1974 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 1974

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

205 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Administration of Justice Act (Bill 2). Hon. Mr. Macdonald.

Introduction and first reading — 205

Bonded Businesses Act (Bill 27). Mr. Wallace.

Introduction and first reading — 205

Senior Citizens Home Repair Assistance Act (Bill 28).

Mrs. Jordan.

Introduction and first reading — 205

Training on the Job Act (Bill 29). Mrs. Jordan.

Introduction and first reading — 205

Occupiers' Liability Act (Bill 4). Hon. Mr. Macdonald.

Introduction and first reading — 205

Frustrated Contracts Act (Bill 5). Hon. Mr. Macdonald.

Introduction and first reading — 205

Oral questions

Closed-door discussions on Vancouver public transit.

Mr. Bennett — 205

Government policy on single department for transportation.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 206

Sooke Road flooding. Mr. Wallace — 206

Autoplan applications. Mr. Curtis — 206

Possibility of 15 days free auto insurance.

Mr. Morrison — 207

Possible prosecution of insurance companies.

Mr. Gardom — 209

Budget debate (continued)

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 209

Mr. Fraser — 215

Mr. Nunweiler — 223

Mr. Curtis — 227

Ms. Sanford — 234

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 1974

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, in

the galleries today we have a group of students from Nanaimo Senior

Secondary High School. I'd like to ask the House to join with me in

welcoming them, and sending them away with an impression of the House

that will make them want to come back again some day in the future.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Speaker, today is the

traditional day of love and quivering arrows. I see I've been so

favoured with love and quivering arrows from the Premier, and I'd like

to thank him very much. I would note that the card is signed, "Davey

Baby" and not "Robin Hood," so I trust this augurs well for the Member

for North Okanagan.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I'd like the House

to welcome a class of grade 11 students from Oak Bay Senior Secondary

School with their teacher, Mr. Don Taylor.

Introduction of bills.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE ACT

Hon. Mr. Macdonald presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Administration of Justice Act .

Bill 2 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House

after today.

BONDED BUSINESSES ACT

On a motion by Mr. Wallace, Bill 27, Bonded Businesses Act ,

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the

day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

SENIOR CITIZENS HOME REPAIR

ASSISTANCE ACT

On a motion by Mrs. Jordan, Bill 28, Senior Citizens Home Repair Assistance Act ,

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the

day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

TRAINING ON THE JOB ACT

On a motion by Mrs. Jordan, Bill 29, Training on the Job Act ,

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the

day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

OCCUPIERS' LIABILITY ACT

Hon. Mr. Macdonald presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Occupiers' Liability Act .

Bill 4 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House

after today.

FRUSTRATED CONTRACTS ACT

Hon. Mr. Macdonald presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Frustrated Contracts Act .

Bill 5 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House

after today.

Oral questions.

CLOSED-DOOR DISCUSSIONS

ON VANCOUVER PUBLIC TRANSIT

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I

would like to direct my question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs

in regard to public transit in the greater Vancouver area. Would this

Minister advise the House if it is government policy not to hold these

discussions in public? And would he advise the House what purpose these

closed-door discussions would serve?

HON. J.G. LORIMER (Minister of Municipal Affairs): There will

be public hearings, of course, in regard to the transit. The question

of the closed-door meetings, of course, is involving areas in which

acquisition of lands will be discussed. They will have to be

closed-door meetings.

MR. BENNETT: A supplemental, Mr. Speaker. If there are closed

meetings with publicly elected officials, how do you propose to keep

them secret? Is there an oath of secrecy involved?

HON. MR. LORIMER: No, I just hope that I can trust the

elected people who also have closed meetings when they're dealing with

this sort of subject in their own council chambers.

[ Page 206 ]

GOVERNMENT POLICY ON SINGLE

DEPARTMENT FOR TRANSPORTATION

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): I have a question to the

Minister of Finance as to whether the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr.

Lea) is expressing government policy when he advocated a single

department of transportation responsible for highways, ferries, urban

public transport, rail and commercial transportation.

MR. SPEAKER: Is this a statement on your own authority?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: No, Mr. Speaker, it is a statement made outside the House by the Minister of Highways. I ask whether it's government policy.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier and Minister of Finance): We don't

check on every Minister's statement. He's entitled to his opinion. This

is a different government than the previous one.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I am in no way critical of the Minister's proposal, which I feel is a good one.

May I ask further, then, whether there were any management studies

commissioned and undertaken to evaluate the cost increases and

efficiency decreases of cabinet expansion over the last 18 months?

HON. MR. BARRETT: There's really nothing to compare our

slight increase with. If we do it in relative terms with Ottawa, we are

so far behind it is impossible to compare.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Do you admit that it has decreased in efficiency?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, I don't know. Why don't you...?

SOOKE ROAD FLOODING

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the Minister of

Highways a question with regard to the serious flooding on the Sooke

Road area? Could he tell us what longer-term plans there are to relieve

this serious situation, and to what degree there is a real health

hazard? I understand that more than one homeowner has been advised to

leave his home because of the danger from contamination of septic

tanks. Would the Minister care to give a statement in answer to these

questions?

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): Mr. Speaker, it's not under my jurisdiction.

MR. WALLACE: A supplemental question. Could I then try and

get this defined? This homeowner in particular has contacted three

separate departments of this government and has just been given that

useless answer, that "it's nobody's responsibility." Now I think it's

about time one Minister took the responsibility for what has happened

on Sooke Road. I would like some Minister to stand up and explain who

is responsible.

AUTOPLAN APPLICATIONS

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, to

the Minister of Transport and Communications. Could the Minister

confirm that out of the expected 1.3 million automobile insurance

applications to be processed, approximately 450,000 have been processed

thus far? That figure comes from perhaps Monday or Tuesday of this week.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications):

Monday or Tuesday of this week? I think you've been misinformed. I had

a meeting yesterday with the manager of the Insurance Corporation, and

the figure I was given was between 600,000 and 700,000 in the works

right now.

MR. CURTIS: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. That still represents

something approximately half, or just under half, of the total expected

premiums. The Minister, I assume, realizes there are 13 working days

left in February.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes. Again your figures, Mr. Member, are

not quite correct. There are 1,000,000 passenger vehicles in the

province; there are approximately 6,000 people to handle this job. I'm

quite confident that people will come in and they will be handled.

I've spoken to a number of the agents and they're quite prepared to

handle the crowds as they come in. I've already had discussions with

the Motor Vehicle Branch with regard to staying open on Saturdays, and

so on.

I'm quite confident that with that number of people able to.... And

I've timed it myself — it takes about four minutes to fill out the

standard form; it takes about six minutes for the APV-9. You can work

it out anyway mathematically. But, as you say, there are still 13

working days. But it will be more than that as they will stay open

later. As far as I'm concerned, I would simply ask from the Members of

this House....

Interjections.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order, order.

[ Page 207 ]

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): If you were over here you'd tell the people not to buy insurance until the last day.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Members of this House to help the ICBC get the people in.

MR. PHILLIPS: So should you.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That's all I'm asking.

POSSIBILITY OF 15 DAYS

FREE AUTO INSURANCE

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): I'd like to address my question

to the Minister of Transport and Communications. In this morning's

Province and widely throughout the province through the other media,

ICBC has announced that there will be approximately 2,500 motorists who

will receive free auto insurance for the last 15 days of this month.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MORRISON: I'd like to ask how they propose to handle it.

Why was it necessary? I'd like to find out what happens to those people

who have been looked after. Can they ask for a rebate also — for 15

days free insurance?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I haven't seen the story you're referring

to, but I do know it was looked at. I want the Members to remember the

problem that many individuals have had for more than six months in

attempting to obtain interim insurance from the private insurance

companies....

MR. PHILLIPS: Who created that problem?

AN HON. MEMBER: Whose problem was it?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The company who promised....

AN HON. MEMBER: Will there be a refund?

AN HON. MEMBER: You can't blame us. (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: Will there be refunds? Yes or no.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The companies who promised co-operation

during the transition period.... I want you to remember the charges

that were levelled against the individual by the private companies for

that rate. We examined the situation and in this last two-week period

it was decided that rather than go through a procedure of charges which

would have cost as much as the fee would have been, this was the most

expeditious way of handling it. I would remind you also....

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It's not ad hockery. I want to remind you that....

AN HON. MEMBER: Mockery ad hockery.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I hear all sorts of statements about ICBC,

but you don't want to listen to what the situation is. There are people

who don't want this system to work.

AN HON. MEMBER: Whatever gave you that idea?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Because now, okay, I'm trying....

MR. SPEAKER: I would ask the Minister to confine himself to an answer.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'm trying to answer the question.

MR. PHILLIPS: I don't think you want it to work the way you keep putting us off.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. MORRISON: Come on, sit down. I've got another question to ask.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The accusation was that it was ad hockery.

I want to tell you it's a continuation of the system that was started

last August because the fire insurance companies refused to continue to

support their own system of exchange. We have to move in and support

the exchange.

