Hansard — Tuesday, February 8, 1972 — Afternoon Sitting (2024)

1972 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 29th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposesonly.
The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 1972

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 315 ]

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr. Speaker, Iwould ask the Members to join with me today in welcoming Mayor Sangsterand Alderman Edwards from the Village of Pemberton.

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

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, Iwould ask the House to join me in welcoming an outstanding citizen fromthe Courtenay area, Mrs. Karen Sandford who is the N.D.P. candidate inthe next provincial election.

Introduction of bills.

Orders of the day.

ON THE BUDGET

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

HON. D.R.J. CAMPBELL (Minister of Municipal Affairs): Mr.Speaker, I'm delighted to join in the welcome to a very good friend ofmine from the great constituency of Comox, and to make one or twoobservations about the conduct of business in British Columbia.Naturally because I am following the illustrious efforts yesterday bythe Leader of the Opposition, Pagliacci at his best — Little theatre atit* worst. Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: That's the trouble with these Italians, they want to horn in everywhere.

Mr. Speaker, the delightful budget by the leader of the Liberalparty — I'll have one or two comments to make about that as you mightexpect. But before I do, I wish to have some direct comments concerningthe effort yesterday by the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition.Naturally, his efforts should come first. I thought that the editor ofthe Victoria Colonist, thismorning, must have had a sense of humour in placing on the front pageof the paper side by side the effort by the Leader of the Oppositionand the leader of the Liberal party. The rest of the papers, I'm sure,will not front page it because, since I've been in this Legislature,Mr. Speaker, we have never had a display of clowning around such as wegot from the Leader of the Opposition yesterday.

Clowning around, Mr. Speaker, in a fashion which has becometraditional with the Leader, not only in the House, but on the hustings.

I'm quite sure that if you were to examine the office of the Leaderof the Opposition, there must be at least one wardrobe there and that'sa series of costumes. Because the package that the Leader of theOpposition brings to British Columbia is a whole series of ideas whichin effect add up to this — you catch any bus, sail down the river onany log, put on any costume, move anti-American or pro-American in onefell swoop, go from woeful to Waffle in one afternoon, move from thecomments about northern British Columbia in the name of the democratictradition, and what these people in Houston are supposed to have doneor not done about forming a municipality, running around the countrysaying what an N.D.P. government really means when it says it is a NewDemocratic Party — and I'll have more to say about that in reference tomy friend from Vancouver East, if I can call him my friend and I usethe term loosely.

Mr. Speaker, the Leader yesterday, as he has normally done in thisHouse, got up to tell the story of Houston. That the Minister ofMunicipal Affairs had created this municipality without any localdecision whatsoever. That's exactly the speech that he made in Houston.The report I have here when you were talking to the five people in thephone booth in Houston — five, I'm giving him the Americanised versionso he can understand exactly what I'm saying. He's been south now sohe's got to have the message.

What happened there? He knows it very well, so he need not try tokid the people of the Province of British Columbia. That councilunanimously passed the resolution which is on the minute book. I thinkhe looked at that minute book — and my advice is that he looked at thatminute book — and that resolution is very clear that there was aunanimous vote of that council to form that municipality on such termsand conditions as they themselves agreed to.

It was not a vote that was five to four or three to two, it was 100per cent in favour of that agreement — 100 per cent. Mr. Speaker,political life in British Columbia comes to an all-time low when aMember goes on a fact-finding tour in the northern part of BritishColumbia, looks at the minute book, knows what the story is, then comesinto this Legislature and makes a story out a phony deal.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw, withdraw.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, not only that, the Premiermade some comments in Vancouver about a Department of Finance officialcoming to Vancouver. The Leader of the Opposition read into the recordagain in this Legislature that he had been told by reading Hansard that the Department of Finance never had any individual out in the City of Vancouver.

AN HON. MEMBER: It wasn't Hansard, it was a letter from Mr. Benson.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Benson, who was the former Minister ofFinance — thank goodness he isn't any longer. What happened, Mr.Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition knew full well. The person whowas here examining the books of the Province of British Columbia andthe operation of the budget in the Province of British Columbia, hadnothing to do with the Department of Finance. The Leader of theOpposition doesn't happen to know the difference, as he indicatedyesterday about credit, he doesn't have any understanding that the Bankof Canada is a completely separate part of the financial operation ofCanada. Once again, Mr. Speaker, he tried to indicate that the Premierof this province was making stories up again about the finances of theProvince of British Columbia.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

[ Page 316 ]

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, I made that slip purposelybecause yesterday, the Hon. Leader was up in this House talking aboutcontingent liability again as the N.D.P. have been doing for years andso have the Liberal party in British Columbia. They have indicated inno uncertain terms that they're opposed to contingent liability.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, we want to call it a debt.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, they'll have an opportunityonce again as they've had every year, pretty soon to vote on thequestion of the P.G.E. and the Hydro. They'll have an opportunity, asthey've done in the past to show whether or not they're for theexpansion of this great railway and the Hydro. They'll have anopportunity to say to the municipalities of British Columbia: "We wantto wipe out all of the guaranteed debts which the Minister of Financehas made on behalf of small improvement districts and smallmunicipalities in British Columbia." They'll have the opportunity tosay whether that's their position or not.

They'll have the opportunity to indicate to the Province of BritishColumbia that they cannot take a look at a ledger book and place on oneside of it those guarantees which are made on the part of the people ofthe Province of British Columbia to carry out projects which are worthwhile in the development of this province and never make one mention,as they've been doing every since he's been leader and long before hewas leader, that those liabilities, which are guaranteed by the peopleof the Province of British Columbia, have asset totals against themwhich he never mentioned.

Mr. Speaker, if the Leader of the Opposition is suggesting that weshould abolish the Crown corporation which has done so much in terms ofdeveloping the hydro resources of this province, is the Leader of theOpposition going to go north as he did? Go once again into towns likeChetwynd, towns like Fort Nelson, towns like Fort St. John, Mackenzie?Once again meet one or two of his supporters on the street because hecan't get a meeting up there and tell them in northern British Columbiathat he's opposed to the extension of the P.G.E.? Let the record show,Mr. Speaker, that the N.D.P. are opposed to the extension of the P.G.E.In northern British Columbia. The leader is nodding his head.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, again the Leaderof the Opposition called to task members on this side of the House,because they won't stand up and be counted or that somebody in front ofus is pulling the string — the Premier is pulling the string or thatthe Hon. Minister of Rehabilitation (Hon. Mr. Gaglardi) is pulling thestring or holding my hand or somebody else's hand and somebody downhere can't get up in this Legislature and say what they want to say.Mr. Speaker, that's not what he says when he's out of the country.That's not what he says when he's in Halifax.

Mr. Speaker, what does he say when he's in Halifax when he puts onthe other costume? He's got lots of costumes in that wardrobe. This iswhat he says. In that democratic party over there in Halifax, Mr.Barrett said the place for the M.L.A.s and M.P.s of all parties to ironout their differences is in caucus meetings.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: And that the official position of a partof a government should be supported by its Members in the legislativevotes. He commented that there's a lot of blood on the walls of caucus.

The Leader of the Opposition told the conference that Members whocan't agree with the positions taken by the party should leave theparty.

Mr. Speaker, as long as there's a democratic Social Creditgovernment in this province any Member on this side of the House canmake his views known in this legislative chamber anytime.

Mr. Speaker, the chameleon goes on the road and then comes into thisLegislature. One day he stands for something, the next day hisex-leader runs it down. He stands up here and gives the Legislature theidea that nobody could be more pro-American than the Member forCoquitlam. Then two days later the Member for Cowichan-Malahat, who isa far better leader than the Member for Coquitlam, he got up and hetried to make sure that the other side of the coin would be availablefor public consumption too.

Nobody worked harder, Mr. Speaker, at the sham battle between theB.C. Federation of Labour and Ray Haynes. One minute they're at oneanother's throat then Ray Haynes goes to Vancouver-Burrard — and theMember for Vancouver-Burrard knows this very well — and inches tippytoetowards the nomination in Vancouver-Burrard. Then the word comes fromthe chameleon who is the leader of the party "No, this will give us abad image in the country. Draw back, please camouflage our connectionwith the labour bosses."

Whatever can be sold one day is one story. The next day is another.Why, Mr. Speaker, did I suggest to spend some time with the Leader ofthe Opposition? Because that's been Socialist tactics in the Provinceof British Columbia since the beginning of time.

In favour of motherhood and against sin? No way. Sugar on the arsenic pill is a better description. Sugar on the arsenic pill.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: My friend is going to get an opportunityin the Royal City to find out how the people of the Royal City feelabout him. We'll be there, he'd better believe it.

HON. P.A. GAGLARDI (Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement): He'll be back selling insurance before long.

HON. MR CAMPBELL: Now I want to say a few words about the comical budget by the leader of the Liberal Party yesterday.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR CAMPBELL: He wasn't clapping so loud yesterday, theMember for Vancouver–Point Grey. He could hardly maintain the stiffupper lip himself.

Mr. Speaker, what did we get from the leader of the Liberal Party as an excuse for a policy for British Columbia yesterday? I'm not going to run through his entire speech because you can simply add it up very simply. He took basic federal government responsibilities in railways, in the operation of steamships, in the operation of airplanes, in the field of old-age pensions and he suggested: "Why wait for Ottawa?

[ Page 317 ]

Do it right now regardless of the B.N.A. Act, regardless ofjurisdiction, regardless of anything else." Coming from a coastal areaof British Columbia I want to make particular reference to one pointbecause it illustrates the poverty of the Liberal Party platform forBritish Columbia.

There was no difficulty yesterday in trying to see what the LiberalParty was trying to say to the people of the Province of BritishColumbia. They were trying to say, here are all these Ottawaresponsibilities which will never get done — do them here.

And what were they? Well, let's talk about coastal ferries. TheMember for Point Grey, the Liberal leader, wants to build a ferry thatwill run from Kelsey Bay up through to Bella Coola and on to the QueenCharlottes and Prince Rupert. He didn't even know the geography of thiscoast, just as his counterparts when they were going to cut out thefederal subsidy for that steamship service didn't know the geography ofthe West Coast of Vancouver Island. They still felt that people couldgo to certain of those communities by road if you please, as an excusefor not carrying on with the federal subsidy.

But quite apart from that the Member left out historical ports inthis coast which have enjoyed federal subsidies since the beginning ofthe federal government's activity in this area. He left out Alert Bay,he left out Sointula, he left out Port McNeil, he left out Port Hardy.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, a simple series of excusesfor the lame duck federal government — that's all the Liberal Member'sspeech was yesterday. What did he want us to do, Mr. Speaker? If youplease he wanted the provincial government on the backs of theprovincial taxpayer to spend $30 million on air fields — a clear-cutfederal responsibility. On the backs of the B.C. taxpayer.

What did he want us to do, Mr. Speaker? He wanted us to build theports in the Province of British Columbia because the federalgovernment felt that should be unloaded as well on the backs of theprovincial taxpayers.

What did he want to do, Mr. Speaker? We have a federal governmentthat this government has been in negotiation with for some time aboutthe P.G.E. and we have been trying for some time to get federal subsidyfor that line. What did he want yesterday? He wanted the provincialgovernment to subsidise the unit costs for making the freight rates, ifyou please, on the C.N.R. which is a federal responsibility throughfrom Prince George to Prince Rupert. He wanted the provincial taxpayerto pay the shot for subsidising that federal lot.

Once again the Liberal policy: "Load the taxpayer of the Province ofBritish Columbia, get on the backs of the taxpayers of the Province ofBritish Columbia." That's what his speech was all about.

What did he want to do, Mr. Speaker, in regards to income tax? Andthat was a real dandy. The federal government has just passed an incometax bill. I think that's the Liberal Party.

Where was the Member when the Premier of this province went to thefederal-provincial conferences not once but three times, and suggestedthat they didn't have to make the mish-mash of an income tax bill suchas they did? The first thing to do he said, was to lower the exemptionsfor the poor. To lower the exemptions for the old age pensioners.

AN HON. MEMBER: Increase them.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: Increase them, that's right. Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: And what did the Member do yesterday? Heasked us to take the income tax apart. He asked us to take the incometax apart. And then what did they say about the old age pensioners? Bigdeal. Once again the load on the backs of the taxpayers, the soleresponsibility for old age pensioners' position in the Province ofBritish Columbia. What's their position as the Liberal Party that hascontrol of the old age assistance board, has control over all old agepensions in Canada? What did they say? Forty two cents.

No, Mr. Speaker, when the Member was talking about federalresponsibility in this province — loading the backs of the provincialtaxpayer — he never helped us when we tried to retain that federalsubsidy on those steamships to the middle coast of British Columbia.

He hasn't raised his voice about the atrocious situation on thiscoast with respect to air-sea rescue which is being battled through bya little alderman all alone pretty well, except for the voice I raisedon his behalf, right here in this House.

Mr. Speaker, not one word about the responsibility of the federalgovernment on jobs that they haven't got done now and should be doing.

What about the job of navigation aids on the coast when we areconcerned about the oil spills off the west coast? What about the CoastGuard responsibility on this coast?

What about the responsibility of the federal government to establishair-sea rescue in some of the worst waters anywhere to be found in theworld.

When it comes to the problems of the small boater, where is the ideaof having fast vessels available all of the time for these people whofind themselves in difficulty off the coastal waters of BritishColumbia?

Mr. Speaker, there's plenty for the federal government to do — whichis not being done — without him making some suggestions as an apologistfor the federal government, simply a question of loading the provincialgovernment with jobs that Ottawa should be doing. That's all he didyesterday.

But, Mr. Speaker, I'll leave that. The Liberal Leader said somethingelse which is typical of the Liberal Party's tradition in thisLegislature and has been ever since. I think it's a disgrace even tomention the idea that it implies.

Because what was the suggestion? He was asking the people of theProvince of British Columbia to send a Liberal group to Ottawa so theycould negotiate these arrangements for the port, for the P.G.E. Mr.Speaker, any time we have a Canada where a provincial premier, and aprovincial legislature cannot make known views on behalf of the peopleof this province without the implication that we have to bend thepolitical knee to a Liberal machine then we haven't got a Canada at all.

Mr. Speaker, if there ever was a statement that is a disgrace to theparliamentary process in this province that statement yesterday by theLeader of the Liberal Party has got to be number one. Mr. Speaker, timeafter time this government has not only gone with clear-cutpropositions to the federal government, but has invited the activesupport of B.C. Members of Parliament whose job it is. This governmenthas never once rejected the help that it could receive from a properlyelected M.P. from the Province of British Columbia.

[ Page 318 ]

All we ask is that they got on with the job and do just that. Andfor those Members to come in here in this Legislature and lecture thisgovernment and suggest to the people of the Province of BritishColumbia that only the Liberals know how to do something — and that'sthrough patronage — I want no part of that kind of an arrangement atall. Mr. Speaker, if anybody knows anything about patronage it's theLiberal pork-barrel politicians who are in Ottawa at the present time.I'm going to tell the people of the Province of British Columbia thatthe Liberals support "Kitten Clubs" in Prince Edward Island.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to move along to some comments about thebudget. I'm pleased to see the attention that this budget has given totwo areas in the government service. Namely, the emphasis ondesirability of keeping senior citizens in their own homes. Last yearthrough the department of housing 66⅔ per cent of all the moneyavailable in Canada was used by the Province of British Columbia tobuild tenants' housing for senior citizens.

Now, that's a remarkable record. In the Province of British ColumbiaI believe the answer to senior citizens' housing of all kinds is toopen up a series of options for old people, or better still for thosewho have retired — whether they are old in today's terms or not is amatter of opinion. Most of them that I meet are people who still wantto have life options open to them.

The Liberal Party says that it wants and has endorsed the programmeof deferred taxation. Mr. Speaker, I want to make it clear that thatmight be Liberal Party policies. It's not the policy of this government.

Once again, the Liberal Party wants to leave the old age pensionerand those on retirement and fixed incomes the unhappy prospect thatthey will have an on-going burden of debts. That's the Liberal policy.That's what fixes a great gulf between this side of the House and thatside of the House.

We happen to be a credit party and the official Opposition in thisHouse and the Liberal Party are debt parties and so are the Tories andthey always were. But, Mr. Speaker, those who are retired wish a seriesof options in home ownership, an opportunity for subsidised tenancy. Wesubsidise more tenancy in the Province of British Columbia thananywhere in Canada. Mr. Speaker, there are nearly 25,000 old agepensioners in the Province of British Columbia who presently occupysubsidised tenancy housing in the province. That's a total that'sexceeded nowhere in Canada and is accelerated very markedly in thisbudget.

We indicated as well that many old age pensioners feel that the oldfamily home is simply too much at this time for them to handle. That itwould be better if they still wished to have the opportunity forownership to look at the possibility of owning a more modest and a moremodern kind of accommodation without losing the feeling of securitywhich came from title.

In order to accomplish this we suggested that the old age pensionersshould have as many options open to them as anyone else about wheretheir dollars were going to be invested or used. If they had an olderhome that was becoming too much for them, first we'd help with thehome-owner grant and accelerated home-owner grant in this budget. Butwe'd also suggest to them that they could use strata title, they couldget into condominium situations because of new housing proposalsbrought forward by my colleague the Attorney General. They could gointo forms of cooperative apartments. They could take the old home,take the capital from it — and we did not only suggest that they do it,we helped them do it in the municipality of Saanich.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: They sold their homes. Now the Leader ofthe Liberal party, the Hon. Member's leader, said it couldn't be done.That was his answer.

These old people, Mr. Speaker, wanted a cooperative way, analternative to housing and any option should be there. What did we do?

They took $5,000 of the capital from their older home. They took a$5,000 second mortgage from the provincial government, and then theytook a $5,000 mortgage from my friend, Mr. Andras who I must admitcooperated very highly with this programme. I give him credit for it.He's no longer the Minister of Housing and I'm sorry about that too. Igot to like Mr. Andras because I like anybody who is a square shooterand says exactly what he means and does exactly what he says he'll do.

These people have now been given a pilot project which is anotheroption for housing open to the people of the Province of BritishColumbia who happen to be retired. Mr. Speaker, the idea was born righthere and the Members know it.

There are a large number of other options which are going to beperused in the coming year on this whole question of housing. All ofthem, as far as this government is concerned, are going to be open toold age pension groups, retired people's groups, co-op groups, who wantto use modern approaches to housing, to condominiums. We're not goingto close the door to any series of options, including the option tolive on the family farm, and I'm going to have some amendments to the Municipal Act which will permit them to do so.

Mr. Speaker, the taxation provided for in this budget is anotherremarkable situation — amounts of the order of $45 million foreducation, $30-odd million for health. The Leader of the Liberal Partycan't read a budget. That was obvious yesterday when he said therewasn't any money in addition for municipalities. Amazing. There's $7million more.

AN HON. MEMBER: How much per capita?

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: There's $7 million more for municipalities in this budget.

AN HON. MEMBER: What increase per capita?

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, I'm glad all the birds areonce again out of their trees. They don't like the Member for Comox tostand up here because they know they always get the truth.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, this budget…. I'll wait, I've got all day.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Will the Hon. Minister please proceed with his speech?

Interjections by Hon. Members.

[ Page 319 ]

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: The Member for Cowichan Malahat will gethis chance later. Mr. Speaker, municipalities in British Columbiabecause of the per capita grant and because of the percentage oftransfer payments from the provincial government which are higher therethan anywhere — they run from 40 per cent to 45 per cent of the totalgross revenue of the municipalities — because of that themunicipalities in British Columbia have created for themselves afinancial situation which is not available anywhere in Canada. When Ilast spoke the municipal finance authority had not gone once again tothe market. They did go just four days after I spoke to you last andthe municipal finance authority placed on the market 7.99 per centbonds. Mr. Speaker, I categorically say that no finance authority onbehalf of municipalities in Canada would have even come close.

Mr. Speaker, the facts are that the municipalities through thesystem of transfer payment from the province are in a position notsimply to budget on a short-term basis but to budget on a long-termbasis.

What is forgotten in the municipal finance picture in BritishColumbia is simply this — along with the per capita grant, Mr. Speaker,unlike other provinces the provincial government here as well entersupon shared-cost programmes for services which elsewhere are normallycompletely the responsibility of the municipalities.

But in this province there is a formula on top of the per capitagrant for such activities as housing for school financing which, if youreally look at municipal government in terms of local governmentinstead of municipal government, there is a formula which is the bestin Canada for education costs. Nowhere else is the province responsiblefor raising the local capital in its entirety for schools. The formulais unexcelled for capital anywhere else, relieving therefore thestructure of local government finance from that responsibility.

Similarly with hospitals, that's a local government participatorysituation in this province. The provincial government again relievesthe municipalities of that responsibility.

In other provinces where arterial roads and where metropolitantransit and where metropolitan road systems are required who pays forit? In the Province of Ontario, in the Province of Quebec, in theProvince of Manitoba, in Alberta — those road systems, Mr. Speaker, areagain the responsibility of the local authority. Here there is aformula which takes the full cost of arterial roads and places it inthe Department of Highways, shares on secondary roads on the 60-40formula basis.

Those formulas have to be taken into account when you're intelligently talking about municipal finance in any province.

Then, Mr. Speaker, this budget goes another step. If you reallyunderstand the municipal financing in British Columbia you take thetransfer payment by way of per capita grants, then you look at variousother forms of it.

Now what is the formula in British Columbia for pollution abatement?The formula, Mr. Speaker, is that the provincial government pays 75 percent of the cost to the local governments in excess of 2 mils.

Now, Mr. Speaker if you look at any of the pollution abatementproposals in Canada you won't find that formula anywhere. Because inmost jurisdictions you won't find a formula at all. But, Mr. Speaker,more than that, what is the effect of that formula? The effect of thatformula is that having levied 2 mils on the assessment base of themunicipality, with the provincial government picking up 75 per cent ofthe total remainder that means that the smaller municipalities with lowtax bases can afford to go into sewerage treatment. They can afford togo into sewerage treatment in the Province of British Columbia and theycan't do it elsewhere.

Now, Mr. Speaker, do Members think it makes any difference if you'vegot a pollution problem on the door step of Victoria than if you haveone on the door step of Courtenay? Do they think that the applicationof the programme should not take into account that some parts of theprovince may be less able, because of their assessments, to handle theproblem of pollution on their doorstep?

But from the public health point of view, from an equity point ofview, from a responsible point of view — whether they have assets intheir own right to be able to accomplish these things or not — it ispublic policy in the Province of British Columbia to helpmunicipalities who are unable to meet pollution abatement standards.

Mr. Speaker, if this budget doesn't speak out loud and clear thatone of the forward thrusts of this budget is pollution abatement thenthose Members haven't read the budget. They simply haven't read thebudget.

Now we take a look at another growing problem in the urban world ofthe 70's. This is on top of the per capita grant. What are we going tomove into now? The budget provides another formula which is notavailable anywhere else. A formula which will permit a provincialpresence for the first time in the area of mass transit.

I don't like to use the word transit because some people in theurban world think that transit either runs with a little train througha hole in the ground 150 feet down or it's not rapid transit.

I don't want to get into the bill, Mr. Speaker, but if you read it — and I'm only talking about it on a formula basis — if you talk about iton a formula basis you're talking about a provincial presence in thetransportation world which is going to be one of the number oneproblems of the urban world of the 70's. Because people in the 70's — and I'm predicting this — are going to become less and less dependenton the motor car. They are going to wish to limit the pollution of themotor car in their villages and in the towns and in their cities.

Long before other jurisdictions stated it as public policy that's adirection we wished to go, not only in the name of the environment, inthe name of pollution abatement, but in the name of equity. Theprovincial government is from now on going to have a permanent positionin the emerging transportation problems of our towns or cities and isstating loud and clear that we wish to have a new look at thedependency of the world on the pollution creating problems connectedwith the use of the motor car.

Mr. Speaker, on this whole question of municipal finance, the Memberfor Cowichan-Malahat (Mr. Strachan) was good enough to make some out ofcontext comments from a report called the Plunkett report. Has he stillgot a copy there? Good.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I'm going to give you some comments too and theleader of the Liberal Party suggested that after this budget I'd haveno testimonials to read. I got more and I won't have time to read themall this afternoon but I embarrassed myself so much last time with themodesty of some of the comments made about the Department of MunicipalAffairs that I really can't do it again.

But this is from the British Columbia School Trustees' Associationspeaking about that Plunkett report. I know the Hon. Member had thisavailable but he didn't choose to read it to the House. I don't thinkhe was trying to mislead the

[ Page 320 ]

House — I wouldn't think he was going to try andtell the people of the Province of British Columbia something thatwasn't true — I'm going to tell the former leader he was fudging. Hewas fudging.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, he never fudges.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: Here is the president of the B.C. SchoolTrustees' Association talking about the Plunkett report — formerpresident, that's right.

It's a strange thing for me to find myself in complete agreementwith the Minister of Municipal Affairs when he brands this report asirresponsible, juvenile and completely false.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did they pay for that report?

HON. MR, CAMPBELL: No, they didn't. The Member forCowichan-Malahat got up and told this House and read from a reportwhich a responsible organisation — namely the B.C. School Trustees'Association labeled irresponsible, juvenile and completely false. Mr.Speaker, once again what are the facts?

Those are the facts, Mr. Speaker, and once again this is not atestimonial from the Department of Municipal Affairs. This is thedocument which the municipalities putout when they wished to tell thewhole story to Canada and to the world that British Columbia'smunicipalities have not been excelled anywhere in finance.

Mr. Speaker, the Member for Cowichan-Malahat — like all members ofthis Legislature — was presented with this document. The MunicipalFinance Authority of British Columbia — what do they say? It was issuedin 1971 about the end of August. "The growth and stability of BritishColumbia municipalities" and then it goes on, Mr. Speaker, on pageafter page to illustrate in a number of ways and I'm not going to boreyou with reading them all here because I'm sure that the former leaderof the N.D.P. has long since repented for his, misleading statementsthat were part of his address on the last occasion he spoke.

Mr. Speaker, there is one other feature of the budget which I thinkis outstanding and that is the portion of the budget having to do withspecial funds. I happen to be responsible for the first citizens' fundand these funds going as they do to the items mentioned by my colleaguethe Minister of Agriculture, when last he spoke, are pretty well knownas to their intent by the Members of the Legislature.

The fact that the budget has directed that that principle beextended to the beautification of our countryside insofar as unsightlyhydro lines are concerned, the fact that it has been extended as aprinciple to the preservation of open space is a very importantfinancial breakthrough insofar as government is concerned.

Mr. Speaker, in other jurisdictions when a commitment is made bygovernment to one form of activity or another, the public can never besure that it won't be on again off again, up and down and around about,as the economy moves along.

Other jurisdictions — and that's a fundamental difference betweenSocial Credit and the other political parties who operate government — they make a commitment but as far as the taxpayer is concerned, as faras the public is concerned, there is no more assurance that will beon-going policy, that it will be as the Manitoba Premier said here justa little while ago, that he'll be able to eliminate property tax. Hesaid "I'd like to go to the moon some day too." Mr. Speaker, he wishedthe moon was closer.

Interjection by Hon. Member.

HON. MR CAMPBELL: When this government sets up a perpetualfund, there is not only an availability of capital for schoolconstruction and hospital construction on an on-going basis, on aplanned basis, on a positive basis, there is an on-going commitment tothese programmes.

Mr. Speaker, I'm only going to speak about the fund having to dowith the first citizens because I happen to have had the responsibilityfor distributing $1,700,000 from the proceeds of this fund — $1,700,000in one year.

Mr. Speaker, there is just page after page of community projects,engineered, thought through, initiated, by the Indian people. What, Mr.Speaker, has been the history of commitments to the Indian people byfollowing a budgetary course such as they do in the federal government?

