all potato growing to McCain's. If there's a poor crop and the farmer goes short of filling his contract, then some of the most terrible things happen. Now listen to this — if the farmer's crop fails, in that event, McCain's is entitled to go out to the market, which is likely to be high and they buy potatoes at the going rate to fill the contract that the farmer had. Then they charge to the farmer the difference between the contract figure and the market for all of the potatoes that he fails to deliver.

AN HON. MEMBER: Free enterprise.

MR. LIDEN: That's what they're able to do. They're able to contract the farmers and if the farmer doesn't deliver, they go out on the market and they buy the potatoes and they charge it back to the farmer. If you don't think that can happen, think again.

In brief, a farmer who ran short of his contract was billed $8,196. When he failed to pay, he protested among other things, that McCain's accounting was faulty. But the company took him to court and they collected the contract and the court costs. That's the kind of contracts these people write up for the farmers. And what happens? The farmers become poor people and the monopolies become bigger and bigger. And all of the time they're singing great songs about free enterprise. That's what it does. That's the growth of monopoly and that's the kind of things that are starting to happen in this province.

McCain's have bought in British Columbia. They've bought out Fresh-Pack in Burnaby, and they talk about closing it down.

Interjection.

MR. LIDEN: I suppose the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) would join hands with them and keep them here. As far as I'm concerned, they can go. The B.C. Coast Vegetable Co-op recognizes the problems that they are faced with. The farmers recognize these problems and they are getting together to do something about it. But they are only able to do something about it because of the attitude of the government of the Province of British Columbia today.

MR. PHILLIPS: What about all of the ships in Vancouver harbour?

MR. LIDEN: The farmers want to build processing plants of their own and they're going to be able to build processing plants of their own because of the programmes that have been initiated by this government and the kind of budget that we've set up by this government.

What happens? If you take a look at the situation today, the farmers in Prince Edward Island are getting $28 a ton for their potatoes; in New Brunswick $34 a ton for their potatoes; in B.C. the farmers are getting $90 a ton for their potatoes because they don't have to deal with that monopoly just yet, because that monopoly hasn't got control. But the consumer gets no break. The only thing that happens is that there's a larger cut for the monopolies.

This budget is the kind of budget that's going to keep the farmers in production in this province. This is the kind of budget that's going to help the producers. This is the kind of budget that's going to help the little people throughout the province in all walks of life. This is the kind of budget that I hope we're going to be able to use to keep small business going and put a little heavier load on the big business.

I think we've got a responsibility in this province to prevent monopolies from taking full control. The control in this province belongs to the people. That's where it sits today with this government and that's where we intend to keep it.

Hon. Mr. Lea moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Hall moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11 p.m.