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: This is simply a continuation of our operations within the insurance

[ Page 208 ]

field which we had to pick up because of the

failure of the private insurance companies who have let the people of

this province down, and down badly.

MR. MORRISON: I have a supplemental to that. I'd like to know

exactly what happens, then, if an individual has an accident between

now and March 1 and has no insurance. Now, does that mean that ICBC

will pay the damage and the claim and any liability that might be part

of it if that man is on the road in the next two weeks with no

insurance? Is that exactly what you mean?

AN HON. MEMBER: Free coverage.

MR. MORRISON: No?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Now, my understanding of the situation is:

he goes into an agent and he gets an interim certificate which

indicates he's carrying insurance for that period.

MR. MORRISON: For free.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, that's right. That's right.

MR. MORRISON: He gets that for free.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: So he has insurance; he's covered. But if you want some more information....

AN HON. MEMBER: We do.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: You people are supposed to read orders-in-council and don't!

I haven't heard a word about the order-in-council, which was passed

months ago and which meant we had to invoke I think it was

section 109

of the Motor-vehicle Act

because the private insurance companies, after having collected 3.5 per

cent of the premiums up until the end of February, walked away from the

whole traffic indemnity fund, absconded with the money, and because we

had to invoke that section....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: Lay a charge. Lay a charge.

AN HON. MEMBER: Be careful what you're saying.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

AN HON. MEMBER: You're in trouble now. You're in trouble right now.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

HON. MR. STRACHAN: They charged the people 3.5 per cent on

their premiums. They walked away from the traffic victims indemnity

fund. We brought in that

section of the Motor-vehicles Act passed under the previous administration and we're happy to take it out of this year's 1973-74 licence fees.

MR. MORRISON: Would you repeat that outside the House?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'm reporting to this Legislature.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): A supplementary

question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if he could be specific as to the

people in the insurance industry who have absconded with funds. We need

to know names.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Every company who collected premiums up until the end of February are included in that 3.5 per cent.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question to

the Minister. I would like to know if those people who are unable to

obtain their insurance on the last day are going to be covered on

subsequent days, the same as those who haven't obtained it prior to the

insurance coming in. Are they going to be covered? Those poor

individuals who have to wait for that last pay cheque and are

unable...because of the line-ups and because of the way you've brought

this

in — are they going to be covered if they don't get their insurance?

AN HON. MEMBER: Free of charge.

MR. PHILLIPS: Free of charge. Are they going to be covered?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Everybody is supposed to be in by the 28th

day of February. They've been told that's when the insurance comes due.

They've been sent notices. They've been told what to do if they don't

get notices. It's an entirely different situation between these last

two weeks and what happens after the 28th day of February.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister: is he going to answer my question in a simple yes or no?

AN HON. MEMBER: Double standard.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: There is no person today under the laws of this province who can legally drive

[ Page 209 ]

a car without insurance or a licence.

MR. PHILLIPS: Would you answer my question? Yes or no.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Any person.... I understand....

MR. SPEAKER: I think the question has been answered, Hon. Members.

POSSIBLE PROSECUTION

OF INSURANCE COMPANIES

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): I have a question to

the same Minister. Since he has accused corporations of absconding with

funds, which is an offence against the Criminal Code of Canada, has he

reported that to the Attorney-General? Will steps be taken towards

prosecution? Or is the Minister prepared to withdraw the remark or

resign?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I didn't use that....

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, yes you did.

MR. GARDOM: Abscond. Absconding with funds.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I didn't use it in the criminal way....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. STRACHAN: They kept the funds.

MR. GARDOM: Curiouser and curiouser!

MR. McGEER: I'd like to ask a supplementary question of the

Minister, if I may, Mr. Speaker. Will steps be taken by the government

to recover the 3.5 per cent and return that to the motorists who paid?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, I don't know of any procedure under

which we can recover, first of all, the 3.5 per cent, or secondly, the

reserve accumulated by the private companies from the policy holders

over all the years they were in....

Interjection.

HON, MR. STRACHAN: I don't know of any way in which these funds

can be recovered.

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I don't know of any way in which these

funds can be recovered. I don't know of any way in which either of

those two groups of money can be recovered.

MR. McGEER: Why don't you ask the advice of the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald)? (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: He needs a walkie-talkie.

Orders of the day.

ON THE BUDGET

HON. L. NICOLSON (Minister of Housing): Mr. Speaker, I

welcome this opportunity to say a few words about the housing situation

in British Columbia and what my department is doing about it.

The shortage of decent housing at a reasonable cost poses a serious

challenge to this government and all the people of British Columbia.

But this has not come about through any decrease in the growth of the

housing starts. In fact, preliminary figures that I have obtained

indicate that a record 37,627 new housing starts occurred in the

province in 1973. This figure represents an increase of 6.5 per cent

over 1972. In metropolitan Vancouver housing starts were up 6.9 per

cent last year, and in communities with less than 10,000 population,

they were up 19.4 per cent.

Despite this, we are not building new homes fast enough to house all

the people who are arriving to take advantage of opportunities in this

province.

It is true to say that many of the housing problems in this province

stem from our high rate of economic growth. As economists are now

beginning to recognize, too rapid economic development can have serious

social and environmental costs, and a shortage of housing is often one

of these costs.

It is the intention of this government to achieve balanced economic

and social development. I can assure you that we are taking steps to

put a great many new homes on the market.

The Vancouver press calls it a housing crisis when the middle class

has trouble locating suitable accommodation. Unfortunately they fail to

realize that there has been a continual housing crisis over the years

for families of low income. Let me assure you, Mr. Speaker, that this

government is dedicated to the proposition that good housing at a

reasonable cost is the right of each and every British Columbian,

regardless whether he is rich or poor, lives in Vancouver or Chetwynd,

comes from pioneer stock or is a newcomer to this province.

Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to dwell at length on the causes of the

present housing shortage, for these are becoming increasingly

well-known. As a great

[ Page 210 ]

scholar once wrote, the task is not to understand

the world but to change it. It is enough to mention that while high

interest costs and soaring prices of building materials have their part

to play, the most important factor is the scarcity of serviced lots.

Associated with this lack of land that can be immediately built upon

is the problem of inappropriate urban densities. The typical

single-family home simply no longer is an appropriate form of

accommodation in metropolitan Vancouver. It is too wasteful of land.

What we must do is to concentrate on forms of residential design that

make better use of land.

The innovations are catching on, Mr. speaker. For example, while a

year ago the zero-lot line concept was untested, now zero-lot line

developments are being built or are underway in Coquitlam, Surrey, Pitt

Meadows, Langley and other municipalities. I understand that the

planned unit development concept received wide acceptance at the

Greater Vancouver Regional District Board meeting yesterday, as being

the most appropriate way to develop the large tracts of land remaining

in the lower mainland.

The recognition that provincial government action is necessary to

come to grips with housing problems came late in British Columbia. In

fact, when this government took over its responsibilities less had been

done about housing by the government than by any other province in

Canada. In fact, the Social Credit government simply did not recognize

that housing is a provincial responsibility. This is unfortunate.

However, I am determined to bring British Columbia up to date, not by

simply copying the housing programmes of other provinces, but by using

innovations to put British Columbians in the forefront of those

jurisdictions who are prepared to take strong measures to house their

people.

When I was appointed Minister Without Portfolio last year, I found

that what housing programmes the province had were scattered hither and

yon. The director of home acquisition reported to the Minister of

Finance; the administration of the Elderly Citizens' Housing Aid Act

was the responsibility of the Provincial Secretary,

whereas Municipal

Affairs looked after public housing and urban renewal. Incredibly, the

previous government had but one civil servant responsible for social

housing programmes.

The previous government's lack of interest in housing meant that the

province was forced to rely practically exclusively on the services of

Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Public housing was developed

on a federal-provincial basis under

section 40 of the National Housing

Act, an extremely cumbersome and time-consuming procedure which

entailed architects' designs being prepared in Ottawa by people

unfamiliar with communities for which the accommodation was destined.

An example of the federal-provincial approach used by the former

government was that a large senior citizens' project for Vancouver's

West End was initiated in 1968 and it is still under construction. The

document I have here is a chronology of every bureaucratic bungling

that went into that development, and it is a very sorry story of delay

on the part of civic agencies and interference at CMHC's head office. I

have here a list of some 137 correspondences, letters and Telex

messages. This doesn't include the phone calls that took place between

October of 1968 and February of 1973.

Instead of following the red-tape written procedures of the former

government, I have directed the Department of Housing to make use of

section 43 of the National Housing Act, under which the province

becomes the initiator by simply borrowing the necessary funds from

Ottawa. Under this procedure it will be possible to employ builders'

proposals which are often more realistic in terms of both design and

price than asking for tenders on the basis of architects' designs.