Mr. Speaker, in the last five years, the federal government has madecommitments to the Indian people in culture, in housing, in publichealth, to band councils, to management, to educational seminars. Andwhat happens? It melts away as soon as the winter leaves Ottawa. Assoon as that sun comes out down there, there are no funds, Mr. Speaker,there are no funds. The Indian people who have come to expect a certaincourse of action, Mr. Speaker, the Indian people are honest enough intheir dealings with government not to want the moon. But they aredetermined, Mr. Speaker, that when they have been told that a certainlevel of financing is available for a programme and they plan oncarrying it out and they work on it and they build it up and then theypush the button to try and find the funds, to carry out the project andthe projects are not there, Mr. Speaker, that is the cruelest thingthat can be done with a minority group in this country.

For years, Mr. Speaker, that particular group have had theirexpectations raised only to be dashed to the ground again because ofsome budgetary ups and downs, wiggle-woggle, wiffle-waffle, that'sgoing on at the federal government level.

That's not good enough and, Mr. Speaker, you know full well the kindof projects that are involved, because many of them are in your area.It's not large sums of money that are the difference between makinglife better for these people and not making it better.

Interjections by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: Well, you can have the list, this will be a public document. I'll file the whole list in the House a little later.

AN HON. MEMBER: File yourself!

HON. MR CAMPBELL: I know you'd like to file the Member for Comox. The N.D.P. have been trying to do that for five elections.

Mr. Speaker, the N.D.P. always enjoy it when the Member for Comoxspeaks. They've had five cracks at the Member for Comox and they'regoing to get a sixth pretty soon. Mr. Speaker, the result will beexactly the same.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hit him again, he's still alive.

[ Page 321 ]

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: The difference between doing some of thethings which are involved with small projects like bringingopportunities to small communities, the difference between having a setof carving tools and not having a set of carving tools, the differencebetween having a set of books for pre-school kindergarten and nothaving a set of books, the difference between having some clothes sothat the young people who are up in the northern part of BritishColumbia can come to Vancouver just like anyone else and have clothesto wear.

The difference between having a decent place to have their meetingsand not having one — sometimes a very limited outlay, the differencebetween being able to examine a project for its feasibility to helpthemselves in community workshops and not being able to do it — Mr.Speaker, this list is full of two and three and four and, yes, larger — 15,000 and 20,000 donations. But the point, I'm trying to make is this:these same kind of statements have been made year after year after yearat the federal level about new programmes for Indian people. Handicrafthelp and cultural help and all this sort of thing. And what happens? Nodelivery, Mr. Speaker, no delivery system at all.

Mr. Speaker, I tell you that long after this government has been inoffice for 100 years, the best thing that this government will haveever done is to put these priority projects out where the public cansee them, with the on-going commitment that they don't have anything todo with day-by-day expediency, political expediency, the ups-and downsof finances, the ins-and-outs of one political party or another.

Mr. Speaker, that is the crowning glory of this budget. That's one of the fundamental differences between this side and that side. We know that. The N.D.P. party damned these perpetual funds with faint praise and then voted for them, which the N.D.P. quite often do. The Liberal Party, Mr. Speaker, in this House, went one step further and never forget that. The Liberal Party said: "Wipe them out altogether, don't have any perpetual funds," go on the normal Liberal Party of in-and-out, up-and-down, wiggle-woggle. No basic commitment. Expediency, expediency, expediency. No programme. No programme, no programme. I tell you, Mr. Speaker, I am proud of the fact that this government has made a basic commitment to the Indian people of British Columbia and kept every word.

I'd like to say a few words about housing. At the present time, inthe Province of British Columbia, the urban renewal programme isessentially confined to the greater Victoria area and thebeautification of the water front, to the Vancouver area in terms ofthe only pilot project of its kind in Canada having to do with thecommunity effort to rehabilitate an area without the bulldozer.

That's the Strathcona project. It is the only project of its kind inCanada. It is the first to suggest that urban renewal, as it once wasthought to be, is not a good thing for a city and I couldn't agree morebecause I said it right at the beginning.

This is a project whereby the local people are going to be involvedwith the renovation of their own community without taking a bunch ofbulldozers there and ripping out their traditional and family homes. Iwant to credit, once again, my friend the former Minister of Housing,Mr. Andras, for bringing this programme last year to fruition. It, Ithink, is going to be a lighthouse project for Canada.

It was engineered by my friends who happen to sit for Vancouver East— the first Member for Vancouver East, the second Member for VancouverEast, and the Member for Vancouver Centre.

This programme will be the urban renewal programme of the future.But there is a great raft of projects and if any of the Members want toknow where housing or urban renewal or land assembly for their ownparticular communities sits, they could ask me about it in theestimates.

I do want to say something about a specific problem of housing and Iwant to offer a specific solution. I'm going to ask the question andI'm going to give the answer.

Many people talk about land speculation and there can be no questionthat there is a great deal of land speculation. There can be noquestion either, if you know anything about the zoning process, thatthere is a great deal of artificial scarcity about building lots,particularly in the lower mainland. There can be no real question thatthe zoning activity on the part of municipalities very substantiallyconfers benefits on people who do not pass it on to the person seekingto own his own home, and that there is a way that this could be done.

The public body has conferred the zoning on a parcel. The facts arethat in the lower mainland you could increase the value of aresidential lot by as much as $9,000 and more by the simple exercise ofzoning, even if you didn't do anything with it.

From residentially-zoned land, which is currently worth perhaps$5,000 to $6,000 an acre, by the actual action of conferring zoning,you can increase the value of that property to $14,000 and $15,000. I'mnot going to get into the implications of that insofar as the capitalgains tax is concerned — and the big steal is on by the Liberalgovernment in Ottawa. Seeking to tax the capital value on that land inwhich they have no investment or very little and from which theindividual is going to be expected to transfer to Ottawa, 3,000 milesaway, money which was never created there. It's unearned completely.

Let's take the situation in the lower mainland. In 1968 the value ofthe land, North Delta, for a residential lot was $5,500; 1969, it was$5,700; in 1970, it was $7,500; in 1971 it's projected to be $8,500. InLadner the land was worth $5,500 in 1968; 1969, $7,500; 1970, $7,500;1971, $8,500. Tsawwassen is even more spectacular and there are as yetno sewers there.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: If the Member would be patient I'm going to ask some questions and then I'm going to answer the question.

In 1969, there were no sewers in Tsawwassen, and it isn't completelysewered yet. In 1969, the value of a serviced lot was $6,500, and I'monly taking the low figure not the top figure. In 1970 it is expectedto be $13,500, in 1971, probably $14,000.

Now, Mr. Speaker, if we take this projection on to five more years,in 1972, and I'll only use one of those places because it illustratesthe point, 1972, an individual seeking to build a family home in NorthDelta, $8,250 in 1972 — and this is the low figure again — 1973,$9,075; 1974, $11,000; 1975, $12,500; 1976, $13,750.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there in fact is a way in which this problem canbe tackled. Everybody talks about speculation, but nobody does anythingabout it. Last year, there was placed in the Municipal Act a section known as land use contract and a number of planning people in British

[ Page 322 ]

Columbia, most of whom were airy-fairy planners, Imight say, were unwilling to examine the possibility of using the toolswhich the Legislature had given.

Now let's take a specific proposal and let's take what can be doneunder the land use contract. This land use contract remains somethingwhich the municipality confers on the land and it can't be removeduntil the conditions are changed by the municipality. Secondly, it isand represents itself as a restrictive covenant against the land.

Thirdly it is registerable and is deposited in the land registryoffice. Now what can a municipality do under a land use contract? Theycan develop the area, promote greater efficiency and quality. They canconsider the impact of the development on present and future publiccosts. They can look to the betterment of the environment. They canlook to the fulfilment of community goals, which I suggest certainlyhousing is one of them, and they can provide for necessary publicspace. They can make that a condition for development.

In the name of lower housing costs, they can do a number of other things.

Before they confer unearned gains on people holding land for simplespeculation so that the profit simply disappears into the hands of thedeveloper, they can do a couple of other things, and here's a specificexample.

Seventy acres of land. There are no people holding lands who shouldbe permitted to develop those lands without full disclosure of the bookvalue they currently place against the land. That should be a publicstatement on the part of the developer, handled if you like incommittee of the municipality if you wish.

But that public figure could be disclosed to the municipal council,and here's one proposition — $279,000 is the book value of a particularpiece of land in the Municipality of Delta, at the present time. Thedevelopment cost of that is $13,200 per acre, and the basic financingthat goes along with it is $1,300,000.

Mr. Speaker, I think that we've come to the time when before amunicipality confers such unearned profits on a speculation deal thatthe individual who is going to own that house has a right to know thatland in a sufficient quantity is going to be available and on whatterms.

You can do it this way. The overhead for that development is in myopinion a legitimate 5 per cent. The sales costs of that land are in myopinion no more, nor should they be more, than a legitimate 5 per cent.The profit on that land should be no more than a legitimate 5 per cent.The public, that is the Crown or the municipality, certainly in termsof profit the provincial government are entitled to 50 per cent of thatprofit.

Mr. Speaker, before a municipality confers the zoning on thatindividual there should be written into the land use contract acontract that that developer will sell that property to John Doe andMary Smith at a fixed price for a fixed period of time and willguarantee that the price in this case would not be in excess of $6,500for one lot and $5,600 for another lot.

If you took out the speculative profit, if you took out thespeculative value of zoning — which I say does not belong to the personholding the land but belongs to the person seeking to own the home, ora large measure of it does — then you could solve the problem of muchof the housing problem in the lower mainland. Because much of thehousing programme in the lower mainland is the result of true facts,and true facts only and that is that municipalities have 9,000 acres intheir own name, not in the name of any private speculator. They have9,000 acres in their own name in the lower mainland right now. And theyare themselves, Mr. Speaker, if you please, speculating on that land.

Mr. Speaker, that should not contribute to artificial scarcity whichis artificially created in the lower mainland because of that factor.

The second factor is that municipalities having zoned under theregional plan enough land in the lower mainland, I would suggest, tolook after the needs industrially and commercially from now untilprobably the year 2050 or 3000 because of another planning goofup, thatmunicipality should be zoning land for residential property but shouldbe attaching to that right — a commitment on the part of the developer— to sell the land at an agreed-to price after there is full disclosureon the part of the developer that his book value is an indicated indocumentation straight to the municipal council.

Mr. Speaker, if the municipalities in the lower mainland would dothose two things there would not be any artificial scarcity ofresidential land in the lower mainland. There would be no artificialscarcity.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: If the Member had been listening to what I said, if he will read section 702A of the Municipal Act which he voted on last year could be put into the Municipal Act it would prevent municipalities from not exercising that section when it came to its commitment in terms of housing.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, the municipalities have theright to do that right now. I'll answer the Member's question. We'regoing to legislate certain commonsense situations into the Municipal Act. I'm not suggesting that that's one of them.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: Oh, I'll give you an opportunity tointerfere as much as you like with the local economy of municipalities.Mr. Speaker, I do wish to answer some questions concerning an areawhich is also important in municipal government and that's boundaryextensions. I'm going to do it very quickly because no Member in thisLegislature has ever shovelled more mud into this chamber than theMember for Vancouver East (Mr. R.A. Williams). And I'm going to bringsome fresh air, Mr. Speaker.

The Member for Vancouver East the other day talked a lot aboutdemocratic government and the rights of the individual in democraticgovernment. He also had a lot to say about the position of variousmunicipal people and the fact that the Department of Municipal Affairsignored local people and didn't take their advice. Well, Mr. Speaker,because this has become a habit with the Member from Vancouver East Ithink its time that the people of British Columbia had that gentlemenunmasked once and for all. Because I don't want him to cut and run thistime like he did last time when he made all his statements in theHouse. I hope he'll also stay this year for my estimates, because hecertainly didn't stay for estimates last year. That's one of hisfavourite tactics, Mr. Speaker, to make a speech in the House

[ Page 323 ]

and then turn tail and run.

Well, Mr. Speaker, he had some statements to make about a mayor of amunicipality and that the Minister of Municipal Affairs ignored theMayor of that particular municipality. He knew a number of things,again, which he was not prepared to disclose to this House — which ispar for the course too.

He knew, for example, that the boundary which was drawn in theMunicipality of Dufferin excluded the pulp mill because to haveincluded it in the Municipality of Dufferin would in fact have meantthat we would have created on the outskirts of Kamloops anotherTadanac, another Fraser Mills, such as the leader of that particularparty has been talking against in this Legislature for some time, as Ihave. But I didn't just talk about it. I eliminated the Municipality ofTadanac and the Municipality of Fraser Mills.

But, Mr. Speaker, what he also didn't say was that the petitions forincorporation at Dufferin were from the people who themselves placedthe pulp mill within the boundaries of the proposed municipality atDufferin and I excluded that particular portion for two reasons.

The first one and I know, being a professional person, all the moresad — and I say most of what I'm saying now more in sorrow than inanger — the Member being a professional person should have known theeffect which would have been caused by putting that particular pulpmill inside any municipality.

At the present time, Mr. Speaker, if you placed that pulp millinside Dufferin or inside the municipality of Kamloops the loss to thearea in taxation would be an assessment of $18 million — as of today,$18,500,000. Therefore the decision was made that until such time asthe municipalities within the greater Kamloops area could come to somefunctional agreement which would permit that assessment to be sharedwith all of the municipalities, the mill would remain outside, so thatthe tax take from that pulp mill could remain with the regionaldistrict and be shared by all of the municipalities.

But, Mr. Speaker, that Member didn't mention that at all. He leadthe people of the Province of British Columbia to believe that Mr.Charlie Bennett was a grey eminence behind the throne and at one timethe mayor on an interim basis. He was not appointed by the Minister ofMunicipal Affairs, but at a public meeting where the residents ofDufferin voted that he be recommended to occupy the interim mayor'sjob. Mr. Speaker, that Member knew that, but he suggested that therewas some individual by the name of Mr. Charlie Bennett. It would nothave taken much professional ability to understand that Mr. CharlieBennett is neither a resident elector, a tenant elector, or an ownerelector in the municipality of Dufferin. And he knows that.

I will read this telegram from the Mayor:

AS MAYOR OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF DUFFERIN I WOULD LIKE TO REPLY TO THE REMARK MADE BY BOB WILLIAMS M.L.A. FOR VANCOUVER EAST. MR. WILLIAMS CHARGES THAT THE CREATION OF DUFFERIN WAS STRICTLY TO BENEFIT A FEW DEVELOPERS AND FAT CAT INDUSTRIES. THIS IS COMPLETE GARBAGE AS MR. WILLIAMS MUST BE AWARE THAT THE TAXPAYERS OF THE AREA PETITIONED AGAINST THE CITY OF KAMLOOPS BOUNDARY EXTENSION WHICH IS THEIR DEMOCRATIC RIGHT AS RESIDENTS OF A DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY. THE MINISTER OF THE MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE MUNICIPAL ACT HONOURED THAT PETITION. THE TAXPAYERS OF THE AREA THEN VOTED. THE POLL DREW 75.5 PER CENT OF THE PEOPLE IN THE AREA ON MARCH 27, 1971. THERE WAS A 79 PER CENT MAJORITY IN FAVOUR OF INCORPORATION.

You can figure out the arithmetic to that. There was 75.5 per centof the people of the area turned out — 79 per cent of the people votedin the majority, out of a total of approximately 900 people. Thus thevoice of the free people in a democratic country.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: I know the Hon. Member doesn't like this. That's why I'm reading it.

IT WOULD SEEM THAT MR. WILLIAMS DOES NOT BELIEVE IN OUR DEMOCRATIC WAYS. DOES MR. WILLIAMS BELIEVE THAT 79 PER CENT OF OUR TAXPAYERS ARE DEVELOPERS? THE ZONING IN DUFFERIN WAS DONE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE MUNICIPAL ACT AFTER PUBLIC HEARINGS AND HAD BEEN HELD AND REFLECTS THE WISHES OF THE INHABITANTS. BOTH KAMLOOPS AND DUFFERIN ARE ON DUAL ASSESSMENT ROLLS WITH KAMLOOPS BEING 27 MILS AND DUFFERIN 12 MILS. IN REGARDS TO DEVELOPERS IN THE AREA, MR. WILLIAMS AS A PLANNER MUST REALISE THAT GOOD COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT IS ESSENTIAL IN ANY MUNICIPALITY AND I FEEL WE ARE FORTUNATE TO HAVE THESE PEOPLE IN THE AREA. MR. WILLIAMS STATES THAT THE MAYOR OF DUFFERIN….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR CAMPBELL: This, Mr. Speaker, is the most despicablepart of all. I can stand up in this Legislature and I can protectmyself, but the Mayor of Dufferin can't. And who is the Mayor ofDufferin that this gentleman came in and threw the mud all over thischamber at the last occasion he spoke?

MR. WILLIAMS STATED IN THE LEGISLATURE THAT THE MAYOR OF DUFFERIN IS A LAND DEVELOPER. I WOULD LIKE TO CLARIFY THAT ERRONEOUS STATEMENT. MY PROPERTY WAS THE FOURTH…. .

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order, order!

HON. MR CAMPBELL: No, you don't want to hear it.

MR SPEAKER: I think the Honourable Members are calling order quite properly insofar as the Honourable the Minister is using the proper name of a Member and should be using the constituency. I realise….

HON. MR CAMPBELL: I'm reading a telegram Mr. Speaker….

MR SPEAKER: I quite realise that, but the Minister is notempowered to do indirectly what he could not do directly and this isprecisely what is happening. So I am asking you to refrain from namingthe Member by name, but by constituency.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: I'd be delighted to read this telegram and when the Members of the Legislature hear where I insert the Member "the second Member for Vancouver East" they'll understand who I'm talking about.

THE SECOND MEMBER FOR VANCOUVER EAST STATES THAT THE MAYOR OF DUFFERIN IS A LAND DEVELOPER. I WOULD LIKE TO CLARIFY

[ Page 324 ]

THAT ERRONEOUS STATEMENT. MY PROPERTY WAS THE FOURTH SMALLHOLDING UNDER THE VETERANS LAND ACT AFTER THIS CESSATION OF HOSTILITIES. I AM NOT A LAND DEVELOPER HAVE NEVER BEEN ONE AND DO NOT INTEND TO BECOME ONE. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO SUBSTANCE TO THE REMARKS MADE BY MR. WILLIAMS THEY ARE NOT BASED ON FACTS BUT A FIGMENT OF HIS OWN IMAGINATION.

I'm sorry Mr. Speaker I'll read that last sentence again.

THERE IS ABSOLUTE NO SUBSTANCE TO THE REMARKS MADE BY THE SECOND MEMBER FOR VANCOUVER EAST THEY ARE NOT BASED ON FACTS BUT A FIGMENT OF HIS OWN IMAGINATION. SIGNED MAYOR ROY PARKER, DISTRICT OF DUFFERIN.

Mr. Speaker, there is a solution to the fragmentation surroundingthe City of Kamloops. But to come into this Legislature and smearpeople who can't answer for themselves on the floor of this House is atactic which is not in keeping with the British parliamentary practice.

Now Mr. Speaker, the Member for Vancouver East, or rather the secondMember for Vancouver East — because quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, I don'tput the first Member for Vancouver East in the same category. I'll saythis at least for the first Member for Vancouver East. When he talksabout people — he's erroneous in his statements of course, when hetalks about the road-runners and the riff-raff artists — but at leastthe Members he's talking about are in the Legislature to speak forthemselves. I'll give him that.

But, Mr. Speaker, the second Member for Vancouver East has made apublic career of smearing people in British Columbia who aren't on thefloor of this House.

The Member has a few things to say about the Gulf Islands and theMember, of course, led the people of the Province of British Columbiato understand that the Minister of Municipal Affairs was interferingwith the position of local government.

Of course, the second Member for Vancouver East was wrong as usual.I'm going to read the letter which I received as soon as the Member hadfinished speaking, practically.

This letter is from the person who happens to represent the GulfIslands and that Member for Vancouver East, (Mr. R.A. Williams),suggested in this House the other day that that document which he washolding up as the end-all and be-all of the planning process in theProvince of British Columbia, was a unanimously-endorsed document onthe part of the electorate members of the capital regional district.

Let me read you what the gentleman who represents that area had tosay. I would rather accept his word I tell the Hon. Member forCowichan-Malahat, (Mr. Strachan), than the word of the second Memberfrom Vancouver East. I know I have to accept his word because he's anhonourable man.

This letter is addressed to the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

I will start by mentioning that I am the Salt Spring Islandelectoral area director who had the pleasure of conferring with youalong with Alderman E. Broom, Mr. J. McKilvrie, and Mr. C. McQuarry, ofU.B.C.M. on December 1, 1971. I appreciated the time and attention yougave us. I am most interested in your reaction to the proposed outerGulf Island zoning bylaw and the publication "Gulf Island Options."Like you, I am less than enthusiastic about the latter. In fact, I losta bitterly contested motion, 20 votes to 20, on the regional board tohave it referred back to the committee for change. I agree with yourpoint, that politicians must be responsible for charting directionswhich communities will take. I hope to bring this into effect to agreater extent in the capital regional district since I have been madechairman of the local planning committee of the whole.

Mr. Speaker, the second Member for Vancouver East certainly does notspeak in this province for the democratic process, nor does herepresent the political viewpoint, nor does he represent therepresentative viewpoint of people freely elected in a free society, ina free election on Salt Spring Island and Dufferin — which were theonly two subjects he spoke about in his whole address to this House.

He did nothing but discredit the parliamentary process, thedemocratic rights of citizens to determine their own course. As long asI'm Minister of Municipal Affairs in this province, if people in a freevote exercise an option which is there under the Municipal Act, they'llhave that right and I want the people of this province to know thatthat is what makes the difference between a red-herring Socialist and ademocratic free government.

MR. SPEAKER: I believe the Opposition made a point of order.

MR. BARRETT: Earlier in the statements made by the Ministerof Municipal Affairs, he alluded to a reference of mine to a statementmade by the Premier and he stated to the House that I had misled theHouse in my statement. I will bring to your attention…. .

AN HON. MEMBER: Point of order!

MR. SPEAKER: One moment please.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, the Member was referring to astatement that I read and I read as follows. "Today there is noargument" — this is the Premier speaking — "Today there is no argumentabout whether the government of B.C. is debt free or not. Financialpeople around the world know it, even the Government of Canada knowsit, the Bank of Canada knows it, they have sent a man to Vancouver tofind out."

He then referred to a statement that he said was misleading, fromthe then Minister of Finance, Mr. Benson, and I read the letter fromMr. Benson as follows: dated January 14:

Dear Mr. Mather:

Thank you for your letter of January 10 in which you ask whether the Bank of Canada sent a special representative to British Columbia, to study the financial methods of the B.C. government….

"The Bank of Canada" is what I asked. The Bank ofCanada is what the answer is, and the answer is simply, "it did not,"signed by the Minister of Finance.

I ask the Minister to either withdraw his statement or that therecords show he made a false statement in terms of what I said, and Igive him a copy of this letter.

MR. SPEAKER: Just a moment, there is no apology necessary,nor is any withdrawal necessary. No intention or imputation of motiveswas done by either Member when they were on their feet.

The Honourable Member for Cowichan-Malahat.

MR R.M. STRACHAN (Cowichan-Malahat): Well, Mr. Speaker, we just had the annual snake dance by the Minister

[ Page 325 ]

of Municipal Affairs. He slithered and he slid and he coiled and hecurled and like a tarantula he struck at everything that moved.

The reason he never attacked that government is because they've lost all motivation and all movement.

We have this highest lecture about attacking people who are not hereto protect themselves. That man, in the last five years, has never madea speech in this House, without undermining, attacking, berating,bedeviling, barracking, every municipal official in the Province ofBritish Columbia who was not here to defend himself.

In that snake-oil dance, he made reference to the island andcommunications. He said that only he himself, and an aldermansomewhere, had ever spoken up on behalf of the waterways of VancouverIsland and the islands. Twice, for the second time in this session, hespecifically attacked a person who was not here to defend himself.

He didn't even give the Member from Alberni (Mr. McDiarmid) creditfor getting up and fighting for the West Coast — takes all the creditto himself and some alderman. But he attacked the M.P. forComox-Albemi. That man, as usual, doesn't know what he's talking about.Here's the record for the last two years, of the M.P. for Alberni — unmatched by that man or any other Member anywhere. Here it is.

T. Barnett, M.P. — reference to coastal safety, ship reserve, coastguard, fishing boats and fisheries. Dozens of references. Check them inHansard, my friend, where they have a Hansard. Go on, go on.

One, he talked about the Amchitka blast. Two, Berkley sound; three,clean up the mercury and fish; four, Cherry Point tanker pilotage bill;five, drainage and port administration; six, about a sale of thefishing fleets; seven, small boat harbours; eight, fisheries closinglines in territorial waters; nine, oil tanker wreck claim; 10, clean-upplans for oil spills.

The next session: One, B.C. harbours; two, coastal fishermen'sprotection bill; three, deep sea fisheries bill; four, fisheries bill;five, foreign vessels in coastal areas; six, fisheries research boat;seven, new vessels assistance programme; eight, Pacific salmon licencesfor Indians; nine, laws of the sea; 10, marinas; 11, oil tankers fromthe Arctic; 12, Port Alberni harbour; 13, coastal post offices; 14,maritime quarantine bill; 15, licence policy for salmon; 16, salt fishcorporation bill; 17, Sayward Island; 18, search and rescue operations;19, shipping bill; 20, territorial sea and fisheries zones bill.

When the Hon. Member stood up the last time and talked about thegrants — go look at Hansard my friend, and you'll find right in there,last December, I forget the exact date, it was before he got up andgave that snake-oil speech about Ottawa — what he didn't tell the Housewas that this provincial government knew 12 months ahead of time thatthe federal government intended to change its policies.

That the government knew 12 months ahead of time. Did they raise anyprotest? Did they ask any questions? Not on your life, they didn't. Didhe say that, did they say that because there was no protest, thefederal government was actually going to spend more money than theyhave been?

The Member from Comox went to the proper Minister in Ottawa andthat's when they changed it and decided to give another six monthsextension.

The Minister talked about a number of things. He went after theLeader of the Opposition for his comments about Houston. The SmithersInterior News — I would like the Minister to listen to this. TheSmithers Interior News talking about the same thing.

The disaster named D.V.F.I. If it had happened in a denserpopulation, it would have probably been considered good cause to demanda ministerial resignation of two and an election.

As it stands now, a mill which should have cost no more than $30million to construct and bring into operation, has gone to an estimateof nearly $60 million, and still cannot produce profitably.

Then he goes on to say: "It is time to call a halt to this charade."The Smithers paper called it a charade, with the Member as one of themain actors. "It is time to call a halt to this charade, to Williston,Bennett, Bathwater, Bowhouse, et cetera, et cetera. The Bulkley Valleycommunity has lost jobs and incomes because of the ineptness and follyof a very small gang."

Ineptness and folly. "They're responsible and as managers theyshould resign promptly and properly when their misjudgment aredisastrous." It talks about — "to provide jobs which this governmentmouths constantly, as one of its major aims, P.H.A. 4 'should be brokenup to allow two or three or four other sawmills to come into beingusing well-proven means of production and governed by the coastutilisation."

You know, just a year ago the Minister of Lands, Forest and WaterResources told us: "No more transfer of timber rights." No moretransfer of timber rights? Not on your life he hasn't. We know who thatcompany represents. He gets up there and he gives us lectures; ziltch809 cross 4 — double, double-cross. "Never will we allow the transferof these rights in the future."

The Smithers Interior News says:

We wish to see orderly and economic growth in this valley. D.V.F.I. was not orderly, not economic. It dwelled on the edge of the grandiose, of the dreams of empires, of the whims and wit of a very few men, who took upon themselves the non-accountability of divine right. This, the land of the public that is being bandied about, the trees of the public and so on. The public has the right to know.

They want a public inquiry as to what created that mess up there.

Then he made some reference to the earlier speech I made. Well,there's a little paper up-island — I happen to live in a smallcommunity myself and I pay particular attention to what the local paperis saying. And the Parksville-Qualicum Beach Progress was talking aboutthe situation in Canada and how anyone who dares raise their voice onbehalf of Canada is immediately accused by the sell-out artists ofbeing anti-American.