The former governments also gave little interest to land assembly,

except as giveaways to their friends such as Alcan in Kitimat, Crows

Nest Industries in Fernie, and Tahsis in Gold River. It is really

remarkable to go into these communities and see the hamstrung municipal

councils in these company towns where there is not one bit of land that

was ever set aside, even as recently as slightly over 20 or 25 years

ago when the Alcan agreement was negotiated, apparently not realizing

that this is a crucial and successful prerequisite to a housing

programme.

It might be of interest for the House to know that in 1973 we have

acquired over 746 acres of land for housing in 17 municipalities. This

is a vastly greater programme than occurred in any of the years under

the Social Credit administration. Although the former government did

nothing to encourage co-operative housing, today there are nearly 1,000

co-operative rental dwellings under construction or in the planning

stage in nine different communities.

The measures I have

taken, although they are only an indication of things to come,

illustrate the callousness and ineptitude of the previous

administration in relation to meeting the housing needs of British

Columbia. I will dwell on co-operatives a little later.

Mr. Speaker, after having had an opportunity to study the housing

policy in depth for a number of months, I am now able to sketch out the

general approaches that I intend to take.

In the first place, the purchase and servicing of land that was

started last year will be continued, but with an emphasis on achieving

quick housing starts rather than long-term land banking.

What we are now engaged in is the development of a strategy to put housing on each and every piece of

[ Page 211 ]

land that has been acquired by the province. And this includes the

University Endowment Lands and the Blair Rifle Range in North

Vancouver. For the first part, the government will lease rather than

dispose of land on a fee simple basis, because we believe that it is

proper that future further private speculation be prohibited and that

any windfall profits that accrue should accrue to all the members of

the community.

I am particularly pleased with the response to my offer to

municipalities to enter into agreements for servicing land with water

and sewers. Under this arrangement municipalities are authorized to

prepare lands and accept bids for servicing, with the provincial

government underwriting the total costs. Arrangements for servicing are

now going ahead in Kamloops, Chetwynd and Williams Lake — but the Hon.

Member for Chetwynd (Mr. Phillips) is not interested.

In the planning stages are servicing operations in Port Hardy,

Prince Rupert, Mackenzie, Saanich, Port McNeill, Alert Bay, Squamish,

Campbell River, Ladysmith, Cumberland, Courtenay, Penticton, Powell

River and Fort Nelson. I'll have more praise for Penticton in a few

minutes. I would welcome more requests from municipalities and provide

them with assistance of this nature.

This government believes that mobile homes can provide decent

accommodation for many British Columbians. With the Mobile Home Tax Act

these premises became part of the municipal assessments for the first

time, thereby giving mobile home dwellers the same status as

ratepayers. One of the difficulties in expanding the amount of this

accommodation has been the problem of obtaining land for mobile home

parks. To remedy this situation, the Department of Housing is entering

into an agreement with the municipalities of Nakusp, Port Hardy,

Elkford and Prince Rupert to develop mobile home parks.

The Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Ms. Young) has also taken a

keen interest in mobile homes from the point of view of upgrading

standards of construction and management of mobile home parks.

As our province has the highest proportion of elderly people in

Canada, it is only natural that there is a strong demand for various

types of senior citizens' housing. To immediately come to grips with

the need for senior citizens' housing, last July I wrote to the mayor

of every municipality in the province inviting them to request the

provincial government to build senior citizens' housing in their

community. This initiative has produced approximately 1,200 units in

the construction or planning stages in such places as 100 Mile House,

Victoria, Penticton, McBride, Kamloops, Prince Rupert, Oak Bay,

Lillooet, Terrace, Vancouver, New Westminster and Burnaby.

I've determined that the needs of elderly British Columbians should

be primarily met by the senior citizens' housing development by

non-profit sponsors such as churches, service clubs and other citizen

groups. It is preferable that local people and volunteers be involved

in looking after the elderly rather than a large government agency.

Therefore, when I took over the responsibility of the Elderly

Citizens' Housing Aid Act, I decided that this measure would be the

principal one to aid in the construction of senior citizens' housing. I

will be taking steps to ensure that this legislation can meet the needs

of a broad income range of elderly people and produce the quality of

housing required.

Mr. Speaker, in recent years the production of housing under the

Elderly Citizens' Housing Aid Act has been held up by municipalities

objecting to the tax exemption they were obliged to give to this

accommodation. Today, I wish to announce that the government has agreed

to amend the Municipal Act at this session in order to change the

obligatory municipal tax exemption for new developments to a permissive

one. This means municipalities will be able to include such housing in

their assessments for the first time.

To protect elderly residents from rent increases resulting from this

change, the Department of Housing will be willing to enter into rent

supplement agreements with the sponsors of elderly citizens' housing

aid developments.

As there are now a great many senior citizens' developments awaiting

approval for grants under the Elderly Citizens' Housing Aid Act, I

intend to see that these applications are quickly processed in

co-operation with the officials of the Departments of Human Resources

and Health. The $10 million that is allocated for construction of

housing for senior citizens is more than double the amount of any

previous year. I think the year ahead will see a vast expansion in the

building of homes for the pioneers who made this province what it is

today.

Rental housing has been made less attractive by federal amendments

to the Income Tax Act and other measures, with which I agree

incidentally; I'm not against the recommendations of the Carter

Commission. But recognizing this fact, the provincial government

realizes it will have to help fill the gap by building and operating

rental accommodation. Such accommodation is particularly needed for

families with small children who find themselves discriminated against

in the housing market by landlords who would rather not provide the

facilities which children need. Approximately 1,000 family rental

houses under provincial auspices are in the planning stage and we will

be building many more.

But let me stress that we don't intend to build public housing of

the type favoured by the previous government, in which all the tenants

are heavily

[ Page 212 ]

subsidized. We intend to have a range of income groups in our family

rental housing. Some families will be well off and others poor. This

will be achieved by subsidizing only a portion of the units. In large

projects the subsidized units will not exceed approximately a quarter

of the total residents.

In addition, my officials are developing a new rent supplement

system which should do away with the old public housing rent scale.

To encourage municipalities to request family rental housing and to

co-operate with this development, I am pleased to further announce

today that the 12.5 per cent operating subsidy, which the previous

government — that group over there — required municipalities to pay,

will be abolished for new projects effective April 1. This is in line

with the government's overall policy of lessening the cost of social

programmes to municipal ratepayers. I should add that all family rental

projects pay full municipal tax.

Soon after I took over my responsibilities, I realized that

co-operative housing is one of the soundest ways of meeting the housing

needs of low- and moderate-income people. Co-operative housing, Mr.

Speaker, provides for citizen participation in its design and

management, and also results in lower than market rents.

Yet co-operative developments, such as the one in Abbotsford,

started in about 1968, and Vancouver's Amor de Cosmos Village received

no special help from the previous government other than what was

available to anyone else by way of home acquisition grants. In fact,

they allowed such groups as the Barkley Sound Housing Co-operative up

island to flounder.

In contrast with that, this government, with the assistance of the

United Housing Foundation, a non-profit organization, was able to step

in and help the Burquitlam Housing Co-operative when it was in trouble.

Today the people who invested both their money and their dreams in that

Burquitlam Housing Co-operative see it as a reality, and it's now

occupied. One can only speculate on what might have been done by the

previous administration.

The Department of Housing now actively assists co-operative housing

projects by leasing land at a ground rent of 4 per cent of its value

and by providing bridge financing.

My personal enthusiasm for co-operative housing has in recent months

been justified by the dramatic increase in the demand for this type of

accommodation. I'm informed by the United Housing Foundation, the main

promoter of co-operative housing, that developments are now selling out

considerably in advance of their completion. The day of experimentation

is over, so I've engaged Mr. Glen Haddrell, director of the National

Co-operative Housing Foundation in Ottawa, to advise us on how the

co-operative housing sector can most rapidly be expanded.

To provide a means of upgrading older residential neighbourhoods I

have on behalf of the province entered into an agreement with the

federal Minister of Urban Affairs (Hon. Mr. Basford) to secure the

application of the Neighbourhood Improvement Programme in British

Columbia. Instead of the old bulldozer approach so favoured by the

previous provincial government, this programme provides grants for

rehabilitation of those dwellings worth saving as well as funds for the

improvement of social and recreational facilities in the neighbourhood.

I am pleased that the Strathcona Property Owners and Tenants

Association played an important role in halting the old urban renewal

programme and developing an approach that can be applied in other

communities in the province and, indeed, in Canada.

It is the responsibility of the province to designate which

communities shall participate in the Neighbourhood Improvement

Programme. So after studying submissions from various municipalities,

I'll be making an announcement in early March concerning which

communities will receive funding this year.

You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that the Provincial Home Acquisition

Act was amended last year to provide that persons who had received an

acquisition grant could qualify for a second mortgage loan, providing

that the grant was repaid first. It was also amended to provide that

persons who had repaid a second-mortgage loan on the sale of property

could qualify for another on the same property.

Mr. Speaker, in January, 1974, an all-time record number of

acquisition grants and second-mortgage loan applications was received

by the Home Owner Assistance Branch which is now under the Department

of Housing. It was also an all-time record for the number of

applications for grants and loans on new houses. A total of 3,686

applications was received in January. The monthly average for 1972 was

2,500; and for 1971: 2,200. The number of January applications in

respect to new houses was 2,196; the monthly average in 1972 was 1,269,

and in 1971: 1,115. The amount of the grants and the loans for new

houses was approximately $5 million for the month.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Who initiated that programme?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: And who improved it?

Interjection.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: You didn't recognize Indian reserves, which I'll

be discussing later; you didn't recognize mobile home parks; you didn't

give

[ Page 213 ]

people a second chance when they were expropriated out of their property. Inflexible, unimaginative.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. NICOLSON: You will also recall, Mr. Speaker, that

municipalities have for years complained that they received no taxes

from mobile homes, although the residents of such accommodation absorb

substantial school and municipal costs. Last year at the spring session

we passed the Mobile Home Tax Act to make mobile home owners subject to

local taxation and also eligible for the annual homeowners grant as

well as benefits under the Provincial Home Acquisition Act.

Since November, 1973, over 400 home acquisition grants of up to

$1,000 were made to mobile-home owners throughout the province, and

applications are now coming in at a rate of 200 to 300 per month.

Indians living on reservations for the first time became eligible

for the benefits under the Provincial Home Acquisition Act by virtue of

amendments passed in the spring, 1973, session of the House. Since

July, 1973, 194 acquisition grants on older houses and 765 grants on

new houses have been paid to the Indians living on reservations. This

represents a sum of $862,000. Applications are now being received at

the rate of 100 to 200 per month.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier announced in his budget speech that I would

be seeking the approval of this House for two new programmes: first

mortgage and house conversion loans.

The first-mortgage programme combined with our land leasing policy

will create a package that will do more to assist low- and

moderate-income people to get into the position of home ownership than

has ever been done before by any other government in Canada.

It is necessary for the province to get into the first mortgage

business because we have come to the conclusion that the federal

government-assisted home ownership programme is simply irrelevant to

the needs of many British Columbians. CMHC keeps the house price

limitations so low that this programme has little relevance in the

Vancouver area.

Also the low subsidy assistance in the federal programme prevents it

from reaching low-income people — those who need the help the most.

Another consideration is that we have, in this Province of British

Columbia, experienced mortgage famines, which so often account for

counter-cyclical financial policies pursued by the federal Department

of Finance. We need to have our own mortgage system in the event that

the tap is turned off again in Ottawa. This is a start, Mr. Speaker,

and we'll be looking for a greater control of our destiny in terms of

the supply of mortgage money in the future.

The mortgage programme that I will be bringing before this House

will be one that will enable moderate-income families to get a start on

home-ownership without providing them with a life-long subsidy. Our

first mortgages will initially be restricted to new homes or

strata-titled dwellings built on leased Crown land, and the interest

rate will vary with income.

Mr. Speaker, as many Members of the House know, there is a need to

encourage higher residential areas in some of the large urban areas of

this province, without disrupting the neighbourhoods with comprehensive

redevelopment. As one contribution to this end, I will be introducing

legislation that will offer homeowners mortgage money to convert part

of their dwellings into new rental accommodation.

Home improvement loans are available under the National Housing Act.

However, these are handled by the banks and I understand they do little

to aid "the average working people. There are vast areas of Vancouver,

Burnaby and North Vancouver in which owners could take advantage of

these house conversion loans that I will be proposing. However, it will

be necessary for the municipalities to broaden their areas of

two-family dwelling zoning. For the life of me, I fail to understand

why two-family dwelling zoning should not pertain throughout the

municipality. However, I am pleased to hear that the City of Vancouver

will be holding hearings on extension of its narrow duplex areas, to

put an end to the fiction of illegal suites.

Let us hope, Mr. Speaker, that the same enthusiasm for duplexing

that is catching up in the East End will spread to Shaughnessy as there

are a lot of large residences in that area that could be very well

converted to provide family housing.

One of the virtues of this system is that it will prevent the

destruction of existing neighbourhoods, Mr. Speaker. There is a

tremendous pressure where there is single-family zoning to get it

rezoned not just to a duplex, but to get it rezoned for multiple-family

dwellings. That brings in the bulldozers, that changes neighbourhoods,

and destroys communities. That's why we think that this measure will be

very productive, very useful, and very timely.

Now, Mr. Speaker, housing programmes are of little use just on

paper. We need to move from talk to working with hammers and saws.

Therefore in order to put the government in a position to build housing

as quickly as possible, we have among other things made an offer to

acquire 90 per cent of the shares of Dunhill Developments Limited, a

company with an excellent reputation in the housing development field.

The alternatives to acquiring Dunhill were either to engage in a

complicated and time-consuming task of establishing a large Crown

house-building organization from scratch, or to continue to rely

[ Page 214 ]

completely on consulting firms. I rejected the first proposition for

the time being because we must move rapidly to get houses on the

market. To rely solely on consultants simply means a lot of expense and

nothing left over in the way of architectural or engineering capacity

that can be applied to other projects.

I'm pleased to advise the House that 95 per cent of the shares —

more than the proportion we required to make our offer for Dunhill —

effectively have been tendered. Dunhill is now operating as one of the

housing development arms of the province in the Vancouver and Victoria

area. I say one of the arms because the Department of Housing will

continue to develop housing through other arrangements such as tenders

and builder proposal calls, and because I do not rule out the eventual

establishment of a major provincial housing corporation. Also I do not

intend to so overload Dunhill that it's required to establish

additional levels of management. We want to keep it the fine organized

organization that it is today.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): How many houses did you get with Dunhill?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: There was some comment in the press about

the price we have offered for Dunhill shares — $4.28 per share. I must

confess being surprised about the presumptuousness of those who are

commenting, since I doubt that they know very much about the company.

However, I can assure the people of this province that they're getting

full value for the money for the acquisition in Dunhill. The price that

the province offered is completely justified by our appraisal of the

company's land assets.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Who did the appraisal?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: We paid no premium for their management

team, even though I expect it to be one of considerable assistance in

delivering my housing programme.

As far as Dunhill's land holdings are concerned, these will be disclosed as the takeover transaction is completed.

Of course, Mr. Speaker, it would be impossible for the provincial

government alone to solve the housing problems faced by the province.

I'm looking for co-operation from many sources. In particular, I want

to work as closely as possible with the house building industry,

because they are the people who know what needs to be done if we're to

get less expensive homes on the market. I've had a good liaison with

the B.C.

section of the Housing and Urban Development Association of

Canada. But we must work even closer together to see that

Volkswagen-type homes are built as well as Cadillac-type homes.

I also need the co-operation of the Central Mortgage and Housing

Corporation. The programmes of the Department of Housing are going to

require large expenditures of capital funds, and much of these must

come from Ottawa. I think that it's logical to argue that the onus is

on the federal government to give special consideration to ensuring

that adequate funding is available for housing programmes in British

Columbia, both because the former government chose to make such little

use of CMHC funds and because the high growth rate of this province

means that there is a specially strong demand for housing.

So far I've been very satisfied with the service given by Central

Mortgage and Housing officials. However, I wish the corporation would

decentralize and that decision-making could take place at the regional

level, as has been promised, rather than being left to the mandarins in

Ottawa.

Of course, Mr. Speaker, the people I need the most co-operation from

are the mayors and aldermen of British Columbia's municipalities. This

is because many of the important decisions about housing rest on their

shoulders. Municipalities can decide whether new developments should go

ahead or not and what form they should take. I regret that a few

municipalities around Vancouver appear to be discouraging housing. This

is something I intend to work on, because I simply will not tolerate

outright opposition to providing new homes for the thousands of

families in this province that require better accommodations.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): What are you going to do — take over city councils?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: In this area, the planning department of

the Greater Vancouver Regional District should be congratulated for the

steps it is taking to get the Greater Vancouver Regional District Board

to adopt a fair share of growth formula. My hope is that the Greater

Vancouver Regional District speeds up its deliberations, because it's

such a vital matter and it is better for the municipalities to work out

their own formula for growth sharing than to have it imposed.

Fortunately, most municipalities are sympathetic to housing people.

The City of Vancouver is to be commended for its careful planning of

the False Creek area which should provide new homes for many thousands

of people. I hope that adequate consideration will be given to rental

and co-operative housing in this scheme. The City of Vancouver's

housing committee, ably led by Alderman Michael Harcourt, is also

pressing for the renovation of hotels and lodging houses in the skid

row and Gastown areas. I can assure him that my department will do its

utmost

[ Page 215 ]

to co-operate in this matter.

The City of Port Moody is putting housing first by planning in its

North Shore district. To help finance in this scheme and to ensure that

it provides housing for all income groups, the province will provide

bridge or interim funding.

The City of Penticton has led the way, as far as the participation

of the smaller communities in housing developments is concerned.

Penticton is developing a subdivision for 63 modest homes which will be

purchased and sold by the municipality with the province providing the

bridge financing which is required until the Central Mortgage and

Housing financing can be given to the purchaser.