Let me read to you from the Parksville-Qualicum Beach Progress, talking of this:

We wish our own way of life, our own culture, our own political and legal system and such wishes can hardly be considered unnatural. Far less can they be considered anti-American. So before we face any charge in this respect and they mostly emanate from Canadians tied to the American dollar, let the charge be correctly laid: "anti-American, not guilty." But it is considered a crime to profess ourselves pro-Canadian and to actively oppose economic and political occupation by the States or any other country, then we are as guilty as Hell.

That's what it says. I'm quoting the newspaper.

We listened to the Minister across the way talk about damning thefederal government because of this oil exploration thing around theQueen Charlottes. The federal

[ Page 326 ]

government has announced that it's cancelling the permits. Is ourprovincial government going to cancel the permits that they've issued?

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you going to fight for it?

MR. STRACHAN: Is he going to fight for it? Not on your lifehe isn't. The other day the Minister made some mention of the secondMember from Vancouver East and the speech he made in the House. TheMinister of Rehabilitation of the Vancouver Hotel didn't refer to whatthe second Member from Vancouver East had said.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs didn't answer it. All they did waspour out the invective and abuse and crawl along the gutter with everytwisted, mind-splitting word they could think of. There's the map, it'svery clear.

Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, that when this man became the Ministerand he proposed a rational, regional development of our municipalitiesin the Province of British Columbia, it wasn't a very popular idea, letme tell you.

It wasn't very popular but I supported him and I went into the ruralareas of my constituency and as the Minister well knows, I faced somepretty rough meetings in my own constituency, supporting the idea ofrational, regional development and some sanity around the boundaryquestion of cities our cities and communities.

I stood up for the Minister and at one meeting I had to almostphysically protect his civil servants who were there, as a matter offact, because of the feeling that had been engendered by the people inthe rural area.

But I supported him because I believed that he was going tohonestly, straight-forwardly do a job for the people and bring somerationale to our municipal development. There's the map, and no matterhow much invective the Minister of Rehabilitation of the VancouverHotel uses, no matter how much invective the Minister who just sat downuses there's the map. Not one of them has yet justified the reason forthe creation of such a monstrosity of a municipal boundary.

The Member gave a cool presentation of this boundary — what it meansto regional development, how it came about. He drew the outlines of theboundary and not one of them have ever said that is not the trueboundaries of the municipality. Unless they can say that or unless theycan justify going back on everything the Minister said he was going todo then anything else they say is absolute rubbish and merely designedto point away from the fact that as developers, as people withresponsibility, as people with an obligation to look into the future,they have failed completely.

It was obvious — the Member from Vancouver East said so — that whatthe Member from Kamloops wants the Member from Kamloops gets, and thatmade it clear throughout the province — that in this leadership raceit's obvious that the Member from Kamloops has more influence in thecabinet than the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

That's what hurts, that's what hurts. It's all in this leadership derby that's going on over there.

Now, we know. Again look at this map. Now we know what the Ministerof Municipal Affairs meant when he pointed at that Member and said: "Hecan look after his own chaos." There it is.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. STRACHAN: But for a man of the cloth to refuse to facethe truth, the fact that they are the boundaries of a municipalitycontrary to everything that's reasonable and rational then spewinginvective — Mr. Speaker, we know now who needs the medical attention.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to talk about the budget, start off thepicture of the Premier. I like the picture of the Premier. It's thesame picture that was in in 1970, same picture that was in 1971, it's abeautiful picture, you know. It's a picture of an old master, probablydrawn by an old master.

AN HON. MEMBER: Retouched by one. That's right.

MR. STRACHAN: But what kind of budget is this? You know, Mr.Speaker, I have very often in the past had some problem, when I gave aname to a budget, in overcoming objections made by the Chair throughthe name I'd applied to any particular budget.

I remember I referred to one budget as "a piece of massive deception." That was ruled out of order.

Another time I referred to it as "a stacked deck." That was ruledout of order. So I had to go through the rest of the afternoon doingthis to indicate what I thought of the budget.

AN HON. MEMBER: Waldo knew what you meant.

MR. STRACHAN: Then there's balanced budgets and there's tight budgets and there's fuss-budgets.

I didn't want to call this a fuss budget because that appelationreally belongs to the Attorney General. You know, a fuss-budget is aperson who is anxious about trifles. Look at his record. Here he's allupset about the night clubs of Vancouver.

He has control of the liquor board and we send inspectors all overthe country and they go in and they inspect the hotels and if thedoorways are half-an-inch too narrow then they've got to change thedoor.

If the baseboards are only 1½ in. wide they've got to be 1¾ in.wide. If there's only a quarter horse-power fan up in the wall, it'sgot to be a three-eights horse-power fan.

He went over there, you see, to send an inspector into one of theseclubs — topless, bottomless, everything else you see — and what didthis inspector order the owner to do? "Take out that pin-ball machine.Take out that pin-ball machine." Snapped his fingers, he could andthat's it.

AN HON. MEMBER: No more shuffle-board either.

MR. STRACHAN: He's supposed to be in charge but this is ajob-creating budget and this fuss-budget over here you know what he'sgoing to do? He's going to create jobs.

Look at the R.C.M.P. vote and you'll see it's up from about $7million to $10 million. We're going to hire a whole lot more policemento police the nightclubs in Vancouver. Then we're going to create jobsby having every policeman armed with a brand new micrometer, and allthese policemen are going to be in all these clubs to check thediameter of the G-string. And that's the answer to the job situation.

I finally decided to call this a fudge budget, a fudge budget. Thedefinition of "fudge" is "a made-up story, nonsense, humbug — oftenused as an expression of contempt."

I think that you know this budget is a made-up story, it's nonsense, it's humbug and it's an expression of contempt for

[ Page 327 ]

the people of British Columbia who are really in need. But if youlook through it and look at all the little dabs of colour in there,"fudge" also means "a patch of print, as a colour print, or insertionof late matter on a printed page." Fudge is also "a soft, sugar candyoften containing chocolate and nuts." The verb transitive of the word"fudge" is fudging, "to patch together, fake or devise." You know, whenyou look at this budget it describes it in every facet. In every facet.Let's deal with the chocolate first. Rural power subsidy up from $2million to $3 million. The increase in the home-owner grant to $185 and$50 for those over 65. Roads, bridges and ferries up from $80 millionto $95 million. Construction of provincial buildings up from $12.5million to $18 million. Education up from $398 million to $441 million.Apprenticeship training up from $3.8 million to $5.2 million. Specialfunds, the green belt $25 million, power line beautification $10million, accelerated reforestation fund $10 million.

That's a fair amount of chocolate used there. But let's examine thequality of some of that chocolate. Is it chocolate, or is it nuts, oris it fake, or is it nonsense? Is it humbug, is it a device?

The increase in the home-owner grant to $185, that's not bad — $50for those over 65, that's not bad. But the very first paragraph of thisbudget speech, is a very interesting paragraph, the very firstparagraph.

This is the twentieth successive annual budget of this Social CreditAdministration and the 19th it has been my privilege to present asMinister of Finance.

The first Social Credit budget was brought in by a man of the nameEinar Gunderson. I liked Mr. Gunderson, he used to sit over about theresomewhere and I used to sit down about there in that one year that hesat here and I remember there was a debate going on and Mr. Gundersonwas leaning back in his chair, eyes closed. But he wasn't asleep andsomeone on this side of the House was talking and he got to a place inthe speech where he said: "People in glass houses…." and Mr.Gunderson without opening his eyes said: "Should pull down the blinds."

You know, that was prophetic because governments should live in aglass house, but they should not pull down the blinds. This governmentadmits to living in a glass house, it claims to live in a glass house,but it keeps the blinds pulled down all the time.

There are always figures missing. They talked about the increase inthe home-owner grant to those over 65. They have all the statisticsover there — the computers, everything else. Why didn't they tell ushow many people over 65 have their own homes, how many of these willget the extra $50, how many senior citizens are renting? And you knowthey didn't mention the increased assessments that are going on all thetime.

The Minister who is gone, the Minister of Municipal Affairs, talkedabout debits and credits and extra $15 a credit. How about the debit?Again on government responsibility, the increase in assessments.

On the last day of the last session His Honour closed that session with a little speech. In that speech he said:

In order to further benefit the home-owners in the province the Assessment Equalisation Act has been amended to prevent an increase in assessment greater than 10 per cent per year.

Well, Mr. Speaker, you'll remember that last year I told you aboutPort Alberni, how because of the inequity of the assessment laws ofthis province the MacMillan Bloedel Corporation with all that terriblyvaluable waterfront industrial property is assessed at 10 cents perfoot on that land. The barber shop up-town is assessed at $2 per footand the home-owner is assessed at $2 per foot.

Any proper equity in assessment would remove from the taxes of theaverage people of this province millions and millions of dollars of theload. I've spent some time looking at assessments this last few months.This is land only so that you can't say well somebody added somethingor something was taken away. I'm referring only to land.

I looked at one folio for a piece of land — this is about .6 of anacre. For 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969 the assessment wasall the same — $450. In 1970 that went up to $1,035. In 1971 it went upto $1,139. In 1972 it went up to $1,235. Three years in a row anincrease in assessment, starting with 1970.

Another piece — from 1963 to 1968 the assessment was $1,800. In 1969it went up, in 1970 it went up, in 1971 it went up and 1972 it went up.This is residential property.

Another one. Starting in 1970, 1.25 acres, $3,200, $3,500, $3,800.Starting in 1970 up, up, up. $3,000 an acre. These are all pretty closeto where the Harmac pulp mill is. Harmac pulp mill was built on 99.8acres. The assessment on the Harmac property in 1963 was $78,000. In1964 it was raised to $97,000, from 1964 until 1971 it wasn't touched.The assessment was not increased one penny.

While the residential and the farm homes all through that districtwere being raised — some of them by as much as five and six times — notuntil the Premier had pushed through that Equalised Assessment Act lastyear did they move at all on the assessment on the Harmac pulp millproperty. So who benefits?

You can't raise it any more than 10 per cent. That's it, that's it.In 1972 it went up the 10 per cent. But even worse there's a part ofthe Harmac property that's not included in this 99 acres. It's calledaccreted land and they've never been assessed on that land that's addedby filling or by silting and build up, they've never been assessed onthat.

I'll look at some other property, Northwest Bay. I went to look atsome to see what the assessment was on the Northwest Bay property — this is where MacMillan Bloedel take all these logs down and they havethat great waterfront operation.

You know, there's no indication of any assessment of any kind onthat and when I asked why — this is waterfront property on the coast ofVancouver Island, no assessments value showing at all on it — and Iasked why. Well it's included in the tree farm. What do they pay on atree farm? I cent an acre.

Because this is happening to the industrial properties, and theindustrial properties are not carrying their fair share, the seniorcitizens and every other home-owner in this province is having to paymore than their share. Now, the assessors work under the direction ofthe Minister of Finance and I discover that all those improvements thatare involved in these industrial assessments each one has a folio. Veryinvolved things, but even as an M.L.A. I'm not allowed to look at them.

But anyway, the assessors work under the direction of the provincialPremier. I remember last year he issued directions to them all, eventhough it was illegal, and here's the commercial property in Chemainus,a piece of commercial property 12,000 square feet which is what, just alittle less than about half an acre, a quarter of an acre?

In 1963 it was valued at $7,010. 1966 it was raised to $7,500, went down in 1970. In 1971 it went up to $7,700

[ Page 328 ]

and now it's $8,000 for a quarter of an acre.

That's commercial property in Chemainus. MacMillan Bloedel have apiece of property, 6.4 acres. It was $12,800 in 1963, and in 1972 it'sstill $12,800. I wonder how many home-owners in Chemainus have hadtheir assessments increased from 1963? Who sets the rules? Anotherpiece of MacMillan Bloedel property in Chemainus — 73 acres. In 1963the assessment was $12,045 for three acres. It was $12,045 right upuntil 1970, then it went down $5. They went down $5. Equal rights forall and special privilege for none. It went down $5 in 1970, and in1971 it's still the same $12,045. In 1972 it's still $12,045.

Crofton Pulp and Paper Mill have a piece of land — 2.65 acres again.And mind you these are industrial and waterfront properties, 2.65 acres.

1963, $2,350. Same, same, same, same until 1971 and it's still thesame. Then this year it went up from $2,350 to $2,390, a $40 increaseon 2.65 acres.

Another piece of Crofton Pulp and Paper property — 12.91 acres,assessed $2,390. The same, the same, the same, the same. 1972 still$2,390. Another section — Crofton Pulp and Paper Mill 16,39 acres — $1,510 is the assessed value of this 16 acres, that was in 1963.Today's assessed value is $1,510. Where is the equity? Is it any wonderpeople are complaining of having to carry an increased tax load whenthe people who own this choice industrial waterfront property have theinside edge and are left completely alone when it comes to taxes?

That's more, there's more. Let's see what else there is. Here's aresidential lot in the same period of time, in the same area — 1.36acres. In 1963 it was assessed at $350. It stayed at that, that's areasonable assessment.

It stayed at that until 1969, then it went up $710. As I say Ishowed you all these commercial, these industrial properties owned bythe big boys not touched. I showed you other residential propertieswhere they started to increase the assessments in '68. I showed you howin Harmac they didn't touch it until they had to put a 10 per centlimitation on it. That's residential property — $350.

In 1969 they started to put the block to this one. It went up to$710. The next year it went up to $1,260, next year $1,280, and now its$1,400. For this little bit of residential property there's been one,two, three, four increases four years in a row.

Let's go up to Lake Cowichan. Again nice lake front property — 13.85acres. Wouldn't it be nice to have 13.5 acres of frontage on LakeCowichan? 1963 — $1,035 and that wasn't changed until 1970 when it wentup to $4,500 then $4,900 and it is now $5,400.

Again the 40-acre industrial waterfront property in the B.C. ForestProducts mill — 40 acres of industrial waterfront property at LakeCowichan. In 1963 it was assessed at $29,000 and it wasn't touched onesingle penny not even last year when they could have held it down to 10per cent. But this year they raised it by 10 per cent, to $32,875.Western Forest Industries, Honeymoon Bay — again nice industrialwaterfront property — 204 acres, $76,000 assessment. Wasn't toucheduntil 1971 when the 10 per cent was in.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. STRACHAN: You bet your sweet life. As I say it's onething for a little man and another when you happen to be good friendswith that little government over there.

AN HON. MEMBER: Sweethearts, sweethearts.

MR. STRACHAN: We know who's side they're on, when the littleman gets the assessment up year after year after year — when thedirection from this government and the big boys, they wait until the 10per cent limitation is on, and then even then they don't even do it insome of those properties I was speaking of.

I looked into the matter of exemptions for pollution controlequipment, I found at Harmac they're getting an exemption of somethinglike $600,000 or $700,000 improvements exempted. I've got others herebut I won't carry it any further except to say that I've got a letterfrom my good friend the Mayor of Vancouver. And he was talking aboutthe impact of that 10 per cent assessment limitation.

AN HON. MEMBER: Let me have it. I like Hawaiian stamps.

MR. STRACHAN: And he points out, he says: "You take the 15largest individual land investment decreases on a dollar basisresulting on the application of this 10 per cent that they put on." Andwho does it help? Well, let's see. The Burrard Building — they got adecrease in their assessment of $78,000 because of that 10 per centlimitation. That's an 8.3 per cent decrease. The Hotel Vancouver,they've got a decrease of 5.9 per cent. There was a piece of industrialproperty, he doesn't name it, it got a decrease of 14 per cent, theBentall Tower — that modest little cottage — they got a decrease of 4per cent. Safeway a decrease of $31,000 — 4.8 per cent.

AN HON. MEMBER: Poor little things.

MR. STRACHAN: MacMillan Bloedel, they only got a 3.3 per centdecrease. But as I say now, where does all this come from? It's alldirected by the Minister over there. As I say I've been looking intoit. I got a letter from somebody saying I'm only entitled to see thenormal portfolios that everyone else is entitled to see, just back thelast two years.

But they were very generous, they told me I could get these figuresback for 10 years. And I was down there and I'm shown a very involvedmineographed sheet with all sorts of figures on it and this is theformula by which they increase the assessments in all the differentcategories.

If they've got that kind of formula how come these other assessmentshaven't been going up year after year after year? But do you know wherethis formula has come from? There is something called the Boeckhbuilding cost modifier. But I couldn't get a copy of this other thingyou know. I could probably, if I wrote down to the States, get a copyof this. Because that's where it's printed. The recommendations on theformula as to how we reach our assessments comes from the UnitedStates, with a special sheet copying B.C. this, this, this, this.

People don't even know what B.C. is, but they make the decisionssitting over there, and it's obvious that the decisions are alwaysrough on the little guy and some of that nice soft candy that's fudgefor the big boys. It's a fudge budget my friends.

What's going to happen to the little guy? You know, you talk aboutthis $15 increase. In the Ladysmith paper: "School taxes are expectedto jump by 10 mils."

What's a $15 increase in the home-owner grant going to do to theresidence of Chemainus when they're faced with a 10 mil jump in theirschool taxes?

[ Page 329 ]

I think that particular piece of chocolate has a worm in it. Then wego to roads, bridges and ferries — capital up $80 million to $95million. The question is will it be spent?

Let's go back to public accounts 1970/71. We appropriated $80million that year, we spent $61 million and unexpended $18,959,000. Youknow I took that definition of the budget "fudge" and I don't knowwhether that's made up…so that would fit into the made-up storypart, and the nuts.

Construction of public buildings up from $12,500,000 to $18 million.Jobs, jobs, jobs. What happened last year? Public accounts 1970/71 weallocated $12 million. How much did we spend? $6,600,000. Jobs, jobs,jobs, unexpended $5,301,000.

In his budget speech the Premier says on page 21, "in the Departmentof Labour $1,390,000 more for apprenticeship training." And theflippers went and they all pounded their desks, and we had mentalpictures of bright-faced eager-eyed young men going off to learn thetrades of an honest craft through the generosity of this government.

Let's look at the record, and see whether this is a fake, a device, humbug, nonsense, or nuts.

The last five years in public accounts — apprenticeship training1970/71 appropriated $3,600,000, spent $3,100,000, unexpended $470,000,over-expended ziltch; 69/70 appropriated $3,600,000, expended$2,700,000, unexpended $896,000, over-expended ziltch; 68/69 — hey, heyinto the big money! $3,564,000 was appropriated. The Legislature saidthis was to be for apprenticeship and industrial training for thesebright eager-eyed young men to learn an honest craft. Appropriated$3,500,000, expended $2,500,000, unexpended $1 million.

That 67/68 was a great year for industrial apprenticeship training.We appropriated $4,200,000 for these eager-eyed clean-cut youngCanadians going off to serve an honest apprenticeship. How much did wespend? $2,400,000, unexpended $1,700,000. Sixty-six was a pretty goodyear, that must have been an election year. We allocated $2,900,000, wespent $2,400,000, unexpended $545,000. In these five years aloneunexpended was $4,695,000 of money for apprenticeships and industrialtraining that they kept taking credit for. Is it any wonder that werefer to these budgets as works of fiction? I could spend three hoursin here talking about how the government over-estimates. And I couldspend 10 hours here elaborating on how they underspend — what it meansto human beings.

The evidence is the more they appropriate the less they spend. Ofcourse, education in this budget speech is up — from $398 million to$441 million. But it includes the home-owner grant increases. This issuppose to be a job creating budget and the education is up, as I say.But we go to the Victoria Colonist of February 1, and we find thatbecause of the attitude of this government the Victoria School Boardwere put in a situation where instead of this budget creating jobs it'sgoing to result in that great Financial Post word the "de-hiring" of some teachers.

As a matter of fact, because of the policy of this government thereare going to be about 45 employees — mostly teachers — laid off in theCity of Victoria.

This is a job-creating budget, and that's how they create jobs, myfriends. By putting the school boards in a position they've got to layoff 45 people — teachers, special councillors and all the rest of it."Jobs, jobs, jobs. We care," he says — the 108 per cent formula meansabout 45 jobs less in Victoria, but of course you can always put theteachers planting trees.

I'll come to the tree planting a little later.

Pollution control up from $1,100,000 to $2,500,000 — that's great.But 100 new jobs, engineers, research men, biologists. Now had we hadan educational system that had been producing the research men, thebiologists, the engineers, we might have been able to fill the jobs.But I remember once before, Mr. Speaker, when the then Attorney Generalgot up and said people were very concerned about the probation systemin this province — about the fact they were locking up young peopleunnecessarily — and with just the same kind of fanfare announced that"this year in the budget we've got an allowance for" — I think it was — "80 more probation officers, and we're all very happy." This was agovernment that cared, my friend.

We came back the next year and they had two additional probation officers. The reason? "We couldn't find any trained personnel."

Who runs the school system in this province? Who runs the colleges and universities?

Then of course there's the special fund. There's the green beltfund. But of course the blinds are down on that one too. We're notexactly sure who, why, how, when or under which condition it's going tobe used.

But the one I like is this power line beautification bill, I reallylike that one. Why the Premier was almost in tears when he introducedthat the other day.

MR. BARRETT: If he wasn't, the Attorney General was.

MR. STRACHAN: I was almost in tears myself. Because I wasthinking back to an amendment that was made to the Municipal Act inthis Province about the year 1908, and this amendment to the MunicipalAct of British Columbia authorised municipalities to enter into anagreement with any utility — telephone, electricity or anything else — for the putting of the wires underground. In 1908 that amendment wasbrought into the Municipal Act. On the basis of that amendment the Cityof Victoria, this beautiful city, went to that great corporate citizenthe B.C. Telephone Company and made an agreement with them that theB.C. Tel would put their lines underground.

AN HON. MEMBER: You remember, Waldo?

MR. STRACHAN: They made an agreement and as I recollect thedetails, under the agreement the city had already paid the B.C. Tel the$50,000 for some work done. But the B.C. Tel didn't like the agreementso there were some arguments back and forth between the City Hall inVictoria and B.C. Tel so finally they made a new agreement and theyboth agreed to submit this new agreement to the legislative assembly ofBritish Columbia to be ratified and made the law of the Province ofBritish Columbia so that neither the city nor the B.C. Tel could welchon it.

If you check the records of 1916 you'll see that piece oflegislation. But then what happened? Here they walk in, good corporatecitizens, good civic government, hand in hand in this Legislature,asking for the authorisation for the beautification of Victoria. Thatgood corporate citizen, the B.C. Telephone Company sent a man down toOttawa, and it was introduced into the federal House — a bill to granta franchise to a company called the Western Telephone Company. As yougo through the articles of that particular bill, setting up the WesternTelephone Company, you find that the federal

[ Page 330 ]

bill allowed this Western Telephone Company to take over all theassets of the B.C. Telephone Company and then it went on, in itsgoodness of heart and for the beautification of Victoria, to allow theWestern Telephone Company, with the authority of the directors of theB.C. Telephone Company, to use the name the B.C. Telephone Company.

Which meant that the B.C. Telephone Company agreement with the Cityof Victoria was taken right out of the provincial jurisdiction intofederal jurisdiction and almost 60 years after that amendment to theMunicipal Act we have a bill brought for the beautification ofutilities in the Province of British Columbia. With that experienceit's no wonder that our cities have been unable ever to get theutilities to do what they should have been doing in the first place.Because in 1908 the government that was here then, the people whor*presented it, knew that that's the way it should be done. But becauseof the strength and power of certain sections of the community thishasn't happened.

We have the accelerated reforestation fund of $10 million. This iswhere we'll put some of our unemployed school teachers on to workplanting trees.

But the first question I have to ask is why do we need a specialfund? If the trees need planting they should be planted. We've saidthat for years — 20 million acres of unplanted tree country in theProvince of British Columbia and all of a sudden you're going to tryand made good fellows of yourself by saying you're going to spend $10million for the planting of trees.

Mr. Speaker, less than two years ago on September 14, 1970, thePremier of British Columbia, the Minister of Finance went to afederal-provincial conference and if you want to read that presentationthis is what he said.

He said:

B.C. Is presently planting 25 million trees at a cost of $3.5 million as part of a five-year programme to plant 75 million trees by 1975 with a budget of $10 million. This goal only takes care of current needs to provide for areas requiring reforestation and the indicated expansion and annual cut requires an increase in the annual planting programme to 175 million trees which will cost an estimated $18 million per year.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. STRACHAN: In other words even with this money we're noteven keeping up to present needs. The whole future of this provincedepends on our ability to keep that forest industry with trees to workon.

Not only is the government incapable of handling the allocation ofthe timber so that it's handled in an economic way, not only do theygive these forest companies special privileges when it comes toassessments and put a high tax on, but you leave unplanted areas thatshould be planted: The government's own presentation to thefederal-provincial conference makes it clear that they're falling downon the job and instead of setting up special funds every year, withthat kind of money we should be allocating the $18 million a year fortree planting.

There was actually no reason for any young fellow last summer to beout of a job when we had that 20 million acres and we've got the kindof money we have.

I was going to comment on the B.C. farm produce promotion bill whichgives to the Minister of Industrial Developments $200,000 to supposedlyadvertise farm produce. But knowing that Minister, I'm afraid it willbe like the last time, there will be more political propaganda thanvalue to the farmer.

Social assistance in this budget is only up $1.5 million. The grantsand aid of local government and homeowner subsidies up from $46 millionto $53 million. The government makes a lot of talk about that and weheard the Minister across the way say how well off the municipalitiesare. We look at this social welfare figure and homeowner grant — thesetwo figures are related. The figure allocated for social assistance andthe figure for home-owner grants.

I visited the office of the City of Duncan and despite what thisgovernment says the City of Duncan are now paying 25 per cent of thesocial welfare costs. This government just treats every municipalityirrespective of what it's costing per capita. An examination of thefigures shows the City of Duncan is costing $43 per capita for socialwelfare costs. In Williams Lake it's $7, in Ladysmith it's $23, inCastlegar it's $10, in North Saanich it's $65 per capita, Langley is$42. So there's a variety of per capita costs involved in this.

Now who are these people on social welfare? There is no municipalauthority tougher with social welfare applicants than the City ofDuncan. I look at the record, I discover that June, 1971 there were 75families on welfare, 20 single women, 21 single men, 3 transientsreceived a total of $16 — so it's not the long-haired hippydraft-dodging pinko people that are putting the welfare costs up.

In Duncan three transients got $16 in June, 1971. These are peoplein the community. Then we find that half of those people have been onwelfare for over 12 months. These are the people with health problemswho are just simply unable to work because of a health situation andthe rest are because of the unemployment situation.

In Duncan it's $43, the per capita grant is $30. There it is, thereit is right there — per capita grant to Duncan is $30 and the welfarecosts alone are $43 per capita. I could go into that more but I thinkit indicates that….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. STRACHAN: Well, there it is. This is what themunicipalities are facing and he goes up and he goes into thatsnake-dance, and there's the situation.

More than 25 per cent of the social welfare costs are borne by theCity of Duncan and they sure don't waste any money. In 1969 the City ofDuncan's per capita welfare costs were one of the highest in theprovince. In 1970 they were increased by a further 42 per cent andthat's the way they are going up and these, the Minister says, are thebest treated municipalities in the province.

Then we come to the Provincial Alliance of Businessmen. That$500,000 vote and I'm not going to refer to the vote, Mr. Speaker butI'm going to make a comparison about how the same thing is treated indifferent ways.

In this year's budget there is something called the B.C. AutomobileInsurance Board being set up. If you'll look at your estimates you'llfind it's only a nominal sum — $15,396 — but that vote is spelled out,where the $15,000 is going.

It says "Salaries administrative officer, class 2 — $10,356. Clerk steno, class 2 — $5,050."

The total vote for B.C. Automobile Insurance Vote is $15,000 butit's spelled out who is going to be hired, what class they are and howmuch they are going to get paid. And in every other new vote in thisbudget that's the way it's handled and that's the way it should behandled.

[ Page 331 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Who signs the cheques?