I must say that in a very short time we've had a very good liaison

with Mayor Frank Laird of Penticton. He's been most co-operative in

this matter and we're looking forward to greater things in that area.

In addition, the City of Penticton has provided considerable

assistance in the way of capital and land to Penticton and District

Retirement Service, a non-profit society which is imaginatively putting

together a package of a special-care home and a senior citizens' centre

and a 125-unit provincial senior citizens' apartment building. I might

say on that point, Mr. Speaker, that we already have other

municipalities coming to us and saying, "We want to go on the Penticton

model." We've got the model there. We have the precedent with Central

Mortgage and Housing, and I can assure the other municipalities

there'll be no hang-ups from this department.

I'm also gratified that the Greater Vancouver Regional District

intends to set up a non-profit housing corporation to build rental

housing for low and moderate-income people. To facilitate the Greater

Vancouver Regional District plans I'm prepared to provide bridge

financing in order to see that some of these homes which they build are

eligible to receive provincial rent supplements. This offer also holds

good for any other municipality or regional district that wishes to set

up a non-profit organization to build housing, especially for

low-income people.

Mr. Speaker, I was really astonished that the Leader of the

Opposition (Mr. Bennett) had the courage to make charges earlier last

week about the lack of government action on the housing front, when one

considers the pathetic record of the previous government in obtaining

Central Mortgage and Housing funds for family and senior citizens

rental housing and land assembly in British Columbia.

Just listen to how much the Social Credit administration obtained from Ottawa

in the last decade. In 1963 — nil; in 1964 — $5.4 million; then $2.5 million;

then $2.3 million; $13 million; $10.4 million; $11.5 million. In 1970 they

finally did something — $23.5 million; 1971 — $20.8 million; 1972 — $23.9 million.

Mr. Speaker, in 1973 Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation

committed $72.2 million for family and senior citizens rental housing

and land assembly — more than triple the amount in any previous year.

In fact, it was two-thirds the amount for the entire cumulative

previous decade. And I can assure you that we're going to get Ottawa to

devote a great deal more money in the current year for provincial

housing programmes.

Last week the Premier announced that $50 million is to be placed in

my department's estimates for housing and development. This is 900 per

cent more than was allocated for this purpose in any previous budget.

Where will this money go? It will be spent on initiating 2,500 family

rental housing units in the towns and cities in British Columbia in the

coming year. It will be used for 3,000 senior citizens housing units.

It will be used to provide land for 1,500 co-operative housing units

that I want to see built in the coming year.

It will be used to service more than 1,000 home lots and Crown

subdivisions throughout British Columbia. And it will be used to buy

land for the massive housing programmes we're planning in the coming

year and for the upcoming years to follow. It will also be used to help

municipalities meet the cost of neighbourhood improvement programmes.

The targets that I just have mentioned may come back to haunt me. I

can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that, one way or another, I am determined

to see that the people of this province are properly housed; that the

scream of fire engines is not a nightly occurrence in East Vancouver;

that the elderly citizens have quiet and comfortable places for their

retirement; that children do not have to sleep three and four to a

room, and that low-income people do not have to pay such a high rent

that they have nothing left over for food and clothing. Good housing,

Mr. Speaker, is the right of all British Columbians, and I'll see that

they get it.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Mr. Speaker, first of all I'd like

to wish you a happy Valentine's Day, and all Members of this House.

They're all good people you know, Mr. Speaker, in this Legislature, but

some of them are mixed up a little politically. That doesn't stop me

from wishing you all a happy Valentine's Day.

I want to congratulate the Member that just spoke — the Hon.

Minister for Housing (Hon. Mr. Nicolson) — and I wish him well in his

programmes, in the latter part of which he said he was going to spend

$50 million. I very much question that he'll get that spent. But in any

case, I wish him luck.

I would like to take him to task in view of his remarks at the

beginning of his address when he said that the prior administration had

never done anything

[ Page 216 ]

about housing.

I would like to remind him that it was the Social Credit

administration that inaugurated the homeowner grants in British

Columbia. I might say, Mr. Speaker, they inaugurated them long before

that Minister was ever born. So I don't know what he's talking about.

It's now been copied all across Canada.

How about the home acquisition grants, first mortgages for $5,000

and mortgages on older homes at $2,500? Who inaugurated that? It was

the first in the western world as far as that goes. Something that we

lose sight of.... They always like to remind us of what happened in

that "bad 20 years."

I'll remind you of some good things that were inaugurated, again,

long before you were born, Mr. Minister: the development of Crown

subdivisions by the prior administration; and one of the most

successful projects — and still going on — which I note you take credit

for, is in the great City of Prince George. We have one of the

ex-alderman here who knows how successful that was. And that was

certainly not during your regime, as you are trying to lead us to

believe.

I think that some of the announcements this Minister's made today

will probably slow up housing. He really has said that in this province

we are going to have lease-only policy for future housing. I say to him

that the people of this province will be serfs of the state forever,

and they will not go along with this problem.

As far as senior citizens housing projects are concerned, that again

was started by the prior administration, practically before this

Minister was born. Nobody could criticize the programme that was

instituted, and now I'm happy to see that he's carrying on.

We have a lot better housing critics than I, Mr. Speaker, but I

couldn't let this young and new Minister get away with these remarks

right off the bat.

I'm happy to participate in the budget debate. It's the first budget

in the history of this province that has exceeded $2 billion. The

budget for 1973-74, the fiscal year that we're in, was for $1,700

million. In fact, it was so underestimated that the revenue for this

fiscal year ending March 31 will exceed the budget estimates by

approximately $500 million. In effect, this year, concluding in 1974,

this budget will really go over $2 billion.

I would anticipate, due to the budget brought down by the Hon.

Minister of Finance, that he has missed the revenues and the estimates

in this budget by about $500 million. I believe he budgeted some $2,177

million, and I wouldn't be surprised to see, when the year ends March

31, 1975, that this budget will probably take in and spend closer to

$2,700 million.

There are a few items that I'd like to comment on in the budget. On

the revenue side of the budget in this fiscal year the Minister of

Finance budgeted for $90 million from timber sales. I refer to the

stumpage derived from the sale of public timber in the province.

They budget at $90 million. In effect, they are going to take in

around $230 million, Mr. Speaker, by March 31, 1974. This, of course,

is caused by buoyant world markets for all wood products; the

provincial treasury was the beneficiary of that, and that is good. But

what the Minister of Finance goes on and does — and I think he's

incorrect — is to assume that this amount of funds is going to continue

in the fiscal year 1974-75. I predict that this will not happen, unless

a few other things happen.

What I am really saying, Mr. Speaker, is that we are now currently

in a depressed lumber market, a good pulp market and a fairly good

plywood market. But the price of lumber is off $40 or $50 a thousand,

and it has been off since November. I would like to see it come back,

but I doubt that it will.

In view of this fact and that stumpage rates are — and have been up

till now — tied into the sale of lumber products, this is going to have

a direct effect on the revenues for the 1974-75 year. Therefore, I

don't agree that we should be budgeting from this source of revenue in

the amount of money like we have received in this last year — this

buoyant year of 1973.

There is, of course, one thing that can happen. For the drop in

revenues under the present formula they can institute new policies of

taxation for timber to take up the slack. I only say to the government

that I hope they're not entertaining this because the forest industry

of this province is the most heavily taxed industry in this province

and, in the forest industry, in the western world. Their rate of

taxation is around 50 per cent. I feel that if this is raised further

by further levies, we won't have any more major forest industry in this

province. And it will backfire all along the line.

There is no relief in this budget for our citizens from the 5 per

cent tax — the 5 per cent sales tax — gasoline tax, fuel oil tax,

personal income tax, or succession and gift taxes. Inflation is working

a real hardship on all our citizens and the Minister of Finance could

well have reduced the burden on our citizens on some of this heavy tax

load, to help them with their inflation problems.

I was very surprised to see the amount of funds allocated for

education. In relation to the total budget, the Education department is

getting 5 per cent less of the budget than they received two years ago.

I say I am surprised, Mr. Speaker, because the NDP campaigned in 1972

and stated that education was in a mess and that it was a high priority

item for them.

They've now been government long enough to

[ Page 217 ]

bring in two budgets, Mr. Speaker, and we see the amount of money

allocated for education declining with each budget. The education

budget has only increased enough to take care of teacher salary

increases.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

I welcome you, Mr. Speaker, to the chair. If I get time I'm going to

say something about those rotten eggs we get from the lower mainland

that you were talking about yesterday.

I wonder how this will cure everything that the NDP said was wrong

with education in 1972. Do you really believe that by only increasing

teachers' salaries, it will increase the quality of education for the

students? That should be the main concern for all of us.

I realize this government does not give much priority to the

Department of Highways. This year the Highways budget is up slightly

from last year. But I'm sure the increase in funds will only allow

enough to pay for increased salaries and will not provide enough to

maintain and build the roads that are required.

Much highway work must always be done, Mr. Speaker, just to keep up

with the increased traffic. I do not feel, and have never felt, that

this department gets its share of funds from the provincial budget.

I'm glad to hear the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea) applauding me here.

I'm happy to see an increase in the Highways budget for the purchase

of new equipment. It is being increased from $4.5 million to $8

million. This is certainly something that is badly needed. The Highways

department cannot do a proper job of road building and maintenance with

outdated equipment. I hope the Minister of Highways does not buy too

many Datsun cars with this money because Datsuns cannot haul very much

sand, gravel or snow, and we need equipment for the Highways department

for these duties very badly.

AN HON. MEMBER: You think too rich.

MR. FRASER: While I'm on the subject of highways, I see in

the headlines today that this new Minister has effectively stopped

about $100 million in immediate future development. We'll wait and see

how long he will review this and what finally comes out after this

review. But I would imagine there's quite a lot of concern throughout

the Province of British Columbia today in view of the Minister's

remarks.

I note with interest the increased funds to provide our citizens

with housing, which is badly needed. I mentioned this earlier because I

followed the Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Nicolson). But we really

have to wait until the legislation is brought down to see how effective

it's going to be.

I was happy to see the net costs of welfare for the municipalities

reduced from 15 per cent to 10 per cent. I've spoken many times on this

subject in this House. As a matter of fact, as the present Premier will

recall, when I was on the other side of this House I voted with the

opposition to have this reduced. I hope the Minister of Human Resources

(Hon. Mr. Levi) doesn't have any ideas about adding further and new

responsibilities to the municipalities to take the place of this most

welcome reduction in cost.

I would like to point out here, Mr. Speaker, that while this is

welcome for the municipalities involved, there are a lot of

municipalities that this welcome reduction won't affect. I have had

this checked out.

For your information, no municipality in the Province of British

Columbia has the welfare responsibility if they have a population of

2,500 or below. In the province today we have 69 municipalities in this

category. Of course, they will not have any benefit from this reduction

in welfare charges because they are not responsible for any welfare

costs. I just wanted to make that point.

Mr. Speaker, I am amazed at the very small increase in this budget

given to the municipalities through the per capita grant. The per

capita grant has increased from $32 to $34. Percentagewise, this is an

increase of just over 6 per cent. Mr. Speaker, it is a disgrace, in

view of the fact that the inflation costs to our municipalities, like

everybody else, are at least 10 per cent. The municipalities again have

only received the crumbs from the table of the Minister of Finance.

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell it all.

MR. FRASER: I'm telling it all, sir. The Minister of Finance didn't. I'm trying to get it all out here on the table.

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell them how much you'll get in....

MR. FRASER: You weren't listening. I just got through telling

the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) that I want to tell him

about the cost of justice in a minute too, if you'd be quiet.

I predict, with the small increase in the per capita grant and the

huge increase in assessments because of Bill 71, that taxes in every

municipality in British Columbia will increase by at least 15 per cent

and probably, to a number of citizens, will increase in excess of 20

per cent for the year 1974.

I note with interest that — I believe he's finance chairman — an

alderman of the City of Vancouver said The Province had a great

headline the other day: "Barrett Budget Windfall for the City." Then he

read the first paragraph and it said that it was a great

[ Page 218 ]

windfall because it would reduce the increase in taxation down to 9

per cent. Well, I have no faith in the arithmetic of the City of

Vancouver or their finance chairman or anything else. I predict that it

will be a lot more than a 9 per cent increase in the City of Vancouver

as well as throughout all the rest of the municipalities of this

province.

When the NDP campaigned in 1972, Mr. Speaker, they campaigned and

said they'd have a new deal for all the municipalities. They sure have

a new deal all right. The new deal is to increase property taxes to

everyone — a wonderful, great new deal. I can tell you that the

municipal citizens really appreciate the new deal they're receiving

after 18 months of office of the New Democratic Party.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on statements made by the

Premier of this province with reference to what he called tax

concessions made by the previous administration in the '60s.

There are certain industries, and there were other industries in

this, but mainly the pulp mills that located throughout the Province of

British Columbia. While I'm on that subject, it's quite interesting to

note that we've had nobody say that they'll build pulp mills in the

Province of British Columbia today. There hasn't been an announcement

since the socialists took power here. And I don't think we'll have one

until they're gone either.

In any case, the Premier of the province ran around with the MLA for

Fort George (Mr. Nunweiler) who will derive all the benefits — three

pulp mills in his riding. They ran around there and said that all these

arrangements that had been made were thereby and forthwith cancelled

effective December 31, 1973. As far as I know they are cancelled.

Mr. Speaker, this action points out clearly again that the

socialists do not believe in honouring legally drawn contracts. I would

point out that practically all of these legal contracts were entered

into by the municipalities with the various industries involved. These

arrangements were made by those two responsible groups and were

validated in this Legislature. None of these agreements were voted

against in this Legislature when they were presented, Mr. Speaker. No

MLA voted against this legislation at the time, including the present

Premier of British Columbia when he was the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. PHILLIPS: How about the woods Minister?

MR. FRASER: Oh, yes, and the woods Minister is another one

who never observed at that time; or if he did, he didn't do anything

about it and stand up and be counted on the vote.

All these industries made arrangements with their respective

municipalities to pay full school and hospital taxes and to pay general

taxes for services rendered. In other words, Mr. Speaker, if a

municipality did not or could not supply fire protection, as an

example, to a pulp mill, they were not charged for this service and

were given a tax reduction because the services could not be supplied.

The Premier made a big noise about this late last fall. But I

predict this hasty action of his, as usual, will backfire on him. Now

that these large industrial concerns have to pay taxes for services not

received, I predict that they will demand these services from their

respective municipalities. Some of them, for example, have volunteer

fire departments. If they are called upon by the large industries

concerned they'll probably have to move to paid fire departments. If

this occurs, the increased revenue received from the cancellation of

these legal contracts will be peanuts compared to the cost of

delivering these services — as an example: going to a paid fire

department.

AN HON. MEMBER: Some peanuts.

MR. FRASER: Yes, big deal.

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the announcement of the task force on forest

policy. I hope this force will not be too long in reporting and making

recommendations for future policy.

The forest industry has been very uneasy since the election of this

government in 1972 and the industry has not been able to get very many

answers from this government about the future of this, the largest

industry in our province. Consequently, no new investment in plant and

equipment has been made and will not be made until government forest

policy is more clearly defined.

Public hearings should be held by the task force all over this

province. I remember you speaking yesterday for your riding and saying

what wonderful public participation there was. I'm glad the Minister of

woods (Hon. R.A. Williams) is here and listening to this because I have

heard no announcement that this task force is going to have public

hearings. They are going to have private, behind-the-cupboard,

behind-the-drapes hearings, and then Mr. Minister of Lands and Forests

will tell them what to release.

That's not good enough, Mr. Speaker, in this day and age of open government. Open government.

I note, with interest, the intention of the government to create a

British Columbia police commission. I expect this will lead to a B.C.

police force and will eventually mean the end of the RCMP in the

province working on the enforcement of provincial laws. I consider this

a great mistake because I believe that with the RCMP we have the most

efficient police force in the world. By creating a B.C. force, the

citizens of British Columbia will be the losers.

It is supposed to be brought in for a standard of training, but I feel the RCMP have the best training

[ Page 219 ]

standards and training depot in Canada located at Regina. I can just

imagine what direction they will take from a created B.C. police

commission.

I see the Attorney-General wants to speak but I've got a few more

things to say about your department on the subject of law and order,

I note the government intends to relieve the municipalities of the

financial burden of the court system. I congratulate the government,

Mr. Speaker, on this move. As you are aware, I have spoken many times

in this House about the high cost to our municipalities of the

administration of justice. As a matter of fact, I spoke on this in the

fall session. This step is certainly one in the right direction, but

will only be a small step.

While it is the intention of the government to relieve

municipalities of the cost of the court system, I do not recommend that

these municipalities become too excited about this move because they

still have to pay far too much for the police forces they must have.

Police service is by far the most expensive part of the

administration of justice. The province should be paying far more of

this cost than they do at the present time. Police costs should be the

full responsibility of the provincial and federal or national

governments. The municipalities shouldn't have to pay this at all.

I've done a little checking on the relief of the costs of the court

system. Out of 140 municipalities in the Province of British Columbia

there are 91 of them that had no court costs attached to them because

they did not have this jurisdiction. So therefore it's no saving to 91

out of 140 municipalities. It will be a saving to the rest of them, I

would say, to the tune of $4 million or $5 million. The final situation

hasn't been clarified; maybe there's not that amount of net saving when

you consider that.

Reference has been made in the budget speech to the problems of

assessments. The government has indicated that there will be a special

committee of this House to deal with this subject. There is indication

that that is going to happen shortly and I consider that good.

I refer to the problems of assessment. There certainly are problems

in the present policy of assessments. These were created by this

government by the passage of Bill 71 in March of 1973. As you are

aware, Bill 71 recommended that the 10 per cent ceiling on assessments

applied to all land and improvements that were not designated

residential or farmland be removed.