MR. STRACHAN: The Provincial Alliance of Businessmen signsthe cheques. No lay out, no demonstration, no listing of how manyclerks, stenographers, administrator officers or anything else. Astraight blank cheque for $500,000 as a personal slush fund for theMinister of Social Welfare and the Vancouver Hotel.

Why does that Minister get this special privilege? That's what Iwant to know? Why does that Minister get this special privilege? Thathe is given a blank vote of $500,000 when every other Minister mustlist in every new vote who's going to be hired and how much they'regoing to get.

What has that Minister got on this government? That's what I want toknow. That he can get that kind of special privilege and no otherMinister has that right. Who is running things over there?

This budget talks about home ownership. This government claims tohave bleeding hearts for the municipalities. It claims it providesjobs. But you know — oh, I'm glad to see the Minister of Municipalsnake-dancing is back. Because there's a vote in there — housing andurban renewal. Again this brings up a great mental picture of people inslums finding themselves in garden apartments — all those dirty,dangerous back-alleys cleaned up, no more garbage cans, no more dirtyragged kids running around the back alleys. Housing and urban renewal,jobs, jobs, jobs.

What does the record show? Again, let's go to public accounts:1970-71 we allocated $5 million. How much did we spend? — $2.3 million.Unexpended, $2.6 million.

1969, 1970 we allocated $5 million, expended $3 million, unexpended$1.7 million. 1968, allocated $5 million — just guess how much wasexpended. Oh no, $1.5 million. Unexpended $3,486,000. How about this? — urban renewal housing, 1967, the vote was only $2.5 million. We spent$1.3 million. But when you add up those figures, Mr. Speaker, you findthat in those four years we allocated $17.5 million, we spent $8.4million and we didn't spend $9 million that was supposed to be forurban and housing in the Province of British Columbia.

Now, what would you call that? When they talk about urban renewaland housing. Would you call it nonsense, a made-up story, humbug, orpatched together?

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. STRACHAN: That's right, that's right, thanks for yourhelp, my friends. Then we go on to the B.C. Ferries income. This yearthe ferries' income is $30 million, expenditures $34 million. You know,you go back over the years and despite the fact that we've paid all ofthe capital out of the taxes of the people of this province, in thislast five years there was accumulated deficit of $17 million in theoperation of the B.C. Ferries and they get out there and they try totell people they're making a profit. An accumulated deficit of $17million!

This year alone we're budgeting for a loss of $4 million on it. Eventhough we paid all the capital costs the Premier says "No bill oftheirs ever ran a business." Well it's easy enough to run a business ifyou get the taxpayer to put up all the capital. So you have noamortisation costs and then you're going to taxpayers again for another$4 million to keep it going. Anybody can run a business that way.Anybody. But then he's got the colossal gall to try and leave theimpression that it's making money, it's making a profit.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. STRACHAN: George Orwood is right. Then on top of that heincreases the rates to the farmers of the province. Sure, lastNovember, and here's a list of what the farmers are paying. Iunderstand the books. I understand too well for the Minister — that'swhy he's wriggling.

However, let's go to B.C. Hydro and see what happens. This is wherewe're talking about this borrowing. We heard all this guff about notborrowing. I'm sorry the Member from Nanaimo (Mr. Ney) is not in hisseat again. Oh, gee, he missed that vote last night too didn't he?

You know, on September 14 last year the Member was giving a speech. The headline says "You Have to Borrow to be Successful."

It is almost financially impossible today to be fiscally successfulwithout borrowing, Nanaimo M.L.A. Frank Ney told the Association ofCredit Bureaus of B.C. here Monday.

It's impossible to be financially or fiscally successful unless youborrow….he told the luncheon. I don't know whether borrowing meansdebt or not, but you know we look at the B.C. Hydro and before we goonto that I want to remind the Premier that this is a publicly-ownedcorporation and for him to be squandering the consumer's money the wayhe was advertising those bonds when he knew darn well every single oneof them was sold, was a terrible waste of public money, especially whenyou look up the accounts of B.C. Hydro and who has to pay it.

Let's have a look. You look at the public accounts of B.C. Hydro andthey talk about not borrowing and no debts. You know, it's just one ofthe funniest things I've heard in a long, long time.

Gross revenue for B.C. Hydro $276 million, interest on debts $104million. Total income, gross revenue $276 million, interest on debts$104 million — less interest charged to construction, $16 million. Sothat really only leaves $88 million, except that interest charged toconstruction means that you've borrowed the money, you have to payinterest on it, but instead of taking it out of your gross revenue, youborrow some more money to pay that interest. That's what that means.

AN HON. MEMBER: Social Credit finance!

MR. STRACHAN: In actual facts according to their own recordsthe electrical consumers of this province are now paying about 34 centsof every consumer $1 on interest charges for B.C. Hydro. That's whatthat means.

Then you say, "Oh no, that's a contingent liability, it doesn't meana thing, you don't have to pay, it's not going to cost anybodyanything." What garbage, what garbage! Let's look at the P.G.E., thesheet we got the other day. Operating revenues $38 million. Interest onfunded and non-funded debts $10 million — more than 25 per cent of thetotal revenue. Remember, who can run a business this way?

In 1954 I think it was, we brought a bill into this House and wipedout $94 millions of the debt we owned the taxpayers of this province.We just passed a bill and said "you don't owe it anymore." That'scalled self-liquidating debt. Then when it started up an accumulateddeficit, the accumulated deficit got up to about $5 or $6 million a fewyears ago, the Premier says, "Well we'll have to get that flypaper intothe taxpayers' pocket again." And we took $25 million out of thetaxpayers' pockets and gave it to the

[ Page 332 ]

P.G.E. We gave another $35 million last year, we're going to give them some more this year.

That's the way to run a business, that's the way to be a successfulbusinessman. Anytime you are short of cash just go to the taxpayer.Wipe out the debt with a stroke of the pen and a nod from His Honourwhen he is in the chair at the end of the session.

Then they give us this holier-than-thou talk about debt being such aterrible thing. School debt, every year the Minister of Education hasto stand up and tell me that $25 million of the money that is supposedto go to operate the schools actually goes to pay the government'ssection of the school debt.

Hospitals, the Hospitals' Regional Board….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. STRACHAN: It's time you started listening, my friend. Nowthis is a funny thing. The government says these are self liquidatingdebts, these contingent liabilities are self-liquidating.

AN HON. MEMBER: They get bigger every year.

MR. STRACHAN: They brag about how this government pays 50 percent or 60 per cent of all the hospital construction in the province.It doesn't come out of your pockets it comes out of the taxpayers'pocket but it is not debt my friends, it's not debt.

How do the hospital boards and regions then pay that debt? How is itdone? Because the government has to pay 60 per cent of it — they've gotno debt but they have to pay their 60 per cent. I'll tell you how it isdone.

Every once in awhile the Minister of Finance sits in his littleoffice and he puts on his glasses and he takes out his fountain pen andhe writes out a little cheque — "Province of British Columbia, so manydollars" — and he sends it to the Regional Hospital Board.

This is the government's payment on the hospital debt of theprovince. But then what happens to it once the hospital board gets it?They take this little cheque which the Premier has sent them out of thegoodness of his heart and they endorse it and they deposit it in thebank.

Then they pick up their pen and they sit down and they write alittle cheque and they send a cheque for the same amount back to thePremier as a payment from the hospital districts. That's exactly howit's done….

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, but it's not.

MR. STRACHAN: Self-liquidating, no debts, what a garbage can of gobbledegook they peddle the people of this province.

And know, Mr. Speaker, I had intended to refer to what Major Douglassaid about contingent liabilities and all the rest of it. I won't takethe time of the House.

I just want to refer you to the whole tenure of this budget speech.This was the greatest, this was the most magnificent and this wasmarvellous and everything was upper and bigger and more — tearsstreaming down their cheeks, thump, thump, thump, and away we go.

For 20 years these people across the way have tried to lead thepeople of this province to believe that before 1952 there was nothingin this province. It was an aching void, light had not yet been laid onus. Well, you know, I would like to read to you a budget speech of1952. No pictures, just a straightforward presentation of what wassaid, no waste of public money.

AN HON. MEMBER: Those were in the humble years.

MR. STRACHAN: This was what it said:

This time is not a matter of specific or local boom. The growthduring the past decade has been general continuous and uniformly sound.It had its birth in a burst of productive energy and wise financing, aproductive energy that continued notwithstanding currency exchangeproblems and trade and payment restrictions. It has been achievedbecause of planned development of natural resources such asagriculture, oil, base metals, water power, and forest products. It hasbeen achieved because of the application of new skills upon theco-ordination of scientific and practical overall measures that placedCanada

and notice the difference

on a level with the highly productivecountries in the world.

There is a relationship there between this province and the rest of the country. Another section:

If we bear in mind all of this then we have no alternative but toconclude that the industrial prospects for British Columbia arebrighter and hold more promise than of any other economic region inCanada.

AN HON. MEMBER: Sounds like Bennett.

MR. STRACHAN: Almost the same language. There was a Provinceof British Columbia before this government came to power. I'll go backeven further. I'm going to read you some brief excerpts from the budgetspeech of 1912 because believe it or not there was a British Columbiain 1912.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. STRACHAN: This budget speech says — I haven't spoken as long as that individual did, and I'm making sense which he didn't:

The increase of the revenue tax marks the growth of the population, the heavy surplus tells the tale of further capital coming into the country to seek investments for the growth in timber licences, royalties and taxes on coal.

There were royalties in those days.

and in fishing and canning licences presents a picture of the rapid exploitation of the country and of the growth of industrial enterprise.

The second point which may be urged is this:

That the acknowledged prosperity of the province, its improved credit and its large balance may interfere with its just demands which we are making to the Dominion Government for better terms.

But what I'd really like to read to Hon. Members is from thisdocument. I'd like to read this document to you — some brief excerpts."The increase of population in British Columbia since 1939 is reportedby the Dominion Bureau of Statistics as follows: 1939 — 792,000" and soon and so on. "This increase is unequalled in any Canadian provincesince the tide of western settlements subsided in the early twenties."And it goes on to talk again about British

[ Page 333 ]

Columbia. It says: "the percentage increase in British Columbiasince 1939 is thus shown to have been twice the increase for Canada asa whole and to have exceeded by a wide margin the increase in any otherprovince."

That's almost word for word with the Premier's speech. Anotherquote: "The increase in population has been associated with a markedexpansion of production of both primary and secondary industries. TheDominion Bureau of Statistics shows that the net value of production inBritish Columbia has increased as follows; 1940 — $36 million, 1951 — $1,125 million" — an increase of 400 per cent between 1940 and 1951 inproduction. Forestry production from 1940 to 1951 up 500 per cent andthe figures and the things are all here. Mining production up 225 percent from '40 to '51. Agriculture up 300 per cent — how much has itgone up the last four or five years? — fisheries up 400 per cent.

Then it goes on to say: "Based upon the development of the rich andvaried natural resources of the province its diversified manufacturinghas expanded rapidly. The estimated gross value of manufacturing hasincreased as follows: from 1940 it went up from $311 million to $1,300million" — almost 400 per cent increase.

That was from 1940 to 51. This is in a brief presented by PremierW.A.C. Bennett to the Federal-Provincial Cooperation And EconomicDevelopment December 14, 1953. That's the Premier of this provincetalking, the present Premier, about his predecessors and the work theyhad done. He was willing to do that in 1953, to give credit to the factthat there was a province here….

AN HON. MEMBER: Has it been that long?

MR. STRACHAN: That there had been expansion, that what we've had since then is more of the same.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, the record shows very clearly thatthis government is no better and not much worse than any of itspredecessors. But, Mr. Speaker, they should have learned something.This is a different kind of world but they're the same old kind ofgovernment. Sometimes they say the right things, but usually when theywant someone else to do something about it.

Again, I refer to the federal-provincial conferences. I've got themall here. In the federal-provincial conference of May 25, 1957, thePremier said: "He asked the federal government to arrange thatmunicipalities can borrow for their proper purposes sums at not morethan 2 per cent interest."

Why don't we set up a special fund here to provide sums for themunicipalities at not more than 2 per cent? Then you could create thejobs right at a local level. Then we could use those certificates ofopportunity, take your special fund, set up a special fund to providethe municipalities with money at 2 per cent.

The Premier wanted it from the federal government. With the kind ofsurpluses he has why doesn't he do it here provincially instead of allthat nonsense about jobs, jobs, jobs?

Let the municipalities get the jobs done they need doing byproviding them with this kind of money. The Premier used to like toquote Diefenbaker, and all the statements that John Diefenbaker madeabout the need to manufacture goods in Canada and to get our owncapital in Canada.

Was he anti-American? I don't think so. I think he was just being pro-Canadian.

The Premier's often been critical of federal fiscal policies and sohave I. His have always been against tight money but money must be usedas an economic weapon. Now I've never heard the Premier in any of hissubmissions condemn the one-sided unfair taxation policies of thisfederal government. The unfair policies which give away our naturalresources with minimal return to the federal and provincial treasury.

Last speech I gave I told the House about the Schultz Reportindicating that the oil and natural gas industry in this province whenit comes in from the States is guaranteed at 71 cents on the dollarreturn in the first year.

Nowhere have I seen the Premier protest that kind of discriminatorytax policy which allows the big boys to get away without paying theirfair share of taxation to the Government of Canada. Not once has heever protested. The federal government allowed the major corporationsto set up reserves for future income tax, tax-free loans is what theywere. For 1965, it was up to $1,400 million, by 1968 it was up to$2,700 million. Welfare for the big corporations, tax-free loans toinvest in equipment.

The Premier of this province went to Ottawa in these briefs and intwo of them he asked for relief from the oppressive taxation on theforest industry. In one of them he asked for relief from oppressivetaxation on the oil and natural gas industry of Canada.

The figures from Colura, that's this report, that have now to begiven to the federal government on trade unions and corporations. Abovea certain amount these figures show us who paid income tax in Canadaand instead of asking for a change to these policies, not only does thePremier give these companies special benefit through his own laws, butnot once does he raise his voice in protest against the almostfeather-like taxation on nonreplaceable resources. He wasn't a Ministerof Finance for British Columbia, he was a Minister of Finance againstBritish Columbia.

Equal rights for all special privileges for none. If you are abusinessman in the retail trade in this province you pay income tax on90 per cent of your income. Mind you, if you are a little guy out therein the boondocks, in the woods working, you'd be paying income tax onall of it except your B.C. exemption. Retail trade 90 per cent of theirincome, they pay taxes on. The wholesale trade pays income tax on 87per cent of their income, the construction trade pays income tax on 65per cent of their income, the manufacturing trade pays income tax on 63per cent of their income. General mining — that's copper and so on — noroyalties, pseudo-royalties, phony royalties. They only pay tax on 32per cent.

No, that's other mining, that's the coal mining at 32 per cent.Mineral fuel. Metal mining…. I'm talking about the tax that's paidon income in Canada and the special discrimination. Metal mining onlypays income tax on 13 per cent of their income and the fuels, the oiland natural gas, they pay income tax on less than 6 per cent of theirprofits, less than 6 per cent of their profits — and the Premier calledthat oppressive taxation. He took all these briefs, and not once did heask for a fair and equitable taxation system so that the people whomake the profit out of our irreplaceable natural resources make adecent return through the corporation tax which shows in our accountsas revenue. Had we had a proper system of taxation, then that return asshown on our share of the corporation tax would have been much largerthan it is.

Now we need labour-intensive industry in this province. We havehot-house industries that take a lot of capital and don't provide anyjobs and the government's protecting

[ Page 334 ]

them, they're protecting them and the Minister's done nothing about it.

I'm shocked by the inability of this government to see the changethat's required. It's obvious from reading the whole thing that thisgovernment is not better, and in many cases much worse, than anyprevious government in the history of this province.

You know, Mr. Speaker, when Harold Wilson was defeated as the PrimeMinister of Britain, a year or so ago, I was asked to comment on it andI took it philosophically. I said: I believe it's good for a politicalsystem that every once in a while there is a change in the governmentin power. The British seem to have a built-in political sense by whichthey do this, which means that always in opposition you have people whohave just laid down the levers of power, who know all of the details ofthe different departments.

Equally important, you have people sitting in the government side ofthe House who have served their time in opposition and who have someunderstanding of the meaning and the word of the democratic system andthe need for the preservation of that system.

I suggest that one of the problems facing this province today, isthe fact that we have in power a government that has had no experiencein opposition, doesn't really realise, appreciate, or know how ademocratic system should work.

I want to ask this government — what have they done? What kind of society have they produced? Let's just take a look.

The social welfare recipient in British Columbia was once a personwho needed help and sympathy and understanding. Now with thisgovernment, a social welfare recipient is a dead-beat with scorn andshame heaped on his head. They have turned the whole community againstthese people no matter what their need or how helpless they may be.That's what the government has done.

They have messed with the trade unions. When I first came to thisHouse, the trade unions of this province were an accepted part ofsociety. It was a proud organisation, accepted by society,participating in the community — and this government has turned everyman's hand against them for political reasons.

Let's look at the schoolteachers. You know, when I was a boy inScotland, one of the most respected persons in every community was thedominie — the schoolteacher. In this province, the schoolteachers wererespected in the community and' very often they were advisers toindividuals in every community. This government has deliberatelydestroyed their place in the community.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. STRACHAN: Let's look at civic officials in BritishColumbia. Civic officials in this province were once looked upon as theleaders of the community — since elected this government has attacked,attempted to destroy and undermine the civic official in BritishColumbia.

Let's look at the doctors in British Columbia. The doctors at onetime had the love, respect and admiration of every person. Now thegovernment has made them an object of envy and dislike. I simply wantto ask, Mr. Speaker, what kind of sickness motivates this government toembark on these policies? What kind of sickness is it they've broughtto the body politic and to the community and the society of BritishColumbia? A House divided can never stand and they have divided BritishColumbia and the people of this province should never forgive them forit.

The other day when the budget speech was being read, we heard theflippers thumping and the shouting, and the shouting, and the shouting:"Go, go, go."

I want those Members to go. I wish they were gone and we'd be better off if they never came back.

MR SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Delta.

MR. R WENMAN (Delta): Mr. Speaker, I would like to join incongratulating the last speaker; certainly his own members do recognisethat they made a terrible mistake in changing their leadership. Myregret to the party for that mistake.

At any rate….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR WENMAN: I can tell my friend I wasn't elected to defendteachers, I was elected to defend all of my constituents, I will defendthem as individuals as I would any individual in my community.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Can we have some order please!

MR. WENMAN: Mr. Speaker, reports by the statistics branch ofthe Department of Industrial Development indicate that British Columbiawill have a population of somewhere around 5 million by the year 2000compared with the population of now of just over 2 million. While theproblems of today often bear a pressure that consumes all of our timeand energy — or at least too much of it — we have a responsibility aslegislators to consider the direction and potential life-styles of theprovince in this year 2000 as surveyed by the Minister of IndustrialDevelopment. Because the foundations that we are laying here today willin large measure determine the quality, as well as the quantity of lifein that very near future.

Since by 1980, eight out of 10 Canadians will live in cities, theproblems of the future will be even more so than today, the problems ofcities. Will Greater Vancouver be allowed or even encouraged to grow to3 million or 4 million by that time? I hope not. Or is it possible thatin some way we may be able to work a kind of decentralisation of thecities — to say instead of that 5 million population, perhaps we coulddistribute it in 50 cities of 20,000 and 20 cities of 50,000? Some kindof a more logical dispersion of the community of British Columbia.

Will we be able to contain or control the population of the lowermainland and maintain the quality of environment and life styledesired, needed, and even demanded by today's urbanised Canadians?

While neither would it be desirable nor possible to stop growth inthe lower mainland it would seem imperative that in some way we mustbring it under control. Since we are a democratic government, followinga free enterprise kind of philosophy, it would seem to me that thismethod of control must not be so much mandatory in matter as presentedin the form of incentives — incentives towards the establishment andexpansion of new and existing communities based on solid, economic andsocial viability throughout the province.

It's an exciting possibility, because there are very, very few towns over 50,000 and we're talking about 20 more

[ Page 335 ]

cities.

Where will they be? What a great potential in development. The verydevelopment of these cities could be the viability that our economy andthe growth that our economy will require.

During this next decade, the number of persons between the age of 20and 29 years of age will increase 28.9 per cent. We would therefore dowell to determine what are the amenities, what are the services, whatare the needs, that these people, in this population centre — age groupof 20 to 29 years — will need.

Fortunately it will be a kind of mobile kind of society because theywill be young, and provided that we can give them incentives, thepopulation centre will be between 20 and 29. This could be a youngmobile population centre that through incentives could be encouraged toestablish these new cities in the northern half or other part ofBritish Columbia other than the lower mainland.

These urbanised Canadians will be more acutely conscious of thequality of the environment and will give it priority over mere capitalgain. However, they will still require jobs and homes as well asschools, hospitals, and recreational facilities and values forthemselves as well as their families.

I am pleased that the government of the day, in this budget,understands the potential here and is making attempts at opening thegreen and gold north of British Columbia. Certainly the expansion ofthe British Columbia Railway, rural electrification programmes and,hopefully, old and new plans for road development in the north andinterior of the province, will be sound planning concepts designed todecentralise British Columbia.

As a Member for the lower mainland, I would call for the developmentof highways in the north. It may seem strange. Certainly I need a lotof facilities in the lower mainland and in my area and I'm going to beasking for those too, but perhaps and probably the priority should begiven to northern development of highways and amenities there.

The rate of growth of Canada, which is the highest of all majorcountries of the world, at nearly twice the rate of the United States,will continue to expand. British Columbia, even with the lowest birthrate and the greatest population expansion, will have to face severestrain and growth in the lower mainland.

It would seem inevitable that if current trends continue unchecked,the probability that greater Vancouver would become such a terrible andunbearable place to live that the population would leave or cease toenter, thereby finding a natural control to a population apex.

We should not have to make the lower mainland an unbearable place tolive to control its population, its development, its expansion. Thisshould not be necessary in a modern society which should be able tothrough sound planning to make greater Vancouver as good a place tolive as any other area of the province and I'm not sure as I watch thedeteriorating conditions of the growth the expansion of the lowermainland that it is a desirable place to live as the outlying areas.

As for provision for open-space green belt reserves, I don't need tosay how pleased I am to hear that announcement in the budget speech.The budget speech if it is significant, in the future will be reflectedby this great positive step forward in the establishment of green beltreserves, because it sets a new direction in British Columbia.

A limitation of high-density housing through incentives tohome-owners is another sound policy. I think that we should be tryingto limit the density of population in the lower mainland and this is avery direct policy of the provincial government. We limit high-densityhousing when we give incentives to home-owners and I would like to seeour lower mainland developed — even if we were to cover it withsingle-family dwellings, we would still have a density that wouldprobably be too high, so high density housing except in core areasshould be discouraged.

However, even more intensified programmes that will reconstruct thecity tax base, limit population density, will be required to blendyouthful idealism which places such stress today on the quality of lifewith the practical inevitabilities of growth and expansion. It seems tome in the lower mainland, as well as encouraging outward growth in thenorthern areas, we should be working towards the decentralisation ofthe city core of the lower mainland of Vancouver by the establishmentof satellite cities.

It seems to me that downtown Vancouver as a commercial core — thecore of the centre of the stock market of the financial world, perhapsan entertainment area — should continue to grow and to expand. Forretail goods and consumer goods, these should be brought closer to thepopulation centres. The shopping centres and town centres outside ofdowntown Vancouver are sound concepts. We should not be taking peopleto shop for clothes and food and commodities of this type when they cangain them closer to home. If we can keep these people out of thetraffic, off the road, it would help the transportation problem as well.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR WENMAN: I think that we need to recognise — no the heartof the city would not be killed, you can never kill the heart of a cityand I never want to do that. I'm talking about building down there anoffice structure, a financial structure, an entertainment structure andan adequate amount of shopping facilities for the people who livethere. In order to avoid these other problems, I think that we have tomove towards a satellite concept.

I think we have to recognise the access potential and geographicadvantages in making even a new secondary core somewhere in the area ofperhaps Surrey rather than excessive expansion in downtown Vancouver.

It seems to me, the Member for Vancouver Centre, (Mr. Capozzi), thefirst Member, is indicating to me that he wants to talk in terms ofmaking green spaces in downtown Vancouver. He has suggested — and Idon't know how many he's speaking for — he suggested that this buildingshould not be placed there.

Well, I want to say maybe it should be a green space down there,because we have a place out in Surrey that would be a beautiful spotfor the B.C. Building and if they don't want it there, Mr. Premier,we'd be happy to have it out Surrey way. As a matter of fact if youwere to put this building out in Surrey….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR WENMAN: Now that's how much you know about Surrey, my friend. Some time come out there and let me show you around.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR WENMAN: You may think it's all farmland but I

[ Page 336 ]

want to assure you while I wish more of it were farmland, it isn't.Maybe I've overemphasised, maybe you don't realise that we havetremendous highland area with very sound structures and very soundbases. Come out and have a look. Maybe you don't realise that there issomething east of Burnaby. Come and have a look one day, east ofBurnaby.

At any rate, we'd be most pleased to accept this kind of structure,you know, and right now we're developing in downtown Vancouver one-wayroads. We've got all the traffic in the morning going one way andcoming out at night. We're wasting half of the potential of the roadswe've created in the Province of British Columbia. How about bringingsome traffic back the other way by establishing centres, a secondarycore perhaps in the Surrey area?

I would suggest that we might also think in terms ofdecentralisation of industrial bases. I think that we should bebringing the jobs to the people rather than the people to the jobs byencouraging secondary industry in attractive industrial sites inSurrey, Delta, Langley and other areas of the lower mainland. Inaddition to that, in addition to planning in the lower mainland we mustgive an incentive, as I mentioned earlier, to northern development andto providing amenities.

I would suggest that in some way we must guarantee the salaries andincentive bonuses to doctors, dentists, and other professionals inorder to encourage them to move to these remoter areas. Because as theymove there and provide the services the people will move in turn andfollow them because they can get the standard and quality of life theydesire.

I would suggest also, Mr. Speaker, that in this House we need toestablish a northern affairs committee. This northern affairs committeeshould be encouraged to take M.L.A.'s from this Legislature, from thelower mainland, up into the north. Because, Mr. Speaker, as arepresentative of the lower mainland area I feel that I sort of go asfar as Prince George or Dawson Creek and then I see a big question mark.

I need help to somehow learn the greater potential of that norththrough more exposure in this Legislature and through some form of alegislative committee and I would suggest that such a committee shouldbe founded and that we should take and bring a new awareness to allmembers of this Legislature of the potential of the northern half ofthis province.

I would suggest that somehow we need to develop and co-ordinate anindustrial development plan for the whole province rather than justproducing statistics on past performance.

I would suggest that we need to develop and encourage a BritishColumbian attitude of confidence. Because that attitude of confidenceis the mainspring of productivity that gives people the courage and theconfidence to move into the development of such a programme.

Another topic that has I have found some concern about is the waninginfluence of the British Commonwealth. Because Britain's influence as anation is waning the Commonwealth itself should not be allowed tocollapse. The Commonwealth should be maintained, if for no other reasonfor economic reasons and social reasons such as expanded markets or asan institution for bringing nations together at a time of dangers andnationalism that would break down international structures.

Could Britain remain as a broker between Canada and the Europeancommon market? Just because Britain's star is falling does not meanthat Canada's could not rise and shine in this sphere of influence.

Again, speaking relating to the British influence in our society itseems unfortunate that the federal government is building a policy thatis attempting to make the French part of our culture — which is veryvalid and very important — more relevant by destroying the Britishinfluence in our society.

I think this is an unfortunate way. It's just like that instead ofbeing pro-Canadian so many people are anti-American. Just like we needto be pro-French in Canada we need to be pro-British. By knocking onedown you don't build the other up. We need to build both those culturesand all of the other multi-cultural aspects of the Canadian nationrather than knocking each other down.

Last year, one of the Members asked me to comment on teachers so Ijust have one brief comment at this time. Last year teachers were giventhe freedom of choice by this Legislature regarding compulsorymembership in the British Columbia Teachers' Federation.