When the assessors received Bill 71 they immediately went all over

the province increasing assessments to ridiculous figures. I have many

citizens who advise me that their assessments have increased 500 per

cent, but I also have some who have increases of 3,000 per cent.

Consequently, the courts of revision have been swamped with appeals and

we have chaos in British Columbia today.

For the record, I want to remind the House that when this Bill 71

passed this House in March of 1973, all Members of the official

opposition voted against this discriminatory legislation. All Members

of the government voted for it. So did all the Members of the splinter

parties, the Liberals and the Conservatives.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): That's right. Why didn't you speak on it? Where was your amendment?

MR. FRASER: Why speak on it? We are on the record here, right on the division record that we voted against it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRASER: I'm glad the Hon. Member for Saanich has joined

in because I've got a message for him. The Hon. Member for Saanich, as

I pointed out, voted with the Conservatives for Bill 71. However, the

Hon. Member had this to say about Bill 71 on December 14, 1973.

Commenting on the changes in assessments, the Member for Saanich said:

"Altering assessments is the wrong way to achieve

equity. If the government wants to help the homeowner it should do so

through taxes. The sooner governments stop fiddling with assessments as

the mood suits them, the better."

If prizes were given for doubletalk the Member for Saanich would win

the first prize hands down. He voted for Bill 71 with the NDP and the

Liberals. Bill 71 certainly did change the method of assessments, yet

the Hon. Member voted for this legislation and stated after he voted in

favour that assessments should not be fiddled with.

Interjection.

MR. FRASER: Why did you vote for it so they could fiddle with

it, then? I am even more surprised when I consider that the Hon. Member

for Saanich held a very high municipally-elected office for a

considerable time. With his extensive municipal service he should have

known the effects of Bill 71 and voted against it instead of for it. I

feel the Member for Saanich has been less than frank on this issue.

As far as the amendment is concerned, how can you amend a rotten piece of legislation?

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): To try and correct the rotten legislation that your party backed before. (Laughter.)

[ Page 220 ]

MR. FRASER: It appears that as soon as it's British

Columbians we are dealing with we only have socialists, Liberals or

Conservatives who want it changed.

While commenting on Members on assessments I would like to bring to

the attention of this House that the Hon. Member for Comox (Ms.

Sanford) has turned out to be an expert on assessments, or she feels

she is. I have a copy of something here where she was out explaining

assessments to the public. Through her explanation, I think she should

go back to the classroom and stay with that part of things rather than

lecture about assessments.

She says a lot of things here. For example: "While residential

property is now being assessed at the 38 to 40 per cent level,

commercial-industrial vacant property has dropped in many cases to the

35 per cent range." I would like to see those cases where commercial or

industrial property has dropped to 20 or 35 per cent. I'd like to see

some proof of that statement.

Interjection.

MR. FRASER: The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) has

had plenty to say about assessments since the passage of Bill 71. He

states that many property owners will get relief from the effects of

Bill 71: senior citizens, small business, et cetera.

What a mess! How can the assessors, administrative people, municipal

councils, and all others involved keep up with the political

gerrymandering that is going on by this government? There is no way

they can sort it all out.

I feel the latest statement made by the Minister of Finance is the

wildest of them all. He stated on an open-mouth show the other day that

the assessors have given a wrong

interpretation to the assessment

legislation. The Minister of Finance said that persons owning improved

land of less than five acres in size should not have received

assessment increases of more than 10 per cent this year.

I would like to emphasize that this might be the

interpretation of

the Minister of Finance but it is not the

interpretation of the

assessment commissioner. As a senior official in the Department of

Finance, I suggest the Minister of Finance contact him to get the

proper advice.

Mr. Wright, the assessment commissioner, sent a memo to all

assessors. With reference to the assessing of vacant residential land,

the memo had these instructions to all assessors in the Province of

British Columbia:

"Where two or more parcels under the same ownership

make up the residential unit, it will be in order to apply the same

value to the contiguous parcel as that applied to the parcel on which

the residence is actually located.

"Use of a vacant lot contiguous to a home for

gardening or landscaping purposes is an example of where this policy is

to be applied."

I want you to note this, Mr. Speaker:

"Undeveloped

residential vacant lots or parcels not used in connection with, even if

adjacent to, the owner's residence are to be assessed at 50 per cent of

actual value standard."

Mr. Speaker, you will note from the instructions of the assessment

commissioner to all assessors in the province that no mention is made

of assessing parcels of residential land of less than five acres, as

the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) suggested should have

happened. In fact, the instructions of the assessment commissioner were

to assess undeveloped residential vacant lots or parcels at 50 per cent

of actual value. This action effectively caused a major increase in the

assessed values of all vacant residential lots in the Province of

British Columbia. It really means, Mr. Speaker, confiscation of land by

taxation, as the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) suggested

should happen last year.

The government should hold assessments on land and improvements for

1974 at the 1973 level, while the legislative committee that is

proposed studies and reports back to this House. The new assessment Act

would then apply to the 1975 taxation year. If this course is not

followed, a terrific burden of taxation is going to be placed on many

citizens in the province. If the government will not consider this

course, they should consider reducing the general levy for taxation of

10 mills on the taxable values in the non-municipal areas of this

province. That would effectively reduce the amount of taxes that would

be levied.

I am aware that the municipal councils have full control of the mill

rates, Mr. Speaker, in their municipalities and they could also reduce

their mill rates to accommodate the increased values. You know, the

Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) wrote a letter out to

all municipalities in the province, under date of January 29, more or

less telling them that they had better be careful how they set their

mill rates in 1974.

There was one other person he should have sent this letter to, and

that was the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) of this province,

because I'm going to quote from the text of this letter from the

Minister of Municipal Affairs to all mayors and councils in the

province. And this is what the Minister of Municipal Affairs has to say:

"I am aware that in a number of municipalities the

assessment value which is placed on industrial, commercial and

unoccupied real property has risen substantially over the previous

year. Owners of many of these properties have appealed their

assessments to court of revision, and in due course the court

[ Page 221 ]

will deal with these appeals. In those cases where the values

are upheld by the court there will be a broadening of the tax base in the municipalities

to the extent to which these values have increased.

"Annual budgets adopted by council and the resulting

mill rates for general municipal purposes will, no doubt, reflect the

increased costs in various sectors of the economy. However," — there's

that great word — "I would point out that it is important to recognize

that the mill rate levied for general municipal purposes in the current

year should be lower than it would otherwise be as a consequence of the

increase in the areas of assessment mentioned, and this should be known

to the taxpayers in your municipality."

Mr. Speaker, I read that letter

for the reason that the Minister is warning the municipal councils all

over the province to be careful about the mill rate they set. I don't

think this letter was necessary, as the municipal councils are, in most

cases, responsible people.

But I repeat that he should have also written the same letter to the

Minister of Finance because he controls the mill rate on all the

unorganized areas in British Columbia — he, and nobody else. If their

assessments in the municipalities have gone up, they certainly have

gone up in the unorganized areas well, and the Minister of Finance

should take heed of that letter as well.

We haven't heard a squeak out of the Minister of Finance that he'll

reduce the 10 mill general rate, but he's sure come up with a lot of

Band-aid suggestions and gerrymandering around about special groups of

people who he'll help. Nobody knows how it's going to happen, but it is

supposed to happen in this Legislature — apparently before we can get

out of here.

Mr. Speaker, the motorists of the Cariboo are very upset at the

Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, and they'll be far more

upset after the question period we had here today, when we heard that

Minister get up and make charges and flip-flop all around about what's

going on in that large monopoly corporation, and then accusing people

who can't defend themselves. He hasn't even talked to the

Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) about it. Anyway, I want to tell

you about the Cariboo people. The Hon. Minister of Transport and

Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) has got his troubles. I'm not

worried about them; I'm worried about the problems in the Cariboo.

It appears the majority of the citizens have received their new insurance rates

from ICBC, and they are shocked at the rates they will have to pay on or before

March 1. Many motorists' premiums have doubled, but I would say the average

increase is about 35 per cent, and I'm referring to the Cariboo. This certainly

amazed the citizens of the Cariboo because they believed your party, Mr. Speaker,

when it campaigned in the '72 election and promised them cheaper auto insurance.

Where is the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley)? He said

there would be no administration costs. They would have no costs at all

for administration. Well, their office rental for the head office is

$800,000 a year, and that doesn't include what they are paying for the

computer rentals for that office. It is full of $20,000 a year flacks

and hacks, and those are administrative costs. He must have known I was

going to talk about insurance, because he's left. He's probably taken

one of his Jaguars for a spin around the lot.

Interjection.

MR. FRASER: Doing a recalculation. Well, in any case, Mr.

Speaker, the people of the Cariboo are amazed, after the NDP campaigned

for cheaper auto insurance. They just cannot believe the rates of the

government monopoly insurance plan.

The Insurance Corporation of British Columbia is a complete mess,

Mr. Speaker. It is just a big, socialist, bureaucratic bungle from

start to finish and unfortunately our citizens are going to have to pay

for all this mess.