I would say that if the Legislature has concluded that this is agood kind of policy, if this is good for the teachers — as it must besince we decided that it was — then who will be the next to be giventhe same opportunity as the teachers? I would suggest perhaps, for agood start — we always like to start close at home — perhaps we shouldstart with the B.C. Hydro. Maybe they'd like this right or this freedom.

In fact if the Legislature concludes, as it has, that this is soundand fair policy for teachers why should we discriminate against B.C.Hydro workers or any other workers in the province? Maybe we should belooking towards the expansion of that programme. I know I feel that weshould and it was on that basis that I supported the legislation lastyear so I look for more legislation in that vein this year.

Perhaps we could move towards Ontario's charity clause or a versionof it whereby a person if they did not wish to belong to a union couldmake a contribution equal to the amount of their professional or unionfees to charity organisations.

Why not in our society preserve the right of the small minority thatdoes not believe in joining unions? Because the vast majority willcontinue anyway. The experiment with the British Columbia teachers hasshown us that 99 per cent of the teachers are members. Why not givethat extra one per cent that little bit of freedom of choice? Becauseeach day in our society, every time we pass another law here, passanother regulation, we are usually limiting our freedom.

Regional districts: Mr. Speaker, I'm concerned about regionaldistricts because regional districts could be degenerating into a wayto get the public off the back of all levels of government. Regionaldistricts could, I'm not saying they are, I'm saying they could becomeautonomic, autocratic bureaucracies responsible in practice if not intheory to no one.

I am only going to give this example because it's probably a goodand a fair example and all the gentlemen here are honourable and I knowthey would make their decision not weighted on any minor politicalbias. I know that.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about the women?

AN HON. MEMBER: We can take care of ourselves.

MR. WENMAN: I won't be exact, but say that we had an advisoryboard and this was supposed to represent the whole regional district.Let's take the hospital board, just for example. Well, if there were,say, three members from the

[ Page 337 ]

Vancouver General Hospital on the advisory board and one member fromSt. Paul's and one from St. Vincent and one from Surrey Memorial — wouldn't it seem that maybe there was a slight over-weighting inVancouver? Maybe wouldn't it be little bit hard for them to — well, no,it wouldn't for these gentlemen because they are broad-minded peopleand they understand the need of the whole region, they're honourablepeople — but we can't always guarantee that we will have the quality ofmen we have there. So I would say that we need to somehow make a newplan for these advisory boards so that all areas of the lower mainlandare adequately represented not only on the regional board but also onthe advisory board as well. That's something that we need to look intoto give it a greater democratic structure.

Also, the mayors of the areas that I represent have suggested thatmaybe the third crossing from Vancouver to North Vancouver shouldn't bebuilt and it should be built in Delta and Surrey as well as an AnnacisIsland crossing.

AN HON. MEMBER: Humbug!

MR. WENMAN: Now, I'm not going…. I said that's what the mayors have suggested. Now I'm not suggesting that because….

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. WENMAN: …I'm saying that I think, that I think thatit's needed there as well. But it does establish a precedent that thereare 90,000 people living on the North Shore travelling across twobridges to reach downtown Vancouver. It's interesting that there are200,000 to 300,000 trying to get across two bridges into Vancouver theother way too, so I'm suggesting that I agree with that priority thatwe should continue with that bridge. As that bridge is needed, just sois the bridge at Annacis Island. We have to look at the overall pictureand the long-term picture and both bridges are needed so I look forwardto a recognising by the provincial government.

Several years ago to get the planning tax going we established aspecial bill and special fund putting the money away that indicatedyes, we were going to proceed in that direction. Well, I know we'regoing to do the same thing. We're going to proceed with the AnnacisIsland bridge — it's right, it's mentioned by the rapid transit peopleas the potential combination bridge and I know that in the near futurethat will be part of the planning in British Columbia.

Another problem or idea I'd like to talk about is that relating tofamily planning. A dramatic rise in the number of therapeutic abortionsin the past year points to the urgent need for expansion of familyplanning services.

British Columbia has by far the highest rate in Canada — 19abortions per 100 live births as compared to a national average of 7.6.That is for every five children born live in British Columbia in 1971there was on aborted.

Now the cost of these abortions to the community is ratherstaggering. In British Columbia in 1971 there were roughly 7,000abortions. The cost per abortion was approximately $200 and the totalcost in 1971 for these abortions then would be $1.4 million. Experiencein other countries has shown that programmes of family planning candramatically reduce the birth of unwanted children.

In a current demonstration and research project of United CommunityServices of Vancouver with a door-to-door campaign and contact it wasfound that 15 per cent of those interviewed were referred to aphysician or clinic as a result of the visit because they desiredinformation on safer contraceptive measures.

Above all we come back to this figure again — for every fivechildren born live in British Columbia in 1971 there was one aborted.

I would suggest that an outreaching programme of birth control berecognised as a basic responsibility of government and currentprogrammes be expanded under the Public Health Department.

I would suggest that new family living courses in the high schoolsinclude a unit on birth control. It was interesting that on our highschools all our committees from the province got together. Theyestablished a committee. They produced an excellent course for highschools. Then when the course came out with great expectations onesection was missing — the section on birth control.

In researching this, talking to high school principals, I understandthat if a ratio of 15-20 out of say 600 girls in a high school leaveschool each year as a result of unwanted pregnancies surely it is timeto bring in a whole family living programme including birth control.

I know that this is a sensitive area and politicians have to beconcerned about the reaction of people. Some people say that the publicdo not want this programme offered in schools. As a result on myquestionnaire — I asked this question on 20,000 questionnaires put out— 78 per cent said they are in favour of distributing birth controlinformation prepared by the Department of Health to students throughcouncillors or medical teams in our schools.

In searching a local library of a high school and talking to theprincipals I said to them: "Now what programme do you offer?" In someschools it is offered on a hit-and-miss basis. Some schools areoffering an excellent programme.

How about the young people themselves? Do they want thisinformation? Are they looking for it? I say to you if you go to anyhigh school in a library, look up in the index cards "birth control"and you go to the shelf you don't have to be 10 feet away from theshelf. You look at the shelf and you'll know which are the books onbirth control because those books on birth control are worn out andthey're tattered because they've been used — if they exist at all.

In one of the libraries the only book that was there when I went tolook was on the history of contraception in ancient times. It was acompletely useless book but it was the only book that was there and ithad been thumbed through so many times for information that was wantingand not available.

The teacher, the librarian, also said to me: "When I put anythingwith any relevance in it it won't stay in the library for two weeksbefore it is stolen." Young people have to gain the information in thisway or through a back-door method and I think that we are advocatingour responsibility as educators when we do not provide this informationas a part of the whole programme that was presented to the government.

I think that perhaps no matter on what basis you rationalise this,even if it were to cut down on the number of abortions or even if youdid it in relationship to abortion alone you would have enoughmotivation, enough reason to do so, because the psychological andphysiological aspects of abortion on our young people can indeed besevere. These will be problems that will be with us for many, manyyears — as they are with those young people who must go through thatexperience.

[ Page 338 ]

During the past year Canadians have watched the federal governmentstack the odds against business in Canada in the form of a TaxationAct, the Competition Act, the floating of the Canadian dollar and manyother similar types of programmes.

However, even in spite of this extreme socialistic federalgovernment in Ottawa who seem to want to give rise to an irresponsibleand irrational international hostility, the economic outlook for 1972looks promising particularity in relationship to the stabilisation ofthe United States dollar and other world currencies.

Since 42 per cent of our productive output is exported in Canada,the health of our economy might well improve as the economy of ourneighboring nations improves provided we haven't priced ourselves outof world markets through excessive wage and price increases in currentand forthcoming contract negotiations.

There is currently an urgent need for a new kind of economic theorythat starts out by examining first of all the world economy and thenexplains the domestic economy as a part of that world economy.

British Columbia should study world markets, concentrating on bothtypes of markets — both competitive trade nations with relatively highstandards and also with complementary markets of underdeveloped nationswhere a more direct commodity exchange could possibly be implemented.By nurturing this exchange not only will we have found new markets forthe exchange of goods but also will we further increase theproductivity of both our nation and further enhance the ability of theother nations and their drive to buy our production.

The present administration in Ottawa seems to be more and moreintent on steering Canada away from its historic friends and into aneutralist course in world affairs. It seems more and more intent intrying to prove its manhood or some such item to the United States, andflirting with those countries who have nothing in their record inmodern times to indicate that they place the same value on human lifeand freedom that we do in Canada.

Quite apart from the fact that this could be political and economicfolly it is philosophically irrational. No one can fairly dispute theview that Canada as a small nation has an unique role to play to helppave the way for a meaningful liaison between the iron curtaincountries and the west — that we can take some interesting initiativethat we would not be able to take were we a world power. Thoseinitiatives should not however include public repudiation of our bestfriends and trading partners.

Since 42 per cent of our value of Canadian productivity is exported,aggressive approaches and new and expanded markets must be foundthrough an aggressive industrial development department.

A market of 22 million people entails a relationship to 207 millionpeople, to markets of the United States — let alone the potential ofAustralia, New Zealand and other Pacific rim countries. We should notfear potentials of an expanded free trade areas. Because strongeconomies at home are a factor which strengthen, not dilute,nationalistic identity.

The last tariff reductions of the Kennedy round went into effect atthe first of last month, and since Britain's entry into the Europeancommon market will inaugurate new trade relationships there, it is timeto seriously discuss and enter into further free trade agreement inthese and new expanded markets as well as markets in the United States.

The basic ingredient of a free trade association, customs union orcommon market is the improvement of economic conditions of all of itsmembers. This is usually accomplished by a gradual reduction oftariffs, duties, quotas and other restrictions on the movement of goodsthat work to the detriment of both countries.

With trade restrictions the originating country sells less, and thecountry of destination pays more for the goods received. For the man inthe street it means very simply that his money buys fewer of the thingsthat he wants for his standards and quality of life.

There are several possible trade zones and common markets that couldbe established, and it would be interesting to look at some of these.In the budget speech — in the appendix — our Premier has talked aboutthe first concept, the concept of market agreements between Canada andUnited States and gradually reducing tariffs and trade restrictionsbetween the two, eventually eliminating them after the fashion of theEuropean Free Trade Association or the European common market.

An extension possibly of this is a common market type of agreementinvolving Canada, the United States, Australia and New Zealand. Perhapsthis would appeal to some people who are so concerned with beingswallowed up by the United States. Perhaps we should even start herefirst with some kind of a joint relationship with Australia and NewZealand as well for the common market. Because Australia and NewZealand face common problems to Canada if the European common marketshuts out the Commonwealth trade. If Australia and New Zealand were tojoin Canada and the United States in the common market there would beless feelings by Canadians that they were being swallowed up by thecolossus to our south. Certainly a potential for a Pacific rim marketexists now and in British Columbia.

I would like to conclude by a very brief statement that I call the "nuts and bolts of the good life" theory.

We have been enjoying a good life in British Columbia, now let'sshow the province that we are the government who cares not only for thedevelopment and the recreational needs of tourists but for also thelittle guy in the lower mainland who wants to launch a boat.

I want to say to the Honourable Minister of Highways, I want toexpress appreciation for the opening up of the causeway on the southside. Not only did the barricade disappear, but the grader happened todrag its blade in a few spots and it's very adequate and we the peopleof Delta appreciate that very, very much.

We appreciate further the action of the Minister of Recreation andConservation who has had his people out there surveying the area andthey have now volunteered a boat launching site for the Delta area.This is at the Canoe Pass area, an old cannery site there, and thefederal government has very generously — as an election approaches — decided that they could contribute $15,000 and three acres of parkingspace. So I am very pleased to say that in Delta I am confident in thenext year we will have a place for the little guy who wants a boatlaunching ramp so that he will know that this is the government whor*ally cares.

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

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise the House that I had an official meeting with His

[ Page 339 ]

Honour the Lieutenant-Governor this afternoon and he is in good health.

Hon. Mr. Peterson presents the report of the committee to select the names for the special committee on motion pictures.

Hon. Mr. Skillings presents the annual report of the Department ofIndustrial Development, Trade, and Commerce for the year endingDecember 31, 1971.

Hon. Mr. Bennett moves adjournment of the House. Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:55 p.m.

The House met at 8:00 p.m.

Orders of the day.

ON THE BUDGET

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources.

HON. R.G. WILLISTON (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources):Mr. Speaker, it's not very often that Hon. Members of the House getthreatened in an easy calm way as they stand up to deliver their speechfor the night. But with four speakers tonight and if we carry onanything like we did this afternoon — with four speakers tonight someare beginning to object to the hours that we are keeping.

So, Mr. Speaker, rather than take my speech as read or presented Iwill try and accommodate the other Members this evening and unlesssomebody disturbs me unduly (laughter) I'll meet all the commitmentsI've made, Mr. Speaker.

Pending that, first of all one or two words, and some of the Honourable Members aren't back yet from the evening supper.

The Member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mr. Strachan) this afternoon, I wasmost impressed with the diligent research he had done on the matters ofassessments and how the industrial assessments had not gone up but theassessments on other people throughout his riding had gone up. Hequoted us right back to 1960 and followed through, and I was quiteimpressed.

He even brought in Mr. Bonner, or some of the rest of them did, atthe time Mr. Bonner happened to be sitting in the House. How hehappened to have anything to do with Cowichan-Malahat I don't know butthat was at the time it was passed out.

But the only point the Hon. Member made that I found of realsignificance, is that while the assessors and everyone else is movingthrough, there's only one person consistently that's been inCowichan-Malahat over that period of time and that happened to be thepresent Member because he has represented us all the time. If there arethese discrepancies in assessments in the area and they haven't beenbrought to the attention of anyone until this time, I think the mostdamaging thing that was brought up this afternoon was the assessmentagainst the Member himself — as to the job he happens to be doing onbehalf of the people that are there. Because I can tell the Hon.Member, if there are obvious things of that nature in his own ridingand he doesn't attend to them — he's the person who's elected to lookafter those things and take account of them and not try and press themfor political advantage.

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal leader the other day in speaking again tothe debate and getting back on the matter of Nelson brought up twothings which I wish to deal with tonight.

The first, he was again back to the matter of foul play by thisgovernment against the small little community of Nelson — that we wereforcing them into a situation. And even as he was speaking in the Househe said I had people out there, meeting with them at Nelson.

May I say, Honourable Members, that that meeting was arranged withthe mayor at the time of the state dinner and the opening of the House.The mayor was here, and the arrangement was made for the technicalpeople to be there at Nelson speaking with them and clearing thematters so that the Honourable Minister of Highways and myself could gothere next Saturday and have another meeting with the technical mattersout of the way.

To infer it was a squeeze play coming up at this time after it hadbeen arranged by themselves, Mr. Speaker, indicates that he reaches inthese debates a long way to make a point.

The second point, Mr. Speaker. The Honourable Member was givingadvice to my colleague the Minister of Highways as to what he should bedoing for his community in Nelson. Let me say it very simply tonight,because if he followed the advice of the Liberal Member he would be oneof the first Members in this House to have been accused of a matterwhich would force him both to resign and cease to be a Member in thisLegislature.

If he were to follow the advice of the Leader of the Liberal group,he would be taking a provincial resource, to which they had no basicentitlement, even though that Member tried to state they did. Itresulted from provincial moneys and provincial arrangements andprovincial dams which set up the water storage behind Duncan dam andbehind Libby dam.

He is still making the argument the second time around that the Cityof Nelson should get the first crack without payment at that water, toplace their power plants with water in that position of value eventhough then it would not more than meet about half the needs of theCity of Nelson.

Mr. Speaker, let me say it in another way. If that was a sawmillwithout timber, and you automatically guaranteed them timber and thenyou were in a position where it would eventually have to be sold, thatmill with a guarantee of timber would be worth a considerable amount ofmoney — because of the guarantee of that timber.

What the Honourable Member is saying, and saying it here tonight, isthat a Crown resource which the City of Nelson had nothing to do with,that the storage be assigned to the City of Nelson as a capital gainbecause the power plants which the City of Nelson has cannot meet theneeds of that city.

Mr. Speaker, if the Member did this, or anyone in this House didthis and stood in the position of responsibility he would be out, andhe should be out as the Member of this area. For the leader of theLiberal group to present this as a point and not only doing it once,but doing it twice I find it….

AN HON. MEMBER: Resign, resign!

[ Page 340 ]

HON. MR. WILLISTON: The second thing, Mr. Speaker. Eventhough the other day he didn't understand, even though the fact is thatthe reservoirs are already created, even though what we need now is toput the machining in without additional ecological fault, theHonourable Member still came back and said: "Forget it, waste it, wedon't need it, follow my advice, use nuclear power which we have yet todevelop — follow the example of Ontario — bring it to British Columbiaand forget that which we have."

If that's the kind of advice we're getting from people who arerunning for office and want to run this province, Mr. Speaker, I thinkwe've heard enough of them right now and they better go back to othertypes of activity.

Mr. Speaker, I've made a commitment. I'll stay with it. I happen tobe proud this evening that we in this period in which we are living inBritish Columbia and in Canada, that we have the fiscal resources inthis province to produce that budget which was presented in this Houselast Friday.

One can argue about the distribution of money, as long as we havedifferent points of view that will take place. We can argue about thedistribution of the money, and the desired expenditures that we'regoing to have. But there can be absolutely no argument, Mr. Speaker,that only prudent well-managed financial policies have made such adocument possible in the first place.

To fund such a programme of services to people, Mr. Speaker, withoutborrowing capital and without increasing taxation is a majorachievement in itself. Watching the reports of this, Mr. Speaker, Ithought the highest compliment that was paid to our Premier as Ministerof Finance was that the budget was as to be expected. Therefore itceased to have any real shock value as news, and since it hasn't, it'sbeen ridiculed and laughed at in some corners.

It was the same old thing, Mr. Speaker. After 20 years just anotherbalanced, challenging, expansionist, job-creating, need-fulfilling,people-centred, recreation-inspired, community-supporting,health-protecting, education-providing, service-oriented,socially-adjusted, cooperatively stimulating, environmentally-directed,anti-inflationary, culturally-responsive, physically-demanding,resource developing, initiative-encouraging, line-stringing and line-burying budget.

And I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. WILLISTON: Thankfully we've wakened them all up for the evening.

Mr. Speaker, such documents do not just happen. I can readily recallfrom my days in education that the most important aspect of a teacher'swork was the ability to create and maintain an environment in whichlearning could take place. Without such an ability the classroom, theequipment and the academic accomplishments of the teacher could meanvery little.

It is the same in the situation that we are debating here tonight.Budgets do not just happen. They result from direct leadership which isin tune with the needs and the economic potentialities of the areaserved. I spend little time in eulogising people or things, for Istrongly feel that that which is not readily observable by others doesnot improve with words of praise.

In British Columbia it is readily apparent that we have an outstanding performer who enhances his leadership skills with an unmatched financial capability and understanding — a rare combination to be found in public life these days. At the same time he is able to maintain a positive economic environment in this province which ensures the people of a fair share of the financial returns that are generated.

Again I say, Mr. Speaker, budgets do not just happen. To beeffective they merely spell out that point in planning and activitywhere the money will be provided and so can be used efficiently toallow for specific achievement or progress within designated fields.

Because of the emphasis given by this budget to matters relating tothe maintenance and the improvement of our environment my remarkstonight will be directed to these programmes in such a way as to showthe co-ordination of planning, organisation and purpose which has andis taking place within this area of administration.

Others in debate will speak knowledgeably of other important mattersdeserving a special attention. I do not intend to try and deal with thetotal impact of financial policies. I do not try to intend to deal withthe total impact of the financial policies as they were presented tothe House on Friday last.

However, Honourable Members realise that I do have some interest,experience and administrative background in the field of education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.

HON. MR. WILLISTON: For this reason, Mr. Speaker, I commentbriefly on matters which interest me and I feel are important. In 1956,when I was responsible for this department, the provincial budgettotalled $258 million or a little more, with education receiving $47million or 18 per cent of the total expenditures.

On Friday, the Premier drew attention to the increasing share ofprovincial revenue needed to service this item of expenditure. Withrespect may I say the figures used were not sufficiently dramatic inillustrating the change that is taking place when one considers "likewith like" on the longer base of comparison.

The 1956 budget included a debt repayment charge of $13.7 millionand did not include medicare, pollution control, reservoir control,rural power subsidies, transit subsidies, regional parks and tourismwhich are now major budgetary expenditures.

If the educational costs were compared on the basis of "like withlike" the actual increase would be about 33.3 per cent and not the 30.9per cent as reported in the budget document. The same type ofcomparison could be made with regard to health care costs. Such providethe real base for concern as we move into the decade of the 70's.

Ontario recently reported that unless such costs were controlledthey would shortly bankrupt that province. The same would be true hereif the government did not determine to institute a degree of fairrestraint to ensure a balanced approach in meeting the total needs ofpeople.

Mr. Speaker, when I went home at supper time tonight I picked up the latest copy of the Toronto Globe and Mailreport on business, and there I chanced to read that to get tough onspending Nova Scotia jobs and programmes are affected — and thathappens to be a Liberal Government, Mr. Speaker.

I want to read this and then go back to my own notes because Iwondered whether the notes were written by myself or written by Mr.Regan. For he says, and he's talking about the increased costs ofcertain programmes:

[ Page 341 ]

These programmes, including medicare, hospitalisation, welfare,education and debt servicing, account for threequarters of thegovernment spending in Nova Scotia. Within 12 years the cost ofeducation, medical care and hospitalisation alone will exceed the totalprovincial revenue unless restraints are imposed right now.

He goes on to show that by that time the total expenditures will be$750 million and the total revenues will be $525 million. Unlesssomebody starts showing some degree of restraint at the present timedifficulties are going to occur.

All we have to do, Mr. Speaker, is to look at our own budgeting andwatch right now. One does not have to analyse too many figures or tohave advanced training in mathematics to be able to see what'shappening right here in British Columbia. To illustrate, use the baseyear of 1960 as compared to the proposals being considered for 1972/73.

The provincial revenues have increased approximately four times.This must be considered the prime point of reference and control.Because if you haven't got the money you can't spend it.

Education costs have increased seven times. This might not be soserious except that actual level of expenditure was the highest of allthe services provided by government. When you have the highest costescalating the fastest with people determined to take strike actionrather than apply some logic and reason to finding solutions, thatsituation is critical, and it's critical in this province.

Health and social services costs have increased five times. Of equalimportance is the fact that they stand second as a total cost item forgovernment.

Together education, health, and social services will take 69 percent of the budget for the next year, and you notice in Mr. Regan's itwas 75 per cent with debt services and his debt services at the momentare about 5 per cent.

If the expenditures for these items continue to advance at a rate ofone-and-a-half times that for revenue accumulation, one does not haveto be very astute to realise that from the position of 70 per cent ofour total to the entire total can be accomplished early in the 1980's.

The budget has included provision for some perpetual funds. Unlesssome restraint is exercised, Mr. Speaker, these sources of finance mayhave to meet the needs for special services where all other money isdirected elsewhere. Just look at the amount dedicated to the funds andrelate this to our everyday business, people have thought it large. Thetotal allocation does not equal this year's increase in education,hospital insurance, and the government's share of the medical plancosts. Stated another way, it would represent but one quarter of theinterest payment on debt had the former government's borrowing policiesbeen continued up until the present time.

Mr. Speaker, I accept my responsibilities within the field ofresource and related provincial development. Using the same points ofreference noted above — that is 1960 compared to 1972/73 — expendituresprovided to keep pace within the total resource field, includingdevelopment resources which is highways, have increased 2.7 timesagainst revenue at four times. Even this figure would not have beenpossible had not the largest single vote, that allotted to highways andferries, increased only 2.4 times. This left room for forestry toincrease three times and of more importance of late, to allow waterresources pollution expenditures to expand 13 times. The escalation ofa small amount does not involve very large sums of money but in thiscase it does reflect the concern of government and people generallywith environmental matters.

We should all be sufficiently realistic, Mr. Speaker, to know thatwhen an obligation has been accepted we have a responsibility toorganise our affairs so that cost can be met with appropriate increaseson an annual basis. It should be realised that under the present fiscalsharing policies in Canada the higher our own standard of wages andservices become, the more we must contribute to the national economy.

It is our belief that some nationally-shared investment programmeshave not been directed so as to ensure a return which would bringmaximum beneficial economic benefit to the individual in need. Only anegative income tax proposal would do this and this budget restatesthis belief on behalf of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, while we were talking about some aspects of going tothe people when costs for teachers' salaries were over 6.5 per cent, Ijust happened to remember as I was speaking that in Nova Scotia theyhave clamped a 5 per cent increase in that province to hold cost areasin line and that happens to be a Liberal regime there.

Mr. Speaker, concern for a quality environment has been expressed inseveral ways in the budget which we are debating. It can be saidwithout argument that the main new threats of the fiscal provision havebeen within this total field. For many years the fire protectionofficers in the forest service have stressed the motto "Keep B.C.Green." This budget has made a loud and clear statement of officialgovernment policy, — "B.C. Will be Kept Green and Clean." If you say itanother way, Mr. Speaker: "We really mean to stay green and clean inBritish Columbia."

Actions can speak louder than words. Such action has been guaranteedby provisions made through special funds, that is the Accelerated ParkDevelopment Fund, the Accelerated Reforestation Fund, the Green BeltProtection Fund, plus changes in departmental administrative policiesand the major increases allowed for the expansion of thepollution-control administrative structure.

For a few minutes this evening, I shall discuss the co-ordination inapproach to the development of a quality environment which now madepossible to achieve because of actions taken in these budget proposals.

Better than 60 per cent of British Columbia is classified as forestland. This cannot be sold unless it can be shown that higher returnscan be secured from other uses. Now that forest land is beingperpetually managed for the growth of forest crops, plus suchmultiple-use aspects as recreation, wildlife habitat, and watershedcontrol, that value has increased. Alienation will be even moredifficult.

Remember, Mr. Speaker, when the forester uses the land, he uses onlyone given acre once every 80 years and for the other 79 years otheruses and other persons use that land.

Wherever intensive recreational use becomes apparent in forest land,the area is taken from the forest and placed under the administrationof the Department of Recreation and Conservation. The special fundallocation will allow faster work on intensive developments. To ensurethat such areas are safeguarded in the first place, the forest servicenow has recreational officers in each district who are responsible formanagement plans to protect those places which have a high recreationalpotential. In the interim period allowance is made for developingcasual public use of such areas.

The approach between the two departments is one of co-ordination and cooperation and not one of conflict. Total

[ Page 342 ]

government interest is reflected through the environment and landuse committee, where it is possible to secure agreement as to priorityfor action on a province-wide basis.

In the early days of British Columbia certain strategic propertieswere sold which could have helped to preserve green belts in thevicinity of our built-up metropolitan areas and along our main arteriesof communication. Some of these lands could be developed with forestcover for incidental recreational use, while others should remain inuse as open-type farming areas on a leasehold tenure basis. Wherecooperation is shown it will now be possible to bring such lands backunder Crown control to serve in enriching our environment. Wherecleanup and reforestation are required another special fund has beenestablished which shall make this possible, as and when required.

In so far as forestry is concerned, the special fund has made itpossible to translate multiple-use policy into action without givingprimary consideration to direct economic return. True, there are manyareas in the province where there is still not a satisfactory stand ofsecond growth forest where there was once prime timber which has beenremoved by harvest, disease or fire.

Without the special fund, priority had to be given to those growingsites which had the highest potential for the production of commercialtimber. And the words that were given this afternoon concerning theprogramme, Mr. Speaker, by the Honourable Member for Cowichan-Malahat I did not recognise them, I did not accept them.

We have not been on the programme that he announced in this Housethis afternoon, what he was reading from I'm not quite sure. The pointwe took of the programme for 1975 is 75 million trees which werecommitted and were on programme, that is the programme we're on, Mr.Speaker, at the time.

When we reach that programme — that is the committed programme — when we look at our potential programme which we have now as we'regoing I'm accepting responsibility for that which we have decided on.When you take the total from the 75 million on, that is almostunlimited, Mr. Speaker, that is almost unlimited.

We're looking after the 75 million right now. When we move on from that period….

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. WILLISTON: Mr. Speaker, they can say what they will. They roll their heads around, they'll take their N.D.P., they'll take the rest of their people in Canada. There's no programme in Canada today that comes anything like near the reforestation here, particularly where the Honourable Member for Vancouver East has anything to do. They haven't even moved in the area.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. WILLISTON: As I said, without this special fund, Mr.Speaker, priority had to be given to those growing sites which had thehighest potential for the production of commercial timber. It will nowbe possible to rehabilitate sites, particularly those close tohighways, or those having aesthetic relationships to the development ofa quality environment. This does not mean that attention will bediverted away from the prime growing sites. The total programme will beenhanced to accommodate other indirect and intangible values which thepublic now desires.

A few words, Mr. Speaker, about the environment and land usecommittee. Public concern with environmental matters has resulted in aco-ordinated approach to the planning, organisation and administrationof our land and water resources involving all concerned departments ofgovernment. This is carried out through the environment and land usecommittee which was established through statutory authority at the lastlegislative session. The basic organisation is three-tiered consistingof a committee of ministers, the technical committee of deputyministers, and such technical sub-committees as may be required to workon specific study assignments.

The ministers' committee has the added task of providing a means forthe general public to present points of view on environmental matterswhich may not necessarily be technically supported. And this, Mr.Speaker, is a point of understanding which must be reached because whentechnical men are sent out on technical hearings — the hearings aretechnical — and in many instances, particularly at the forestryhearings a year ago, there were efforts made to turn them intopolitical hearings and not technical hearings.

Those people, technicians and the experts they have with them, arenot to resolve political problems and political policy matters. That isa matter for the….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. WILLISTON: Mr. Speaker, if he'll listen tonight hewill just find exactly the opposite that are in there. While we werecarrying on tonight it was indicated that we have two verydistinguished visitors in the Speaker's gallery — I should say besidesmy wife who is in the other gallery. But we have two distinguishedguests in the Speaker's Gallery, Judge Branca and Judge Nemetz are bothhere this evening.

Mr. Speaker, the ministers' committee has the added task ofproviding a means for the general public to present points of view onenvironmental matters which may not necessarily be technicallysupported.

A co-ordinator has been named at the deputy ministers' committeelevel through whom reports and recommendations are channelled foraction.

Concern for the environment has become a watchword in theadministration of all departments of government that work within thisfield.

A few examples, Mr. Speaker, of the action within the last year. TheVanderhoof-Hazelton land capability study was completed. The resultingcolour-coded, transparent overlay atlas gives capability and existinguse information with general assessments for agriculture, forestry,mining, recreation, fish and wildlife, and water resources. Thepotentials are graded in terms of high, medium, or low.

The Vanderhoof guide has been used for the East Kootenay study whichis now in progress. During the period of study, a land-use moratoriumhas been established which is expected to last one year from lastSeptember.

Meetings took place with the 28 regional districts to co-ordinateand improve administration of land resource matters. Specific districtconcerns are being isolated and made the subject of technical studies.

The committee carried out a detailed study of the Libby reservoir totry and resolve conflicting land use problems, particularly thoserelated to the competition for Crown range as between ungulates anddomestic livestock.

The Ecological Reserves Act was developed under the

[ Page 343 ]

committee with the deputy Minister of Lands serving as the co-ordinating administrative official.

And a report is out, Mr. Speaker. Some of the Honourable Members maywish to keep check on the ecological reserves as they are established,the regular reports come out and are available if they contact thedeputy Minister of Lands for copies and they will keep Membersup-to-date on the action which is proceeding within that department.

Now policies concerning Crown land waterfront policy have beendeveloped in cooperation with the Department of Lands to ensureadequate preservation from alienation, restriction of ribbondevelopment, together with public access and proper pollution control.

It may be of interest, Mr. Speaker, because most members are notaware of this change and this will affect most of them wherever theyhappen to be in the province.

As of May 1, 1971, the lands service and the forest service placed a10 chain map reserve around all lakes in the province. In future, thepublic will be able to express an interest in a lake by completing anomination form at the land commissioner's office. No directapplications will be accepted.

The first consideration given in the planning of the use oflakefront lands will be to ensure that adequate Crown lands arereserved for public enjoyment. All subdivisions will be undertaken bythe lands service and the priority on subdivisions will be dedicated bythe interest expressed by the public through the filing of nominationforms as well as through recommendations from field officers.

Before any subdivision will be undertaken on a lake, the departmentwill determine the pattern of alienation already existing and will notundertake any further subdivision if less than 25 per cent of thelinear length of the shoreline remains unencumbered. No subdivisionwill be carried out on a lake without first considering its impact onthe environmental quality of the lake, both from the point of view ofwater purity and fish and wildlife values.

All Crown subdivisions will be serviced by road and laid out bysurvey, subsequently disposed of by public competition on a leaseholdbasis only.

Where topography permits, Crown subdivisions will be laid out inclusters, interspersed with green areas, set back from thewaterfrontage a minimum of 10 feet to ensure public access is notdenied at any point.

To maintain essential control over large land areas for futuregenerations — this is important, Mr. Speaker, I mentioned this in aspeech a year ago. If some Members in rural areas missed other points,don't miss this.

To maintain essential control over large land areas for futuregenerations it has been decided to alienate Crown lands on the basis ofleasehold only — large areas of Crown land. Last year in my address tothis Legislature I stated that consideration was being given to such apolicy and that final action would be taken as a result of the reactionto my announcement. I can report that very little expressed opiniondeveloped in objection to the proposed procedures and for this reasonit has been decided to invoke the new policy as of April 1, 1972.There's always a backlog of applications being processed through thedepartment and in fairness to the applicants and to the administrativestaff, adequate lead time for a major change must be allowed.

We're still within the environment and land use committee, Mr.Speaker. The location of major industrial sites will be prefaced — hereyou are Mr. Member — in all cases with public hearings plus on-siteexaminations to be followed by inspections of the enterprise inoperation. Examples to illustrate include the recent hearing concerningthe relocation of Ocean Cement to Metchosin from the present site inVictoria Harbour.

A right-of-way hearing has been scheduled for Richmond — some of youare pouring the notifications in and it's already been decided — concerning the conflict between a transmission line and a nature park.Notice has been served for the lead time required for a hearing on theproposed new coal mine development on the Elk River and I may saytonight it has been determined we need at least a four months lead timebefore the hearing takes place to complete the necessary technical work.

Coastal, commercial oyster development areas are under study. One ofthem was actually completed today, too late for inclusion in my remarksthis evening.

A survey was made of all unauthorised garbage deposit areas in theprovince and plans made for their systematic rehabilitation at publicexpense. On-going situations will be covered by permit. It may surpriseMembers that our investigation this year turned up more than 1,000garbage pits over the province — unauthorised garbage pits and garbagedumps which it has been made policy will be rehabilitated, cleaned-upat government expense, and from this point on we will proceed by permit.

Within the co-ordinated administrative umbrella specific activitiesare carried out under the authority of the department or statutes, suchas the Pollution Control Act, the Litter Act, the Health Services Act,the Motor Vehicles Act, and legislation under the Department of Minesand Petroleum Resources.

The purpose of this brief report is to outline some of the resultsof progress through the committee approach with total involvementrather than through the appointment of a single responsible minister — a move still being advocated by Opposition members but abandoned byadministrations which have come to grips with trying to find apractical method to secure results in this field.

I notice that the Liberal Party which are still in the airy-fairystage are still going to appoint their Minister of Environment who isin some way going to rule from above even though at the federal levelthey found that it doesn't work and they're getting back.

In British Columbia, the preservation of a quality environment — andI restate this, Mr. Speaker — in British Columbia, if we believe it,preservation of a quality environment must become everybody's businessnot just the committee's.

The programme of the government to ensure a quality environment cansecure ready response when people can see results close at hand andwhen they are not called upon to participate personally either throughrestriction in action or through the payment of substantial sums ofmoney directly or through taxation. In other words, Mr. Speaker, we'reall very, very willing to see our environment improved if somebody elsewill do it and pay for it.

The Pollution Control Act has the task to secure participation onthe part of people in this latter sphere where they wish to participateor not. An examination of the budget details will show that this branchhas received the strongest personnel support of any department toexpand its activities with relation to responsibilities.

Mr. Speaker, I'll detail this in a minute but this enables us tomore than double our staff work during the coming year. Meaningfulaction in this field is dependent upon the development ofadministrative procedures which, in turn,

[ Page 344 ]

require research and technical advances within a very broad range of disciplines.

The costs involved are so large that the actions demand "trial anderror" procedures with no assurance that obligations for on-going andunknown expenditures will have been met. Some provinces have agreed tothis approach here, after a specific sum of money has been spent, theobligation for control has been discharged, whether or not asatisfactory system of treatment has been installed. Mr. Speaker, we donot accept that approach in British Columbia.

Within the responsibilities set forth in the Pollution Control Actwe do now have some fair assessment of the magnitude of the technicalpollution control problems that we face — particularly with regard tothe existing backlog.

Under the Act, the existing liquid and waste discharges not underpermit were required to be registered by December 31, 1970. Theregistration of air contaminant discharges was required by December 21,1971. The director of pollution control received nearly 1,300registrations covering liquid effluent discharges and 470 solid wastedumps. Further investigation indicated that nearly 1,000 effluent and1,100 waste discharges had not been registered — despite repeatedannouncements. It is apparent that not all of the public shares concernabout environment quality.

Many of the non-registered discharges are of relatively smallamounts. Registration is proceeding and it is my intention toregularise this action through an extension in time for registrationrather than take action of a punitive nature. That may have to comelater.

We are facing a backlog of some 2,300 liquid effluent discharges andnearly 1,600 solid waste dumps. In many cases technical controlrequirements still have to be determined before the necessary permitscan be issued. In addition to the above, we now have approximately3,000 registrations covering air contaminant discharges up to the endof last December.

There will be no short-time answer to the complete resolution of theproblems presented, Mr. Speaker. In this regard British Columbia canreceive some comfort from the fact that no other country has been ableto draft a programme which could be completed within a very short spaceof time.

Capital requirements to complete the programme will be large.Between $250 and $300 million is needed to bring municipal treatmentalone up to a satisfactory level. To this must be added a further $500million for industrial waste treatment, of which the forest industrymust share at least 50 per cent.

On a per capita basis the programme now underway to 1975 in theGreater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District stands at $80 percapita as compared to $50 for that initiated on the Great Lakes withfederal government financial support. I may say on the side, Mr.Speaker, when we speak up for British Columbians in shared programmesthat Vancouver area alone is on a $80 per capita programme at thepresent time. All the fanfare we've had on the Great Lakes programmeinvolves a per capita programme of $50 and that's shared by the federalgovernment.

When we talk about sharing in British Columbia with the federalgovernment people cry "cry-baby" and everything else. We do not, and Irepeat, we do not get treated in a similar manner to other parts ofCanada. We're made to go it alone and don't kid yourself.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. WILLISTON: We're not crying, we're not crying andwe're doing it. The job is being done and done at a far higher ratethan it's done there.

Major projects have been completed in the Okanagan basin where thethree largest cities have introduced tertiary waste treatment for thepurpose of nutrient removal from effluent and one of those plants wasthe first such plant to be installed anywhere in Canada at the time.

A speculative estimate would indicate that we must plan for anannual expenditure, Mr. Speaker, of between $25 and $30 million formunicipal sewage works alone and from $20 to $25 million for industrialpollution control alone on an annual basis. When we take these costsand other costs in relation to environmental matters and so on it'sgoing to take some realistic thinking on our priorities in future toaccommodate the costs which we are demanding at the present time.

The problems of finance are going to be serious and will increase our cost of living and the costs of industrial production.

The conflicts of the dam builders and the recreationalists capturethe headlines in the battle for a quality environment. But it is mybelief, Mr. Speaker, that this will only be won if it involves theindividual at the local level. The combined action of the majority willbring the most positive results.

As I indicated earlier, now that we have some realistic indicationof the task to be accomplished, appropriate staff is being providedthrough the current estimates. This does not mean that we have beenstanding still.

In 1971-72 the staff of the pollution control branch was nearlydoubled by adding 40 new positions to bring the total to 85. Presentestimates will add 100 more plus an additional 15 to the recentlyreinforced chemistry laboratory staff which now employs 32 people andworks two shifts a day out at the research council.

Permission has been granted for early recruitment so that no timewill be lost once the estimates have been passed. May I say that thisis a point of direct comparison with the federal government when itcomes to environmental matters. We have assessed our problem, we'verated it, we're in a position to move effectively, we're providing thepersonnel now to do the job. Different from that at the federal level — there they provided the personnel to do the job and they've floodedthem in, in the hundreds, even in the Province of British Columbia,before they had specified the organisation and the work that those menhad to do and that is being accomplished at the present time.

If you want the effective use of manpower in the environmentalfield, make sure you know what the men are supposed to do and are goingto do when you put them on the job.

The public enquiry conducted last year by the director of pollutioncontrol into the forest products industry produced objectives which onamendment, have been approved for pollution control requirements inthis field. Liquid, solid, and air emissions were covered. Variouslevels of treatment were detailed with the highest required by any newinstallation.

Upgrading of existing discharge will be determined on an individualbasis having regard to the existing quality of the environment at eachparticular location. Mr. Speaker, this is going to be done on thisbasis because we're taking into consideration the fundamental needinsofar as the total environment is concerned and I have tonight a wirefrom Rayonier Canada Limited. In this instance it refers to thewood-fibre pulp mill on Howe Sound — an agreement has

[ Page 345 ]

been reached by which we will together put priority on the air effluent discharge control at the wood fibre mill.

They have authorised the expenditure of $2.2 million. Theirengineers indicate the job will be able to be accomplished in 16 monthsand we're putting this on the priority basis above the water treatmentbecause the federal fisheries tell us the water problem there is notserious. The air problem is serious both at the wood-fibre mill and inSquamish and I think this is an indication of the type of work theapproach we're making in this general field.

The results of the actions taken, Mr. Speaker, have been widelyacclaimed all through the forest industry. We've been asked for copiesof our findings throughout the States and elsewhere across Canada. Itmarks a first for Canada and will speed the issuance of permits in thefuture. To some extent the actions demanded must still be proven underoperating conditions. If results are still not satisfactory, there isprovision and authority for further upgrading of the waste treatmentrequirements. In other words, Mr. Speaker, where our Acts differ frommost other Acts is that until the end result is reached the obligationhas not been discharged.

A similar enquiry into the mining industry's technical pollutioncontrol requirements will be held this March followed by a May enquiryinvolving the chemical and petroleum industries.

The board issued minimum requirements for refuse disposal to landand minimum requirements for municipal and domestic waste waterdisposal to surface waters. These form the basis for the issuance ofpermits by the pollution control branch.

Besides our local responsibilities we have been involved withnational and international environment control problems. Both calledfor cooperation with the federal government. Co-ordinated provincialaction is being developed through the Canadian Council of ResourceMinisters.

The province acknowledges cooperative arrangements with the federalgovernment — the federal Department of Environment under whichtechnical expertise in such fields as fishery, atmospheric and marinesciences will be available to the British Columbia Pollution ControlBoard. The federal agencies receive copies of applications for permitsand made recommendations to the branch within their areas of expertise.

More recently, Mr. Speaker, the federal government has shown certainactivity in establishing pollution control technical standards. Allgovernments are still developing their policies in pollution controland environment-quality management. There is room for co-ordination andcooperation with the aim of eliminating duplication and over-lappingactivities. British Columbia shall work to this end and this is mypledge.

My brief resume, Mr. Speaker, has shown two areas in which federalassistance would do most good and would give the most direct assistancein the battle for pollution control. First, knowing what to do requiresresearch beyond the ability of a single provincial jurisdiction tohandle. Doing the job requires finance. I realise that both have littledirect ballot appeal and could lose favour as a consequence. Both areabsolutely necessary to ensure steady progress in the battle for aquality environment.

Mr. Speaker, those remarks at five minutes to nine conclude what Iwish to say this evening and put me, I hope, in good stead with all ofmy colligues.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Oak Bay.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure totake my place in the budget debate. I notice, Mr. Speaker, that theHon. Premier has at least left before I got started this time.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. WALLACE: It's a pity that the Premier finds that I'm nota very good representative of him in Oak Bay and that he doesn't wishto listen to his own M.L.A.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. WALLACE: My immediate reaction, Mr. Speaker, to thebudget speech and indeed my continuing reaction has to be one ofdisbelief. Throughout the budget speech the Premier kept repeating thefact that his "is a government which cares." Touching. I would suggestthat if a government cares and if a man cares and if the people in agovernment are really interested in human matters, in human dignity, inhuman suffering — if they care the money should go to the people whoneed it most.

I would submit, Mr. Speaker that by over-taxing this province to thetune of $266 million and then spreading it around in various directionswithout a nickel to the poor, that in itself denies any concern in myopinion.

The Premier is either ignorant of the needs of the poor people or heis ignorant of the fact that we've had a Senate report which took threeyears to compile and which relates to the people of Canada and thisprovince that one in four of our citizens are living in poverty.

He either chooses, Mr. Speaker, to remain unaware of this report orin my opinion — and which is worse — he chooses to show a callousindifference to the needs of these people in our society when he isdishing out money right, left and centre and in many other directions.

I consider, Mr. Speaker, that this is sheer hypocrisy to call this agovernment which cares and a government concerned about the needs ofpeople and to present this particular budget.

The former speaker, the Hon. Minister of Lands and Water Resources,has said that the budget has been under nothing but ridicule. I wouldsubmit, Mr. Speaker, that on the face of the needs of the people ofthis province, and those most in need, that the crumbs which have beendropped from the Premier's table in the form of a homeowner grant,which I favoured, is surely a very minuscule fraction of what mighthave been allocated from $266 million to the people in real need.

The government has often been accused of favouring big business andindustry and while I am not particularly in complete agreement withthat point of view I can only say that it is working hard to give thepublic that continuing impression.

My main complaint, Mr. Speaker, regarding this budget is that itshows a shocking lack of sense of priorities. At a time when a veryup-to-date study of poverty is available and when the public generallyare aware of the need this government shows a shocking lack of regardin terms of real financial assistance and the manner in which itdistributes such an enormous surplus — in the manner in which it isdone.

A very important issue is raised early in the Premier's

[ Page 346 ]

speech and is subsequently ignored throughout the rest of hisspeech. This concept was re-emphasised and approved by the formerspeaker tonight. Namely, the concept of a guaranteed annual income. Theassertion may be true that a guaranteed annual income is the salvationof all our poverty problems. I doubt it. But time may prove this trueand I'm willing to keep an open mind and be objective in trying toevaluate all the pros and cons. The Premier and the former speaker, theHon. Minister, have made it clear that they are shelving the problemsof poverty for the people of this province in the meantime — until toand behold we'll have the federal government introducing a guaranteedincome plan.

My question is very simple, Mr. Speaker. What are the poor peoplesupposed to do in the meantime? What help are they getting from thisbudget? Are they expected to go on just waiting and suffering andputting up with the miserable standard of living? Waiting for thefederal government to implement this famous plan?

I think, Mr. Speaker, that the Premier having made a very generalstatement early in his speech should at least have given us somespecific information as to when we can anticipate this plan, whatconsiderations or negotiations are presently taking place with Ottawa,what definitive information could we have that such a plan is notsomewhere 10 or 15 or 20 years ahead, but is somewhere in the nearfuture.

I would like to quote, Mr. Speaker, from the Senate report on poverty.

Poverty is the great social issue of our times. Unless we act now,in a new and purposeful way, 5 million Canadians will continue to findlife a bleak, bitter and never-ending struggle for survival. The poordo not choose poverty; it is at once their affliction and our nationalshame. The grim fact is that one Canadian in four lacks sufficientincome to maintain a basic standard of living.

I would mention what I mentioned in the throne speech debate, Mr.Speaker — that this report also dismisses the myth that poor people donot wish to work. The clear facts of the poverty report show that 60per cent of our poor people are employed. They are in fact strugglingdesperately to survive at jobs where the wage is not in fact a livingwage. It is defined as the minimum wage but it is not a living wage.

The other fact which I mention for the benefit of the citizens ofall countries and all provinces is that 90 per cent of welfarerecipients have no choice, Mr. Speaker. They're welfare recipientsbecause they are handicapped, they are disabled, they are desertedwives with children. They have many reasons from which they cannotparticipate in the labour force.

What does this budget do for these people? Nothing. Not a thing. ThePremier may be correct in stating that the long-term solution of theirproblems is the guaranteed annual income and I repeat that I am notconvinced that this is the great salvation for people in poverty. But Iwould just repeat: what do these people do in the meantime to feed andclothe themselves and put a roof over their heads while inflationcontinues to wreak havoc with their meagre finances?

I would like to comment on our present payments to poor people, andat least make it clear how the Conservative Party would attempt toprovide them with a fairer share of the provincial wealth. The Membercan smile, nobody's even touched on this on his side of the House, nottouched on it. These people can't be members of the labour force….

AN HON. MEMBER: Let them eat cake!

MR. WALLACE: …and you just say give them welfare and pass them off. Disregard them, don't worry about them, just smile.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. WALLACE: You'll pay for this at the next election.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. WALLACE: I would repeat as I've done before, Mr. Speaker,that while we are in deep sympathy with the needs of the working poorand those on welfare we are not in favour of giving taxpayers' money tothose able-bodied persons who are capable of work but who refuse thejobs which are available.

The present system of providing welfare allowances is far fromsatisfactory. It is a patchwork, piecemeal arrangement where therecipient all too often has to rely on the individual good will of thesocial worker to extract from the system the maximum allowable inoverages or in any other flexible part of the programme.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR WALLACE: Don't try and side track us here. You know very well what we're talking about. We'll talk about the doctors later.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. WALLACE: I'm talking about poverty. We'll talk about the doctors later.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

MR. WALLACE: The plain fact, Mr. Speaker, is that the basicallowances for rent, food, and clothing were set many years ago andhave not been adjusted adequately upward in the face of inflation. Iunderstand that the last basic increase was one of $5 in 1970 which istwo years ago. The problem of overages I understand also generates anincreasing number of appeals and a great deal of unhappy dissension.

Food allowances do not recognise the difference in cost for a familyof teenagers compared to pre-schoolers. Apparently clothing allowancesare not in any way related to the age of the children. There is greatinconsistency in the handling of applicants and as a result, injusticesoccur and this leads to further appeals and further dissension andacrimony.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I've been made aware of a report which Mr. Boydpresented to the standing committee on health and welfare of VancouverCity Council and I understand that this proposal is designed to removethese inconsistencies, to eliminate the fact that social workers areoften left to make judgments which really should not be in their field.The proposal should also produce living cost allowances which are morein keeping with present-day prices.

But in keeping with something I said from the day I entered thisHouse, I don't think that any member of government or opposition shouldever come up in this House with bright ideas as to how to solveproblems without stating

[ Page 347 ]

the financial cost and I would simply quote these figures and I'm alittle disturbed at the figure in the Press tonight as being well awayfrom the figure that I was given. But the costs of the proposed newbenefits for welfare recipients would be $15.5 million.

Now, I read in the Press tonight, just tonight, the figure of $20million is being bandied around. The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that the newschedule is directly related to current basic living costs and doesrecognise the variation in costs related to age and size of family.

I have also been approached by the B.C. Federation of Citizens'Associations who claim that the new proposals will result in theabolition of overages. But they seem to be overlooking the fact that ifthe basic allowances are increased to bring about that very happyresult that overages will not be argued about except for emergencysituations such as fire of a household or eviction.

It brings me to the other point, Mr. Speaker, that I have made regarding the realistic use of standing committees in this House.

When I spoke in the throne speech debate I expressed the opinionthat one of the big defects of our present parliamentary system is thatthe individual and the organisation do not really have realistic accessin terms of face-to-face discussion with the elected representatives.

I would think that there is a very good example of how interestedcitizens and groups could appear before the standing committee onsocial welfare and perhaps not only bring information to us but have usexplain some of the problems of government to them.

I don't suggest that there is any easy solution but I would simplysay that at this time the budget as outlined in the House does nothingto assist the segment of society who are in very serious need.

Because the Hon. Minister has re-emphasised the government supportof a guaranteed income concept and since the Premier has mentioned it,I think it is important that this be given the widest possible publicdiscussion, Mr. Speaker, and I think some comments are timely tonight.

An interest in the guaranteed annual income concept exists becauseCanadians are aware of wide-spread poverty in a prosperous society.They are aware of the fact that the present system of welfare paymentdoes not seem to meet the needs. Inasmuch as the guaranteed incomerepresents a whole new approach to welfare I would suggest thatimmediate and urgent further consideration be given by this House. Theimmediate initiative has to be taken by the federal government butsince provincial cost-sharing is involved I believe that this provinceshould be seeking early discussion with the federal government.

The Economic Council of Canada suggest that poverty exists when afamily has to spend over 70 per cent of its income on food, shelter andclothing. From these statistics it would appear that one in every fourCanadians live in poverty.

I have mentioned some of the drawbacks, Mr. Speaker, to the presentsystem inasmuch as there is often a universal approach. Benefits ascategorised are given to everybody in the category even when there issome lack of need. There is also the very important point that ifsomebody is guaranteed an income there is a real tendency to deprivethem of any incentive to work. I think it is fair to give credit to thegovernment in its present policy that in British Columbia singlepersons can earn $30 a month beyond their welfare payment and a familycan earn $50. If there is any criticism I suppose it would lie in thefact that perhaps they should be allowed to earn more but at least Igive credit to this government for recognising this importantprinciple. But it is absolute stupidity to encourage a welfarerecipient to work and then to deduct from his cheque the equivalentamount of his wages.

The concept of a guaranteed annual income is one possibility wherethe minimum income level is decided relative to the size of the family.Income below that level is supplemented and income above that level istaxed. It seems rather simplistic and it's the very simplistic way inwhich it's presented to us, Mr. Speaker, which gives me some cause forconcern. Because I think this is a tremendously difficult problem,trying to tackle poverty on a national scale and this simplisticapproach — that you set some magic figure relative to the size of thefamily and below it you add and above it you subtract — it justfrightens me a little bit as being too simple. But at least I'm willingto keep an open mind.

I think the reason that most of us are probably somewhat puzzled isthe fact that there are really three main goals in a guaranteed incomeand some of these goals rather conflict with one another.

You are trying to guarantee a minimum income sufficiently high thatevery Canadian will have a decent standard of living. But you are alsotrying to provide incentives to encourage the recipient to work.

Third, you are trying to prevent a uniform approach whereby everygroup receives help and some of these people in that group might infact receive more help than they need.

So these three goals have to be considered very closely for thesimple reason, as I say, that while you might achieve one goal in theprocess you are conflicting with the others.

The total cost is extremely difficult to calculate and some peoplewould oppose the plan purely on the basis of tremendous cost. Thescheme, however, would replace in large measure much of the presentunsatisfactory system and would allocate money to those truly in needwhile minimising the leakage of funds to those who are not in need.

The rationale for the plan, Mr. Speaker, would be for the federalgovernment to provide a basic national floor on which the provincescould build programmes for different categories. The federal governmentwould take primary responsibility for the working poor while theprovinces might want to supplement this allowance but would have theirprime responsibility turned to the real welfare cases that I havealready mentioned.

One thing is painfully clear, poverty is our prime social evil outof which many other social problems develop such as crime, mentalillness, alcoholism, family breakdown, and juvenile delinquency tomention but a few. While a forward looking policy to create such aguaranteed income plan may prove to be the long-term answer, I repeat — what are we doing in the meantime for the poor in British Columbia?

A Conservative government would set basic payments realistic to thepresent-day cost of living. This does not mean that we would follow tothe letter the recommendations of Mr. Boyd's proposal and again withcredit to this government I am aware today that the Hon. Minister ofRehabilitation and Social Welfare has just met with officials inVancouver and is indeed considering this proposal.

For the record, and to make our position very plain, theConservative Party would set basic payments realistic to the cost ofliving, something along the lines of the report which is now available.Furthermore the Conservative Party would adjust the rates annually by apercentage amount related to

[ Page 348 ]

the percentage increase in the cost of living.

We would expand in every possible way jobs for the 10 per cent onwelfare who are capable of working. We would raise the minimum wageimmediately to assist the working poor who generally are not organisedinto unions and depend entirely on government to help them cope withthe continuing rise in the cost of living.

Since adequate housing is not only difficult to obtain but isexpensive, we would launch a wide-spread programme to providesubsidised housing for families who cannot afford shelter.

I think, Mr. Speaker, some mention has been made of this by theMinister earlier this afternoon as to a wide range of programmes makingdiffering types of accommodations available and this is certainly thegeneral direction which the Conservative Party would follow.

But I think it is interesting, Mr. Speaker, if I could quote thatfrom January to November, 1971, British Columbia used only $1.6 millionof federal funds for subsidised housing as compared to Ontario whichused $10 million of federal funds.

Now this is a ratio of 80 — 1 although the population ration is 3-1,so it would suggest, that certain other provinces are making muchbetter use of the federal money that is available for subsidisedhousing.

Another point of perfectly legitimate concern has been expressed — that when you build subsidised housing you segregate a whole bunch ofpeople with similar incomes in some sort of slum, or some propertywhich will soon become a slum. I don't think this is at all necessaryor unavoidable. There are choices and some initiatives, I'm sure, couldbe taken to subsidise the purchase of homes scattered throughout acommunity and providing rent allowances where indicated.

I would repeat as I did in the throne speech debate that we wouldremove the educational fraction of property tax from all homeownersover the age of 65.

But, Mr. Speaker, of all the areas of social need crying out forhelp which the Premier has chosen to neglect surely it must be theelderly sick who spend the last days of their lives occupying beds innursing homes and private hospitals. While I see this every day, I tookthe trouble to get my facts and figures absolutely correct, Mr.Speaker, so that there again should be no criticism at least of theunderlying facts and figures.

I have the documents with me, and the available rates here in theCity of Victoria for a public ward bed — the absolute lowest cost thatI could find, was $330 per month with the rates rising to a maximum of$550 per month. And of course, and don't think that this is unusual,Mr. Speaker, in cases where a husband and wife both require a nursinghome, the cost of course is double, the cost is a minimum of $660 permonth.

AN HON. MEMBER: Home-owners' grant.

MR. WALLACE: Unfortunately the home-owners' grant doesn'thelp that. And the usual fate, Mr. Speaker, of these patients — andbelieve me, I know what I'm talking about in this field — the usualfate of these patients is to use up what savings they have and thenthey go on welfare.

Is this the good life? Is this wonderful budget so wonderful, soperfect, so beautiful in Beautiful B.C.? What about the sick persons inthe nursing homes?

These patients require justice, to be treated by government in thesame light as any other sick person elderly or otherwise. One of thefundamental errors, Mr. Speaker, of this government and the provisionalhealth services is its fragmented approach. It's just incredible to methat in 1972 a patient either gets help or doesn't get help dependingon the type and severity of his illness.

I am referring, of course, to the fact that in an acute hospital oran extended-care hospital, the patient pays $1 a day but in a nursinghome he pays $350 to $550 a month.

Now, I just asked a simple question. Why does this governmentdiscriminate against this segment of society in which elderly citizensin the latter years of their life are losing their physical health andstrength? Never more, never more in their life did they ever requirejust a little bit of sympathy and empathy and understanding. At thetime when they most need it, they find that the government only helpstwo-thirds of the problem, two-thirds of the patients. Is this theaction of a government which cares?

The Minister of Agriculture — and I notice the Ministers aredisappearing fast tonight, I don't know, perhaps some epidemic has hitthem — but the Minister of Agriculture the other day referred to hisassessment of the Premier as being one of the greatest humanitarianshe's ever met. And all I would ask, and all I would hope, Mr. Speaker,is that the Minister of Agriculture is a better judge of potatoes andbarley.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. WALLACE: Well, corn too, maybe he's judged the corn too.

But the blunt fact, Mr. Speaker, is that the Premier of thisprovince has shown a heartless disregard of the sick elderly citizensof the province who have no choice but to live in nursing homes. Whenyou ask the Premier, as I have done, why doesn't he cover these people?If he has $266 million can't he find a few bucks to help them? We getthe old pathetic argument "Oh, but the federal government doesn't sharein the cost of intermediate care."

Really, Mr. Speaker, while this is no valid argument even if youlook at it on the basis of figures — and I like to get the figures andthe facts and dollars straight — if we look at it on the face ofthings, even if the federal government paid half of the bill as it doesfor acute and extended care, what would be the cost to the province forthe other half?

Here again, Mr. Speaker, the figures show that there are presently3,114 beds in nursing homes and private hospitals. Now, assuming anaverage daily cost and here we cannot be absolutely spot-on, butassuming an average cost between that of extended care and the welfarerate which is being paid, the daily cost would approximate to $14 a dayand so the cost to the provincial government to pay half of the billwould be $8 million.

Out of $266 million which he spread around like Father Christmas toimpress the populous of the province, he can't manage to spend $8million out of $266 million? I think we can leave the people in theprovince to answer that question. Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. WALLACE: Yes, I'll find out and I'll be happy to find outin Oak Bay. At least I'll go down the drain — if I do go down the drain— with honour, my friend, honour and principle.

If I go down the drain in Oak Bay, there won't be any

[ Page 349 ]

disharmony and unhappiness in my part, my friend. Not one thing I'vesaid or done since I entered politics that I have to apologise for — not one, and you can't say that, you can't say that.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. WALLACE: Well, I'm quite happy to leave the people of Oak Bay to decide.

The government's performance in the realm of intermediate andextended care is in my view and in the view of many a piecemeal,fragmented approach where in fact, Mr. Speaker, an integratedwell-devised and co-ordinated plan of all the health services or allthe people involved in providing health services is required.

The Honourable Minister who preceded me in this debate, Mr. Speaker,has pointed out quite rightly that the cost of health services isrising steadily and that this becomes an ever-increasing concern togovernment and I accept that this is so. But on the other hand while Ihave lived in Canada, governments where I have lived and where I nowlive have made it clear to the public that they will make medical andhospital care available to every citizen and this is a noble goal andone which I support.

But now that research and technology and science are placing suchtremendous weapons of treatment and investigation in the hands ofmedical people, the politicians are now saying: "We don't know if youcan have all these things, Mr. Public, because we don't think that wecan afford them." Now, the sooner everybody in this picture, includingthe citizen and politician and medical personnel, realise that this isthe point that we are reaching — and I agree that we are makingprogress — but the implication so often from the politician is thatthere has to be a cutback on the medical service being provided or thehospital service being provided.

All I'm saying, Mr. Speaker, is the facts are so obvious that foranyone to try and hold back the research and all the technological andscientific advances of the last few years and the years which lie aheadof us, it is indeed pantomime to try and hold back the times.

While I won't go into great detail on medical matters tonight Ithink we have to face the facts, that man's knowledge and expertise andhis technical ability in dealing with physical and health problems isjust simply becoming enormous. There very shortly seems to be littlethat will not be possible to do to enhance one's physical condition andone's mental condition also.

While I don't wish to get off on this tangent, I do feel that whilethe Honourable Minister tonight certainly emphasised the government'sawareness of the tremendous cost of health services I think we shouldtry and keep the whole thing in context and realise that to someextent, not completely, the very changes of our time and the tremendousexpansion of knowledge is such that we cannot hold it back, unless wedecide to settle for a lesser standard of care.

My friends over there, when they talk in these terms, are not reallysettling for a lesser standard of care. They are saying to themselves"what dollar value do we place on a human life?" And this is a verydifficult question in terms of the elderly who frequently face thepracticing physician with a big decision as to how much in the way oftreatment should be applied.

Now, that's becoming too specific. I would just like to mention and make a few comments on the whole question of extended care.

Many persons are puzzled by all the terms we use. "Extended care"relates to the most seriously disabled person on a long-term basis whor*quires continuing nursing care and I would simply say that it is thisfragmented approach of this government which concerns me because theborderline between qualifying for extended care and not qualifying for$1-a-day coverage is very narrow. We even have the very unfortunatecases where a patient enters an extended, care hospital and because ofthe enthusiasm and the attention given by the nurses and thephysiotherapists the patient improves just a little bit and no longerqualifies for extended care.

The result of this is that they then have to go into one of thesenursing homes or private hospitals. Then because, in my humble opinion,the treatment there is less efficient than in the extended carehospital the patients at a variable time later then again qualifies forextended care and has to go back on a waiting list. I just feel that itis worthwhile making these points, Mr. Speaker, to point out that whatwe need is a uniform integrated approach to all levels of illness.

And to put it on the record, a Conservative government wouldimmediately give all intermediate care' patients hospital coveragesimilar to those in acute and extended care hospitals. We would alsoexpand what this government has already started, namely additionalincentives to non-profit organisations, to church groups and to serviceclubs, to construct and operate facilities for those requiringintermediate care.

I have just made a note here, Mr. Speaker, that one of the speakersthis afternoon mentioned the subject of abortion. He was talking in adifferent way with which I didn't agree entirely on encouraging familyplanning. But I think, again if I might interject, that here is anotherarea where whatever your moralising or your judgment pro or conabortion, provinces and the nation as a whole have been faced with asudden additional expenditure of money because a procedure which waspreviously illegal is now legal.

Now, I'm not getting into the morals or anything else at this time.I am just saying that as a hard statistical fact of economics we havehospitals — and I can talk certainly of Jubilee Hospital — which haveto function and operate on X number of patients every Saturday which isan additional expense on its budget.

Again, I give credit to this government. It did put up the financingto do this but I would like to use this as a simple example of the factthat it is not just a question of simple statistics. It is the questionof the new statistics that are appearing all the time. While abortionis one example, the whole utilisation of sterilisation operations isanother additional monetary factor which we just can't get away from,nor maybe would we wish to.

But we can't have our cake and eat it as well. If we have to havewhat we consider to be worthwhile social reforms — and I go along withthe very much improved attitude towards sterilisation, I go along withthat entirely — but if we have to have these changes in socialattitudes, they are going to cost us money, they are going to costsomebody money. And if the government doesn't want to raise extra taxesand if it doesn't want to ask its patients to pay, then we have toexpect a lowering of standards or a long waiting list for the treatment.

Along with others in this House, Mr. Speaker, I have been aware ofhardships which many people have, particularly those on low fixedincomes, in attempting to buy prescription drugs. The Conservativegovernment would in

[ Page 350 ]

fact provide free drugs to all persons over 65 and below that age itwould use the criterion of those patients who are receiving subsidieson their medicare premiums — in other words if they have subsidisedmedicare premiums they would be at the same time entitled to free drugs.

Now having spoken for quite some time on medical matters, Mr.Speaker, I would like to touch on the Conservative Party policiesregarding economic expansion.

The party regards the province as being a large territory laden withvast resources of timber and minerals. And it is their feeling that wehave scarcely scratched the surface in the matter of resourcedevelopment.

The Premier has spoken of economic expansion, but we would ask:Where are the exciting and imaginative programmes for expansion whichcharacterised the earlier years of the Social Credit administration?Where has the drive gone? Where is the spirit which drove the provinceahead in the earlier years of the Social Credit reign?

The budget, despite its emphasis on spreading surpluses around inmany directions, does very little to spark the next step forward in thedevelopment of our resources. The citizens of the province are lookingfor expansion which besides opening up the north lands and developingour resources will be creating many jobs and will reduce the number ofemployable persons on our welfare roll.

Any close study of this budget or any other budget in the past yearsreveals very clearly — and here again it is on record and the figuresare there for all to see — that the Minister of Finance intentionallyunderestimates his revenue and overestimates his expenses. As a result,there is an annual surplus of many millions.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. WALLACE: Yes, I voted for it. I'm not disputing what the facts are, just listen. I'm just stating facts, figures that's all.

The present example of the Minister of Finance being in a positionto inject $266 million into the economy demonstrates the surplus methodof bookkeeping. The Premier mentions perpetual funds used to financeschool and hospital construction. I think that municipal taxpayersborrowing these moneys to build schools should realise very clearlythey are in fact borrowing their own money which they paid in the formof excessive taxation in the first place.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. WALLACE: So when the Minister of Finance loans perpetualfund money he is not the Santa Claus he would have us believe he is. Infact he is lending back to the municipal taxpayers excessive tax moneyswhich they paid to him in the first place.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. WALLACE: Without any increase in taxes, Mr. Speaker, itis obvious that there will continue to be an annual surplus somewhat inexcess of $100 million.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. WALLACE: This is all in the budget. You can read it in the budget if you take the trouble and time to do it, Mr. Member.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. WALLACE: At any rate, the point I'm trying to make to theHon. Member for Vancouver Centre is that the surpluses do exist. I'mnot necessarily saying that they are bad. I'm simply demonstrating thatthey do exist.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. WALLACE: It is the policy of the Conservative Party thatsince they will continue to exist, that without any further increase intaxation the Progressive Conservative Party would use part of thissurplus to create a provincial capital development fund which wouldprovide money at reasonable interest rates to small and largebusinesses and to industry to expand their activities.

In using these funds, Mr. Speaker, we would also be creating jobsand judging by the figures in the paper tonight, I tell the Hon.Minister there's a job somebody should be doing to solve theunemployment problem.

As an example of the use of these funds the Conservative Party — andI think that since I'm spokesman for the party I should recite to youwhat the party believes in, policies other than my own. This issomething that I am frequently asked: "Who are you speaking for? Whowrote your speech?"

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I can inform the House that in thisparticular area I am reciting the policy of the Conservative Party ofBritish Columbia.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. WALLACE: You'll find out at the next election. Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. WALLACE: Our economic future in British Columbia rests onour ability to trade and the party will seek to take part incost-sharing programmes with the federal government to develop theports on the west coast — such ports as Prince Rupert and furtherdevelopment of the Vancouver port as a vital outlet for shippingCanadian products to the Pacific market.

The port authority would design, finance and construct the port in acooperative venture with the federal government with benefits to all ofwestern Canada but in particular to B.C. Such a development wouldcreate jobs and reduce the number of employable persons on our welfarerolls.

The party believes that coupled with this, Mr. Speaker, it isimportant to have an accelerated development of highways and railwayconstruction in the northern part of the province, again not only tocreate jobs but to enhance access to the natural resources over a widearea and hasten the general development of the north country. It isfelt that this programme would also encourage further the boomingtourist industry which brings the province considerable revenue, withmoderate outlay in cost.

The Conservative Party in relation to this budget states that theKootenays have been neglected by this provincial government and thatTrail, Nelson and other centres have been ignored. Our party would workin cooperation with the local authorities in establishing a healthyeconomic climate in the Kootenays for primary and secondary industry.The

[ Page 351 ]

securing of land for development of steel and chemical plants wouldbe investigated with the local authorities to create jobs and expandthe economy.

In the Okanagan it is felt that the fruit growers requireassistance, possibly through lower irrigation costs, access to marketsand the encouragement also of secondary industry.

The party also believes that pollution and environmental control isa must in this province but it also feels that commercial developmentand pollution control can go hand-in-hand and must indeed gohand-in-hand.

This capital development fund would make available funds for variousforms of research into domestic and industrial pollution. It would makemoney available to municipal and regional authorities to installimproved sewage-treatment facilities. In steel and chemical industrialdevelopment, low interest loans would be provided to assist in theinstallation of modern pollution control facilities.

Other techniques such as accelerated capital cost writeoffs andprovincial guarantees for capital expenditure on pollution controlfacilities would be introduced.

New secondary industries could be granted a reduction of propertytaxation in their first few years, and the fund could be used to ensurethe municipalities no loss of revenue.

The small businessman, Mr. Speaker, is all too often forgotten intoday's society despite his very considerable contribution toemployment and the expansion of the economy. Low interest loans wouldbe available to both small and large businessmen.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance has stated that there willbe no increase in tax rates and while literally there is no increase intax rates, Mr. Speaker, there is indeed a tax increase in the form ofthe proposed gift tax. While the federal government has vacated thetraditional death duty field and gift tax, the federal government hasintroduced capital gain which certainly applies to any gift involvingappreciation of assets. Therefore I think the people of BritishColumbia should realise that in fact we do have an additional tax inthis province.

If I could just mention a word about succession duties, Mr. Speaker— not to talk about the bill or to interpret the bill — but it is thefeeling of the Conservative Party that taken on the over-all approachthe income or the revenue derived from succession duties is not verylarge. It is a small fraction of the total revenue.

The province requires capital for economic expansion, and there aremany wealthy people who consider retiring to British Columbia who wouldbring with them considerable amounts of capital. But unfortunately inmany cases since Alberta has no succession duties there, persons eitherchoose not to settle here or if they do they place their capital inanother jurisdiction thus denying British Columbia the use ofmuch-needed capital for economic expansion.

The Conservative Party would abandon the field of succession dutiesand gift tax, thereby encouraging an inflow of capital into thisprovince, such as has happened in Alberta.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to agree with the first Member for Vancouver Centre on two of the issues which he raised.

The government building in Vancouver is quite unnecessary. The fundmoney should be diverted and used to beautify False Creek and theground should be donated to the City of Vancouver for park development.Point number one in agreement, Mr. Member.

Point number two. While the home-owner grant increase is mostwelcome, particularly to those over 65, the govern ment has left thetenant to face increasing rents without any assistance. We as a partywould support any reasonable measure which gives the tenant equitabletreatment in relation to the homeowner.

Mr. Speaker, the party for which I am. spokesman, takes pride in itstitle of Progressive Conservative. The citizens of British Columbia arelooking for progress which has been defined as the development of newideas. I think that's a very persuasive, correct definition of progress— "the development of new ideas."

This budget shows very little in the way of new ideas and indeedfalls far short of the imaginative programme required to meet thechallenge of the 70's. The Progressive Conservative party cannotsupport this budget, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister without Portfolio, the second Member from Vancouver–Little Mountain

HON. G. McCARTHY (Minister without Portfolio): Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. For the last few minutes, or would I say the last hour I've given up my place in the debate to allow the Member from the Conservative Party of British Columbia to speak.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Look at your speaking list, Mr. Member.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I was surprised at the comments, just a little bit surprised because here's this pillar of integrity, this Conservative Member who has talked of honesty, integrity, the most self-righteous Member that this House has probably ever seen talking about voting with integrity and that he has never ever been ashamed of anything he has done.

Well, Mr. Speaker, we are speaking on the budget debate. This veryMember has voted twice with the government on past budget debates inthis House. Tell me, where was his integrity then? Tell me. Mr. Speakeris it not surprising too that in the past few minutes that we haveheard this dissertation from the Conservative Member that he has givenus the total Alberta Conservative Party line. That speech he admittedlysaid was not all his in his aside this evening. Is he not his own manany longer?

AN HON. MEMBER: No, he's a wolf. He belonged to the medical profession before that.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: …May I say, Mr. Speaker, I disagree with the Member that just took his place. I think this is a great budget. Not only that, I think this is an election budget. (Laughter).

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased that the leader of our party has just comeinto the House when I repeat I think this is an election budget. Why,I've spoken in this House to five budgets, Mr. Speaker, five budgets onbehalf of the residents and citizens of Vancouver–Little Mountain. Wehaven't always followed each budget that I have spoken to with anelection, but we could have, we could have, Mr. Speaker.

Let me tell you that's its just great to be on the Social Creditside of the House because we know, Mr. Speaker, that we could followany budget produced by the Social Credit

[ Page 352 ]

administration of this province and we would not ever have to worryabout the outcome when we take it to the people of the Province ofBritish Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Member from Oak Bay won't even eat after an election budget.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Now, I suppose that the criticism that has come from the Opposition side of the House is to be expected. It's to be expected.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Sour grapes.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: But I did think that the drama that was offered by the leader of the N.D.P. was almost comic when one considers his remarks about this government's financial policy.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where are you going?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: He cannot name one provincial administration in this country today that has a financial policy as sound, so economically sound as the Social Credit administration of this province.

Let me tell you that even includes the N.D.P. governments in Canada,the two N.D.P. governments, and let me refer you to page 27 of thisbudget, this 1972 budget, this table for the comparative provincialgovernment tax rates as of February 1972, Mr. Speaker.

The N.D.P. In Saskatchewan, the N.D.P. government takes 25 per centmore in provincial income tax, right out of the workers' pocket, Mr.Speaker. Right out of the workers' pocket. The Hon. Member fromCowichan earlier today said: "Who puts flypaper into the taxpayer'spocket?" Who, Mr. Speaker?

In Saskatchewan 25 per cent more than in British Columbia, Saskatchewan residents pay.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's N.D.P. policy.

HON MRS. McCARTHY: Let's take a look too, let's not beselfish, let's take a look too at Manitoba. Another N.D.P. government.Would you believe that they take 40 per cent more than British Columbiatakes?

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Right out of the worker's pocket. Right out of the worker's pocket. These friends of the workers. These friends of the little people. Here in British Columbia when you consult this table, Mr. Speaker, who is the lowest in Canada? Who claims the lowest in Canada?

AN HON. MEMBER: The federal government.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: …The Province of British Columbia, and, Mr. Speaker, the important thing that all of us should remember is that this government through this budget and many other budgets in this government's term in office have all been done without any increase in taxes. Without any increase in taxes.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: …I'm going to say something about that, Mr. Member, I certainly intend to. I see that we don't have the Hon. the leader of the Liberal Party in the House but he made some remarks yesterday too.

AN HON. MEMBER: He infrequently comes in.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Surely he cannot hope any of us in this House and even his own Members to believe that he can really be taken seriously when he talks about sound Liberal Federal Administration and fiscal policy. Truly not.

AN HON. MEMBER: You know, he's a real joker, that fellow.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: You know, there was a Member of this very House spoke yesterday on the radio before the Hon. the Liberal leader spoke in this House. It was broadcast all over the lower mainland just before the House opened and he was remarking about the fact that the Honourable leader of the Liberal Party would be giving his own budget speech. This is what he said, Mr. Speaker: "Pat does this every year — it has become a standing joke in Victoria when Pat McGeer gives his mock budget."

AN HON. MEMBER: Who said that?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Well, now, what do you think? Which Member in this House? Would it be an N.D.P. Member that would say a thing like that? Would it be a Social Credit Member that would say a thing like that? No indeed, Mr. Speaker, who described the Liberal Leader's mock budget as a standing joke? Why, it was the Honourable Member from North Vancouver — Seymour (Mr. Clark). Isn't that incredible? One of his own Members, if you can believe it.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's a horizontal joke.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I think that Member was very right. It is a joke to think that any Liberal Member could hope to manage the affairs of this province after the sorry record of Liberal mismanagement in years gone by in this province and the incredible financial mess we have in Ottawa today.

Mr. Speaker, anyone who watched the stunning performance of KarenMagnussen televised from the world winter Olympics in Sapporo must havebeen very proud of this young athlete from North Vancouver. You know,in — all areas of sports, British Columbia is making a very real impacton competitive meets the world over. I think our perpetual physicalfitness and amateur sports fund, which is a creation of thisgovernment's policies, is responsible for creating an aura of optimismamong our British Columbian athletes. The purpose of the fund — and I'mreally pleased to note that it is being increased this year — is not tocreate Olympic stars, Mr. Speaker, but to aid the young people of thisprovince to become involved in any number of sports activities.

I believe in this policy, but at the same time believe that we couldgo the extra mile to provide for the Karen Magnussens and the NancyGreens because they do provide inspiration for the rest who do notaspire to the Olympics. I would hope that a very special award would beconsidered by the fitness committee so that the athletes who do reachsuch a place in their career are recognised properly by the citizens ofBritish Columbia through a presentation of a special British Columbiaaward.

[ Page 353 ]

We've had many outstanding athletes — and recognition is fleeting atbest — no one could dispute Cyclone Taylor's claim to fame, forinstance, or Leslie Cliff of swimming fame. In this past year, theBritish Columbia Sports Hall of Fame opened its new quarters and thatwas made possible by $105,000 grant from this government. We do more inthis province, Mr. Speaker, for amateur sports than any province inCanada.

Now, I know of your very keen interest in the cultural fund, and mayI say that the expert distribution of the interest on this fund, thisperpetual fund, is due in no small measure to the dedication of thechairman of the fund, and may I say this hard-working committee.(Laughter).

I would like to comment just briefly on just one of the programmesmade possible by the cultural fund last year. The Shawnigan SummerSchool and International Festival. The August 14 issue of the VictoriaTimes says it all, and let me quote:

Nowhere in Canada is there a parallel opportunity for students touse vacation time to study with, and be influenced by, internationalartists of such magnitude.

Concerts given by the distinguished faculty in Victoria, atShawnigan and in Vancouver, form a rich summer harvest for the publicat economical prices.

But there is more. Anyone who spends a day with the school cannothelp but realise the future potential. Shawnigan, if the people andgovernment of British Columbia so will it, could become as famousthroughout North America as Aspen and Tanglewood in the United States,and more influential than Banff.

I cannot help but mention, too, that the cultural fund, as all theperpetual funds set up by the Social Credit of this province,distributes $750,000 annually — and this will be increased next year — without one cent of the fund going to administration costs, not onecent. These perpetual funds in themselves are revolutionary in theirconcept, unique in the world and are additionally unique in that theydo not build a bureaucracy around them to help spend the money. Noother province in Canada, Mr. Speaker, can make that claim.

I believe all Members of this House would agree with the aptdescription that has often been given to the city which I represent:"Once in a world, a city like Vancouver".

Few places in the world can match its incomparable setting ofmountains, sea, prolific growth and natural harbour. There have beenmany comments in this House in the past few days about the trafficproblems and pollution problems which we have seen destroy other NorthAmerican cities, and it is time that action is taken. And Mr. Speaker,I suggest that it is almost too late for the action but it will neverbeen any sooner to rid the downtown core, the inner city of Vancouver,of non-essential traffic.

The problems faced by large North American cities in downtown areasare those of parking and pollution. I would like to see an auto-freeinner city, with promenades, birds, bees, trees, flowers, and park-likesettings and boulevards of green.

A new transit system should help us create a new way of life inVancouver, to create a virtually automobile-free city centre whichwould be the envy of all North America, if not the world, Mr. Speaker.

What a remarkable opportunity we have to do this today in the Cityof Vancouver. Can't you see the streets and promenades? Parking areaswithin buildings could be converted into recreational people-orientedactivities for recreation or small shops to provide goods and services,or club meeting rooms or entertainment.

The inner city of Vancouver could become a community of malls joined together by an inner transit system and again the most prominent feature of our environment would be trees, flowers and promenades, not cars. Surely this is financially possible. A model city proposal should certainly attract federal funding, certainly it would attract federal funding. Isn't this the most attractive proposal for urban redevelopment that has come before the federal government?

AN HON. MEMBER: Their funds dried up years ago.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Less land paved over for streets and parking lots, less cars, less smog, less accidents. Why not give Vancouverites the choice to have an inner city with places for fun and noise and recreation as well as easily accessible Meccas of peace and tranquility? Given the choice, I think Vancouver would favour an auto-free downtown core.

Mr. Speaker, both Opposition parties talk of helping the old agepensioner and one even suggested in the address to the budget yesterdaythat this provincial government should raise the old age pensioners'monthly income to $200. Now is there anyone in this House who woulddisagree with that? I wouldn't disagree with that, no one in thisHouse, Mr. Speaker, we're all honourable men and women in this House,all Honourable Members. Nobody would argue with that, even the Liberalswho support a Liberal administration in Ottawa who very benevolentlygave 42 cents to these same people.

But what kind of fuzzy-wuzzy thinking is there over there that wouldhave every senior citizen in Canada flocking to British Columbia forthe highest monthly allowance in Canada, what kind of fuzzy-wuzzythinking is it? Surely, the Opposition is trying to hoodwink the agedof this province. It's less than honest to hold a carrot out to seniorcitizens when they know that cannot be done. That cannot be donewithout a national policy, Mr. Speaker, and they know that and theywant to hoodwink the aged of the province.

Unless all provincial governments in this country have the samepolicy, you know that it is an absolute incredible hoax on the aged ofthis province to claim anything else.

Who has been, and who is this very day, in this Province of BritishColumbia and in this country of Canada, who has been the most effectivespokesman for guaranteed annual income, to help the old age pensionershave a decent living way?

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, who has been the most effective spokesman in this country for the guaranteed annual wage? The Premier of this province.

Who was the first at a premiers' conference, at a federal-provincialconference, to suggest that the federal government of this countryshould bring in a guaranteed annual income? The Premier of our province.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, who is committed to carrying forth across Canada to Ottawa, to the federal administration, a pledge and an on-going commitment for a guaranteed annual income, not just for British Columbia, but for the people of Nova Scotia, for the poor of Alberta, for those in Newfoundland, Quebec, Ontario? Why should we

[ Page 354 ]

want to keep just that for ourselves, Mr. Speaker?

AN HON. MEMBER: What about Manitoba and Saskatchewan?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Who needs it more, Mr. Speaker? The Premier of British Columbia is the man and the government that is committed to a guaranteed annual income for all Canadians.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I'm really happy to see some relief given to thosepeople on fixed income who are trying to hold on to their family home.The policy of giving an added $50 in addition to the $185 annualhome-owner grant is one which again, Mr. Speaker, is done without anyincrease in taxes. There is no government in Canada can do or has donewhat this Social Credit government has done and what is enunciated inthe budget of 1972.

It is only possible to have such a programme of progress for thepeople of our province for two reasons: We are not paying like allother governments annual interest charges and in the past 20 years wehave lived within balanced budgets and removed the direct debt to thetaxpayer.

And I say to you this budget is great, it could be an electionbudget and it is the most beneficial budget for people that will bepresented in the whole of Canada this year by any provincial government.

In spite of the fact that federal taxes keep increasing and hittingthe people who can least afford it — those people in the middle incomegroups — the provincial government budget of 1972 embodies all thesenew programmes and an increase in each programme for people.

Now just take environmental protection, Mr. Speaker. A $10 millionaccelerated parks development programme without an increase in taxes. A$25 million green belt protection fund without an increase in taxes. A$10 million reforestation fund without the taxpayer carrying anyfurther burden, Mr. Speaker. A $10 million power line beautificationfund to place power lines underground — no increase in taxes, Mr.Speaker. A rapid transit subsidisation programme to help reduce trafficcongestion and pollution. All of these programmes to protect ourenvironment without an increase in taxes.

And in health services, let's take a look at health services. Healthservices will be increased by almost $50 million without an increase intaxes. Hospital services increased by another $25 million, without anincrease in taxes. Medical services plan, covering almost all of ourcitizens — certainly 98 per cent — with medical coverage is now aremarkable $85 million budget without an increase in taxes, Mr. Speaker.

Let's look at education. Fifteen and a half million dollars more foruniversities and colleges, $16 million more in grants for schooldistricts, the total education budget in 1972 is now a record $448million and represents 30.9 per cent of the total budget — the highestin history — almost 31 cents of every tax $1, without an increase intaxes, my friend.

Let us look at the housing programme. Nowhere in this country doeseach home-owner receive $170 annually and now $185 annually, nowhere inthis country — 84,000 families, Mr. Speaker, have received under theoutright grants or low interest second mortgage programme through ourhome assistance plan and may I say that it is only in this Province ofBritish Columbia and only because of the policies of this Social Creditadministration that a family living on a low or moderate income canhave the opportunities for home ownership without an increase in taxes.

What a contrast in this budget of the Social Credit government toany that have been offered to the Canadian people by the Liberaladministration in Ottawa. But, the moment of truth is near, Mr.Speaker. No longer will the whole community, the unemployed, industry,job-providers, home-owners, housewives, consumers be kept in a nervousstate of uncertainty — for the Ottawa Liberals, I understand, intend tohave an election this year.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Member, don't you accuse me of ever having anybody else write my speech. I not only write them….

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you read them? (Laughter).

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I'll deliver my own, thank you, and I won't ask you for any help.

No longer will the Canadian people then, with the federal electionin the offing have to hear statements from the Liberal government thateverything is going well in Canada. Let me just refer to you a few ofthe statements that have been made.

Why it was just in 1971, January 20, just over a year ago when the Finance Minister in Ottawa….

AN HON. MEMBER: He used to be.

HON.MRS. McCARTHY: He used to be Finance Minister, he said, and I quote:

"I am firmly convinced that as a result of strongfiscal and monetary stimulus progressively injected into the economyduring the course of the past 10 months the stage has been set for asubstantial improvement in production, employment, and real income."

and then he went on to say that

"prosperity is just around the corner. Inflation has been successfully brought under control."

he said. That was on January 20, 1971. Then on January 22, the day following Labour Minister Brice Mackasey….

AN HON. MEMBER: Where is he?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: He was another one that got sort of shook about. But he said this to the C.B.C. TV. programme "Encounter", in a cross-Canada television interview:

"Canada has turned the corner in the fight against both inflation and unemployment."

He said he was certain the trend toward full employment would become obvious in April.

Well that was in January, 1971 — January 22. Then in May, 1971 noless than the Prime Minister of Canada made a statement about thepolicy of the Liberal government.

The federal government deliberately created some unemployment tosave more jobs jeopardised by inflation, Prime Minister Pierre ElliotTrudeau admitted Monday night. "We accept the blame. I'm not trying topass the buck".

That was in May, 1971 and then of course the people who had beentold that things were looking brighter and things were looking up readto their dismay on October 14, 1971 that the jobless toll was the worstin 10 years.

Then tonight, Mr. Speaker, we've heard, too, from several

[ Page 355 ]

Members in this House and certainly to the concern of all of us — "Tuesday, February 8, 1972, unemployment soars 25 per cent in onemonth". It is a sad or comic picture, Mr. Speaker, depending on yoursense of humour. The federal Liberals have succeeded in the destructionof the government of Canada's economic credibility.

In concluding my remarks to this budget, Mr. Speaker, may I say thatI am proud, very proud as are all Members on both sides of the SocialCredit side of the House that this British Columbia budget is a budgetfor people, for people who need help in health and hospital care, forpeople who need opportunity for housing, for people who recognise thatwe must protect our environment. If it is an election budget, Mr.Speaker, the Social Credit Members on both sides of this House areready.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Richmond.

MR. E.A. LeCOURS (Richmond): Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy thespeeches of the good Member, the Hon. Lady Member who preceeded me. ButI can assure you that I'll be looking at the budget through a differenttype of glasses than the good Member has. However, I do have a coupleof good things to say and I'll get them off first. To get them out ofthe way.

I would like first of all to thank the Hon. the Minister of Health….

SOME HON. MEMBERS: There he goes, there he goes.

MR. LeCOURS: …I would like first of all to thank theHon. the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Loffmark) to whom I referred aproblem approximately two weeks ago, less than two weeks ago, and I washappy to have a call at the weekend telling me the problem had beensatisfactorily solved.

In view of the fact that this involved a lady who has suffered agreat deal at the hands of officialdom in the past I am doubly thankfulthat her problems here have been solved so quickly.

I would also like to thank the Hon. the Minister of Lands andForests (Hon. Mr. Williston) for arranging for a right-of-way hearingin Richmond. I know the people of Richmond are very much concernedabout this right-of-way. I'm hoping that they may find their way,through the new provision in the budget, to completely solve thisright-of-way problem which has been bothering a good number of peopleas it concerns the nature park which is ready to be desecrated by anugly power line.

We have throughout the throne speech debate heard many views fromboth sides of the House, Mr. Speaker. I think we can say they have beensincere views of sincere concerns and I give credit for all Members forcoming here with sincere concern of one type or another and bringingtheir points before the Members of this House as they should do. ThatI'm happy about.

I'm especially happy about their remarks of my two friends on theright who happen to be absent at the present time, the Hon. the Memberfor Langley (Mr. Vogel) and the Hon. the first Member for VancouverCentre (Mr. Capozzi). I will be dealing with those topics at a laterdate but I certainly endorse — and I had planned on speaking on it lastyear and will speak on it this year — the Hon. Member for Langley'sviewpoint with respect to a third crossing between Vancouver and theNorth Shore.

I think the most logical approach — and I endorse the Hon. first Member for Vancouver Centre — with respect to the B.C. Building in downtown Vancouver, of all places with room for 5,000 people and 600 parking spaces, which doesn't make much sense to me.

Richmond would not be suitable, but there are other suitable areasin Vancouver. In the area of the present city hall, for example, whereyou could devote an entire block for parking and have an adequatebuilding quite easily. I endorse also his proposition with respect toShaughnessy Hospital. I think it would be a very helpful tool insolving some of the medical problems which are solved through theuniversity and give them an opportunity to have a wider range ofpatients to deal with.

I must say though in looking at the budget that this budget, asevery other budget that's been presented in the past 20 years, has hadsome spectacular aspects to it. It always looks like an electionbudget. No matter what year you have it, it always looks like anelection budget and I know that in this budget, of course, there aremany good things as well and I'll be talking about them.

I expect to talk on the estimates of almost every Minister of thecabinet so prepare yourselves for a long stay, my friends. It's athreat, and I have lots of time and I refuse to be rushed. I'm here toserve the people.

So as I say, and I said this during the throne speech debate, whenexamined in terms of what happens in other jurisdictions we are mostfortunate to have the type of leadership we have. To have the type ofMinister of Finance we have, we're most fortunate. Everyone willrecognise that.

However, if we look, for example, at what happened in NorthernIreland a short 10 days ago — August 7 — the so-called police riot inGastown seems a rather trivial affair, a Sunday school picnic, perhaps,in comparison.

True, if we compare what is going on in Vietnam with whatall-too-often happens to some of our native Indians, well we would haveto say that our native Indians are quite well off in term of what'shappening to the Vietnamese. If we compare our poor with the poor ofIndia or China our poor are affluent people. But that's not enough.It's not enough to say — well, there's only about 20 per cent of ourpeople who are poor. That's not enough, that's not good enough.

There's no reason — and I'll defy anyone to tell me one singlereason — why we should have poverty in a country which produces as muchas China produces for over 700 million people. Certainly we have a lotto be thankful for. We have the ability and we have the industrialcapacity to produce a great deal.

AN HON. MEMBER: Blessed are the poor.

MR. LeCOURS: The Lord meant "poor in spirit." Even if thenumber of unemployed goes down one or two percentage points in a periodit's no less tragic for those who are unemployed. No less tragic. Evenif the number of poor we have in the country is now much less than whatwe had during the hungry thirties it's no more acceptable to those whoare poor than it was then. They are here with us. We know it. No mannerof trying to hide the fact will be successful because we see them everyday. We've got to do something about it, Mr. Speaker.

Now, I know that in the past when I've tried to develop someeconomic theories to demonstrate why we have poverty and why we haveunemployment I haven't met with much success. I haven't made much of animpression on Members on either side of the House. As a matter of fact,I have tried

[ Page 356 ]

for three years to impress members of the Press that poverty andunemployment were unnecessary. They have chosen to ignore my arguments.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. LeCOURS: I thought they were here as reporters, not ascensors. Whether they agree with me or not shouldn't enter into thequestion. They should be here to report what I say, whether what I saymakes sense or doesn't make sense. (Laughter). I think it does makesense and I challenge anyone either in the House or outside the House,economists or others, to debate the issues with me and I extend thatchallenge right across the country. I have spoken to economists, I havespoken to university professors, and I've spoken to a good many peopleover the last 38 years and a great many have been impressed with mylogic if not my knowledge of economics.

Logic is what we need, I think, Mr. Speaker, in approaching thematter of the cause of poverty and anyone who looks at the wealth ofthis country and says we have to have poverty has something wrong withhis head.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. LeCOURS: Of course I haven't made much of an impressionon the Liberals and Conservatives and that's understandable, Mr.Speaker, because they have a 105-year record of not only tolerating itbut promoting it, so you can't expect much from them. They've beenpromoting poverty and they've been promoting unemployment ever sincethey've been in power in Ottawa and they've been the only ones there,so how can anyone possibly charge them in the hope that anything bettercan be expected?

Just the other day the leader of the Progressive Conservative Partywas in town. Again he was on a hot-line and he was asked: "Well, howabout all that unemployment in the late 50's and early 60's?" Oh, wellno one could do anything about that. That was the answer of the leaderof the Conservatives. That poverty extended all over the world. I saywhat a lot of bunk, what a lot of bunk. Poverty can be eliminated inany country that wants to eliminate it. Any country.

AN HON. MEMBER: Sure, Hitler did it.

MR. LeCOURS: So did Mussolini.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's right.

MR. LeCOURS: But I don't want to do it that way. They can doit peacefully, they can do it logically, and they can do itsuccessfully. As long as there's work to be done, and as long as thereare people who want to work, the idea of having people sitting anddoing nothing, and going hungry is absolutely ludicrous.

The N.D.P., I believe, are well-motivated but unfortunately theyhaven't a clue as to what they should do. I've challenged them, I'vebeen on the same platform with them. They don't know a thing aboutsolving the problem of unemployment or poverty, not a thing. All theycan do is say, "give people a lot more and tax them a lot less", andthat's about as stupid an approach as you can ever come to. That'stheir approach.

Look back at their platform in the 1966 provincial election andyou'll see that their suggestions are not worthy of consideration.

That's as far as we can go. Unfortunately there's another group thatI have problems with. The Social Credit group, and there's a reason forthat, Mr. Speaker. There are too few Social Crediters sitting in theSocial Credit benches.

AN HON. MEMBER: Name them, name them!

MR. LeCOURS: It would be a lot easier to name those who are Social Crediters.

AN HON. MEMBER: Name them, name them!

MR. LeCOURS: One hand would cover it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Name them, name them!

MR. LeCOURS: I'll do that for you in caucus if you really want it.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Name them now, name the Social Crediters.

MR. LeCOURS: Mr. Speaker, I well remember my good old friend….

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't paint us all with the same brush.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. LeCOURS: I'm not naming anyone so you might as well save your breath.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. LeCOURS: I well remember, Mr. Speaker, my good friend,one of the former Speakers of this House the late Tom Irwin, who wroteme once and said: "The trouble is, Ernie, we have a Social Creditgovernment, but we haven't government by Social Crediters", and I'llagree with Tom Irwin.

While we have a good budget, as I said, in comparison to otherprovinces it's the same comparisons I drew between Vietnam and ourIndians, between Ireland and our Gastown.

I want a Social Credit budget. I joined Social Credit in late 1934because I could see that there was something wrong with the financialsystem. I could see people going hungry in the midst of plenty.

My friend here, who knows a good deal about it, just whispered"that's federal." But I say we can do something on a provincial basis.We can do something. We can't go all the way, but we can show the way.Then others can go farther. I want to refer to just two or three thingswith respect to the budget.

Rather than give $50 extra home-owner grant to those over 65, Iwould like to see the monthly pension increased on a need basis to $200or more — on a need basis. As it is now we're going to give an extra$50 to H.R. MacMillan and people like that who I'm sure could dowithout it. And I say that that money would be much better spent — andthe federal government we know would pay half of the increase — and wecould give these people a minimum of $200 a month and $250 preferably.That would mean that those

[ Page 357 ]

who are renting quarters and sometimes paying considerably for themwould have some help towards their rent and they could afford to eatlike human beings. What we're doing now is….

AN HON. MEMBER: Could you do it?

MR. LeCOURS: Of course we could do it. If we couldn't do it I wouldn't suggest it.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're right.

MR. LeCOURS: Well I've told my friend I've agreed with what he said…and I agree with what he said and I'm just enlarging on it a bit.

There's one other thing we could do, Mr. Speaker, and I think weshould do. We should give a $2,500 across-the-board tax exemption onincome, income tax on the provincial share and then go after thefederal government to do likewise. No one can live for less than $2,500a year. Wives even got $2,500 tax free.

If you can't live for less than that why isn't it tax free? Isn'tthat common sense? And if the federal government refuses to do it let'sshame them into doing it. Let's cut ours back to $2,500 and then gofrom there.

Let's add a bit to the top, let's take a bit more from the fellowwho's making $30,000 or $40,000 a year to make up for it. It's a simpleprocess, it won't hurt them.

The fellow who's earning $40,000 and $50,000 and $60,000 and $100,000 can afford to give a few more bucks. It won't hurt him.

One more thing, and I've said this as well during the throne speechdebate, and that is that as long as people are going to be allowed tomake $7 and $8 and more per hour then we must have a higher minimumwage. I said then 60 per cent of the maximum wage. Maybe that was a bithigh, but certainly our minimum wage should not be less than $3 anhour, not less than $3 an hour in terms of what they're getting up atthe top bracket.

You've got to either keep it on an even keel, keep it equitable orregulate everyone — that is what I recommended earlier, regulate allprices, all profits, interest rates, wages, the works and make this ajust society if people are too greedy to make their own just society.

We have a responsibility — we're a responsible government, let's accept our responsibility.

Now one other thing with respect to the budget. There's a mention ofborrowing $500 million, at least authorising the borrowing of a further$500 million by the B.C. Hydro. Mr. Speaker, in my opinion this iscompletely unnecessary. Completely unnecessary. Because we're going topay anything from 7 to 8 to 9 per cent interest on it, and we canborrow from ourselves interest free. How? It's a simple matter.

The B.C. Hydro can issue its own credit slips. If you go to workwith Simpson-Sears, or Eatons or the The Bay, or any of those storesthey can give you a credit slip which you can then come into the storeand cash for merchandise. Absolutely legal. You can go into the storeand cash your credit slip for merchandise.

It's just as legal for the B.C. Hydro to spend, let's say $50million a year, perhaps more. The revenue is $270 million — some, Ibelieve the Member said this afternoon. They're going to have thatincome every year. There's no reason why they shouldn't issue credit tothe tune of $100 million a year.

Because they would get them all back by way of rates, gas andelectric rates. They'd get them back and all they would have to do withthem is tear them up and throw them in the furnace and forget aboutthem. They've done the job that money wouldn't do without paying onepenny of interest. It's Social Credit and I'll assure you that it willwork.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. LeCOURS: I beg your pardon? I believe in it, that's whatcounts. And I challenge the government, and I challenge the B.C. Hydroto show us why it will not work satisfactorily, why they do not havethe same authority as any store has to issue a credit slip providingthey are prepared to accept it in lieu of cash in payment for theservices which they offer the public. And that's all that's required.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. LeCOURS: It's exchangeable. We're talking about BritishColumbia. You know, Mr. Speaker, if a person wants to be blind it'seasy to be blind, and my friend over here is sometimes blind. But hetoo can learn if he studies a bit.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. LeCOURS: It's bad when you're both though. Now that's an awful way for you and I to finish up after the nice things I said about you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Will the Honourable Member please address the Chair?

MR. LeCOURS: I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. LeCOURS: Well, we just have to have a little aside once in a while, just to liven things up.

To get back to the serious discussion of the budget I think theMembers will agree that there are some Members of the cabinet who havea tendency to moralise from time to time. And I'd like to say, Mr.Speaker, that if you want to moralise the first thing you must have ischarity.

I'm not too hot at Bible quotations, but I do know that I read nottoo long ago, the Bible tells us something that goes along these lines— that we may have many virtues but if we lack charity we are but likesounding brass and tinkling cymbals. I think that's how it goes,something like that. The Members know what I mean in any case, theyunderstand what I mean. And I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if Christ were aMember of this cabinet….

AN HON. MEMBER: He is. He's sitting right there. (Laughter).

MR. LeCOURS: I wonder if he'd be more concerned aboutadvertising liquor and tobacco or whether he'd be more concerned aboutthe poor we have with us. His example, I think, would show that he wasmore concerned about the poor people. As a matter of fact, he providedthe wine for the wedding. So I think his concern would not be with thefilthy advertising of booze and tobacco. A law which has made us alaughing stock right across the continent of North America. Made of usthe laughing stock.

[ Page 358 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: You voted for that Act. What are you laughing for?

MR. LeCOURS: And not only the laughing stock, it has deprived….

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. LeCOURS: I'm sorry. I apologise to the Speaker. We'll drop that right there.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. LeCOURS: I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if he'd be more concernedabout the topless bottomless girls or about the old people who areliving in hovels? The hundreds of old people who are living in hovels.Incidently when the Attorney General first mentioned that question oftopless bottomless girls I thought I'd better do some research on thatproblem

AN HON, MEMBER: What did you find out, what did you find out?

MR. LeCOURS: Incidentally, my wife is in the gallery so itwas a family-approved project. (Laughter). I visited some of the clubs,three of them as a matter of fact in one evening.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh! At your age you better be careful.

MR LeCOURS: I must say, Mr. Speaker, I wasn't impressed with the figures I saw. But neither was I shocked.

AN HON. MEMBER: That isn't what he told me. (Laughter).

MR. LeCOURS: Neither was I shocked Mr. Speaker, because I think….

AN HON. MEMBER: Get any pictures?

MR. LeCOURS: No, I left that for other people that followed me.

MR. SPEAKER: Could we please have some order and allow the Honourable Member to complete his speech?

MR. LeCOURS: As a matter of fact I always like to let myimagination go a bit wild and when you keep it covered, when it'scovered up, you can shape it to your own thinking.

Interjections byHon. Members.

MR. LeCOURS: Mr. Speaker, so I repeat let the Members of thecabinet moralise if they will, but let them take off their blinkers andnot worry about what the girls take off. Let the Members of the cabinetexamine their conscience — and I trust they all have one — anddetermine whether or not they are practicing or simply talking theGolden Rule. I think every Member of this House, including the ladyMembers would enjoy seeing a beautiful female figure walk through thischamber.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: Go, Honourable Members, go, go, go!

MR. LeCOURS: Mr. Premier, you missed the show. (Laughter).

AN HON. MEMBER: Too late, too late. Rerun, rerun.

MR. LeCOURS: I want to be off my feet by 11 o'clock but Iwon't do it the way we're going. But I want to get back, Mr. Speaker, Iwant to get back to my remarks and they were made seriously. There isno reason at all why the Members should not concern themselves morewith their observation of the Golden Rule than some of the things thatthey have taken upon themselves to try and determine for other people.

I think it is up to the point now where some of our young people areworried. As a matter of fact, when I spoke at a school last fall and Iwas asked about this law on banning the advertising of liquor andtobacco, one of the students put his hand up and I asked him what hewanted and he said: "Is the reason for this banning due to thePremier's puritanical viewpoint on life?" I said: "It could be verywell be, because he doesn't use tobacco or liquor." Someone else puthis hand up and says: "Does the Premier have any children?" And Iassured him he did and that seemed to satisfy him. But I think peopleare worried about moralising. I think they are worried.

Now I want to get back to talking about the poor people. There was,a time, Mr. Speaker, when one couldn't plead on behalf of the poorwithout getting some kind of a label tacked upon him — usually aleft-wing label of some kind — because it is easier to tack a label ona person than to solve a problem.

That's some people's way out when they get caught by the short hairthen they pin the label on the other fellow to try and get out of thejam they are in. They scoff at that which they do not understand orthey scoff at things which they are unable to answer otherwise.

I still remember and I am very happy to have known the first greatleader of Social Credit in Canada, the late William Aberhart. I know hehad his faults as we all have but I still regard him, Mr. Speaker, as agreat Christian, one who was really concerned about poor people, onewho made every possible effort to help the poor.

His efforts were disallowed by Ottawa, unfortunately, but he madethe effort and he lacked the ability to do some of the things that hecould have done but nevertheless his intentions were sincere and he didwhat he thought was right in trying to solve the problem and he camealong at the right time.

I'd like to make it quite clear, Mr. Speaker, that I'm not blamingthis government for causing unemployment. Not at all, we know that thecause lies in Ottawa. They are the ones who have admitted deliberatelycausing unemployment and deliberately causing poverty and they havetold us they were going to do it because they claimed that's the onlyway they can stop inflation. Which is absolute stupidity because youcan stop inflation by putting price controls on and they know that aswell as you and I. But they have failed to do it, nevertheless.

Last year I asked a number of questions of the Members of this Housedirected particularly at the cabinet. I asked: "Do you believe thatpoverty is necessary? Do you believe

[ Page 359 ]

that unemployment is necessary? Do you believe that these things are desirable?"

No one stood up. I would take it then that no one thought that theseevils were necessary nor should we tolerate them. And I again challengethem now. Is there a member of this government, of the cabinet, whobelieves that poverty and unemployment are necessary in such a greatland as Canada? "No way" is the answer I have and I'm sure that allMembers of the cabinet will subscribe to that.

I'll be challenging the Members one by one in the same fashion whenthey come up with their estimates to make sure that I haven't missedanyone — to make sure they all have an opportunity to answer thequestions. And I say this, Mr. Speaker, if they agree that neitherpoverty nor unemployment are necessary what the heck are they doingabout eliminating them? What are you doing about eliminating them?

The headline in tonight's paper is "Unemployment Up 25 Per Cent InThe Past Month". That's in Canada, no doubt. But I'm sure it is up inB.C. as well. So, if it's up, what are we doing about it?

Now we can forget two so-called plans that have been brought in bytwo of the Ministers in the past few months because statistics showthat they haven't solved anything. Statistics show that unemploymentrates have gone up — they haven't gone down. So these plans have beenfailures. They may have put some people to work but they haven't solvedthe real problem. So let's not be concerned about them.

And I again ask the Premier as I asked, I think, last year — andwe'll see how sincere our friends over there are — to keep all theMembers of this House after the session ends for a week or two weeks oras necessary to discuss fully at our own expense the reasons forunemployment, the reasons for poverty and come up with something — acommittee of the whole House. And I call upon the Premier to do that.

We have time to spend on behalf of the people. Let's spend a week ortwo to thrash out the entire matter of poverty and come up with someanswers. When we have those answers then we can be proud, we can say weare really a responsible government doing our job for the people whosent us here to be responsible.

I'd like to see Members from both sides of the House unite in doingthis and I'm satisfied that the Members will. Those who do not want totake part in it, because I presume there are some who are not concernedabout poverty — those who do not want to stay — will be free to go homeafter the session is over but those who want to will stay behind andtackle the problem and tackle it properly.

Let's forget about the phony Senate committee on poverty whichsolves nothing unless you read the minority report which hits on someof the problems. Let's tackle it right here. Let's not depend on theSenate committee, let's us tackle it. We have intelligence, at least Ihope we have intelligence. Or are we going to admit that we're toostupid? I would not admit it — I think we can come to grips with theissue. I think we can find the causes of poverty and I think we caneliminate those causes.

Let's stop playing games with human suffering. Let's do something.And when we come up with some answers then we can tell Ottawa: "Hereare the answers we have come up with. You can solve the problem for allof Canada by implementing these solutions." And if Ottawa refuses toaccept our guidance in that respect after we have all come to somelogical conclusions, I say let's get out and do it ourselves. We can dothat, too.

Hon. Mr. Skillings moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Bennett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:05 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1972, 2001, 2013: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada

Hansard — Tuesday, February 8, 1972 — Afternoon Sitting (2024)

References

Top Articles
Latest Posts
Article information

Author: Tish Haag

Last Updated:

Views: 6834

Rating: 4.7 / 5 (67 voted)

Reviews: 90% of readers found this page helpful

Author information

Name: Tish Haag

Birthday: 1999-11-18

Address: 30256 Tara Expressway, Kutchburgh, VT 92892-0078

Phone: +4215847628708

Job: Internal Consulting Engineer

Hobby: Roller skating, Roller skating, Kayaking, Flying, Graffiti, Ghost hunting, scrapbook

Introduction: My name is Tish Haag, I am a excited, delightful, curious, beautiful, agreeable, enchanting, fancy person who loves writing and wants to share my knowledge and understanding with you.