I realize that again the Premier (Hon. Mr. Barrett) has entered this

situation and has attempted to gerrymander this operation as well. The

Premier has made statements that everyone who had an increase in his

auto insurance premiums can apply for a refund and he will get it. The

catch to this is that you have to have the identical circumstances you

had last year. You try it on sometime, Mr. Speaker, and see if you can

come up with identical circumstances so that you can properly claim for

a refund. So I don't believe this, and I'm sure that there are very few

citizens in this province who will ever get a refund out of ICBC. There

is no system worked out for refunds on ICBC and I don't think there

ever will be.

I have received many letters from people complaining about the new

auto insurance rates. I am sure all MLAs have received many letters as

well, including you, Mr. Speaker. It would be interesting to watch the

backbenchers of the government criticize this plan which they voted

for. Or will they just remain silent, as they usually do?

MR. PHILLIPS: Put them in a raffle and let's have a sweepstake!

MR. FRASER: I would like to quote from one of the letters I

received. This letter was addressed to the Hon. Robert Strachan, the

Minister in charge of the Autoplan. I was fortunate that this citizen

sent me a

[ Page 222 ]

copy. The letter heading states:

Re: ICBC, or Insurance can be costly if construed by clowns.

"Sir, you will not find this letter very respectful,

but then $90 of unwanted insurance does not buy very much respect, so

that is certainly not what you are seeking.

"Where did you get the audacity to force people to

insure their own conglomeration of iron and plastic on wheels? Whatever

your reasons, financial or political, I claim gross injustice and an

infringement of our rights as citizens of a democratic society. You

have no right to do that, and this I cannot over-emphasize.

"Personally I would rather be confronted by a robber holding a gun. I can cope with an honest situation like that.

"I feel that you realize your own violation of our

rights and you show it very well in your ICBC propaganda. You offer

nothing but free information and forms filled out at no cost. Do you

really think anyone has ever paid for that? Don't be silly.

"You deceive by advertising that most people might pay

less for insurance from Autoplan. I am quite certain that this is not

true, and I defy you to prove me wrong."

This letter goes on and on, and I have had many similar letters, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection.

MR. FRASER: I don't know whether mine went down or not, Mr. Minister, and I'm not going to find out until about March 10.

In the Interior of British Columbia a motorist can go to three

private insurance agents of the ICBC and also to the provincial

government offices, and from these four different locations receive

four different rates.

I say to the citizens of British Columbia: don't you accept that if

you're looking for a special on coffee you go to three or four stores?

I am saying that you can find four different rates in one municipality

in this province. So shop around. Maybe you'll save yourself a few

bucks because you sure need to. What a mess! What a rip-off for the

citizens of this province.

The only answer to this chaos is to license the insurance companies

before March 1 so that motorists will at least be able to compare rates

with the rip-off monopoly.

Mr. Speaker, I have just mentioned auto insurance premiums. I have

not mentioned the drivers of this province who have a rip-off facing

them by the end of March when they will have to buy a driver permit for $10, pay the penalties for points, and the rest of the guff. You

will have to purchase this as well as retain your card driver's

licence. The citizens don't understand this yet, but I imagine TV will

get plugged with it after everything has been cleaned up with the car

insurance on March 1.

Mr. Speaker, some of the natives in the riding of Cariboo are making

claims for land. I don't want to discuss the legality or otherwise of

these claims, but they are being made. I wish the Attorney-General

(Hon. Mr. Macdonald) was here.

The Nazko-Kluskus band are making a claim on Crown land. So are the

Ulkatcho Indian band. The Nazko-Kluskus band is located approximately

75 miles west of Quesnel; the Ulkatcho band is at Anahim Lake in the

Chilcotin.

The Nazko-Kluskus are very upset about a proposed logging road that

is to be built in this area over Crown land. The length of the proposed

road is approximately 20 miles.

If this road is built it will make approximately $1 billion worth of

timber available to the established forest industry over the next 20

years. If it is not built, the jobs of approximately 1,000 people will

be lost because of the lack of timber to manufacture.

The Nazko-Kluskus Indians have been making written representation to

the Premier of this province and to the Minister of Lands, Forests and

Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) for over a year now, but with very

few results. The Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources, whose

department is affected, does not even have the courtesy to acknowledge

this correspondence — let alone do anything about it. It is my opinion

that the Indians of this area deserve at least the courtesy of a reply

from this government. The forest industry would also appreciate some

directions from this Minister, as they require a permit to build this

road over Crown land.

Osoyoos, North Vancouver, Terrace and other locations in British

Columbia are not the only areas affected by the native claims for Crown

lands. This problem must be dealt with as soon as possible by the

provincial and federal governments. It is not good enough for the

provincial government to brush off this problem by saying it's a

federal problem. And this is what they've been saying for over a year.

It is also a provincial problem because it affects provincial Crown

lands, timber and minerals which the provincial government claims

ownership to.

I realize this government has had its problems with the natives. I

refer to the dismissal from the cabinet of the Hon. Member for Atlin

(Mr. Calder) who was working to try and resolve these problems. At the

time of the dismissal of the Hon. Member from the cabinet by the

Premier, the Premier announced he would carry out the work of the

provincial government with the natives.

It is my opinion the Premier has done nothing

[ Page 223 ]

about the many problems of the natives since he assumed this

Responsibility. I might add here, he didn't keep it very long — he

dumped it over and it exists now with the Minister of Human Resources

(Hon. Mr. Levi).

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

On Indian land claims: I am now advised that the Attorney-General is

in charge of Indian land claims in this province. He hasn't done

anything about the Indian land claims either, because he's not been

formally invited to the discussions by the federal Indian Affairs

Minister in Ottawa.

I understand the federal Minister has publicly requested the B.C.

government to take

part in these discussions, but so far they have

declined to do so. I strongly suggest that the Attorney-General get

cracking as soon as possible about this serious problem. As usual, this

Minister has already left this problem far too long and it is now very

serious in our province.

Mr. Speaker, we've had many discussions about the operations of the

British Columbia Railway in the fall session. This railroad still has a

shortage of rail cars to move the forest products from the Interior

sawmills. This rail car shortage has now lasted for over a year. It has

cost the forest industry and the railroad millions of dollars in lost

revenues which can never be recovered. It has also cost the provincial

Treasury — the citizens of this province — millions in lost taxes.

The lumber market, as you are aware, was very buoyant for most of

1973. The producers could not ship their product to market because of

lack of rail cars from the British Columbia Railroad. Some relief has

been received just recently, but the mill operators feel the situation

has not been relieved enough and on a permanent basis, and it will

recur again.

A fair supply of rail cars became available in December after the

price of lumber had dropped substantially. No one will ever know how

many millions of dollars this shortage of rail cars has cost the

citizens of this province. It's an outright scandal and this government

must accept the entire responsibility for this catastrophe. An

investigation of this continued shortage of rail cars should be made at

the earliest possible time.

Mr. Speaker, I have outlined only a few problems confronting the

citizens of the Cariboo caused by the policies of this government.

The three most pressing problems in the Cariboo which have been caused by the actions of this government are as follows:

Bill 42, the Land Commission Act passed last year, which transfers

all land controls from locally-elected officials to the NDP party in

charge of the Land Commission.

Bill 71, amendments to the Assessment Equalization Act, which

increases assessments drastically and is causing severe hardship to

citizens all over this province.

Three: Autoplan — the monopoly NDP auto insurance plan.

In view of the fact that Cariboo citizens did not vote for this

government, and as their elected representative I voted against these

three laws, I request that Bill 42, Bill 71 and the monopoly Autoplan

not be applied in the riding of Cariboo.

If the government will not recognize these requests for exemptions

from these stupid socialist laws, the Cariboo citizens will have no

alternative but to leave the jurisdiction of the Government of British

Columbia and operate on their own — expecting no help from Victoria —

nor will they share any of their wealth of resources with the

socialists who are in charge of the Province of British Columbia.

MR. A.A. NUNWEILER (Fort George): I wish to rise to take my place in the debate of the budget which was introduced here a few days ago.

I'm very happy to be back again together with everybody in this

House. I would like to also thank my constituents for the opportunity

for me to be here.

I would like to recall a couple of comments that were made a few

moments ago by my friendly neighbour, the Hon. Member for Cariboo (Mr.

Fraser). He happened to mention something about roads which is very

interesting in my riding, as well as in his, I'm sure. But I made a

quick check here just to see what the situation really is in his

riding. I find, Mr. Speaker, that from the last year of office of the

old government and the first year of office of the new government, the

riding of Cariboo has, in fact, had an increase in road expenditure by

18.3 per cent — $1.838 million!

MR. FRASER: It couldn't happen to a better area in the province.

MR. NUNWEILER: That's a Social Credit riding. Very interesting.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Take a look at the Yale-Lillooet picture.

MR. NUNWEILER: One other riding — Chilliwack — 133 per cent

increase. Very interesting. That is, I believe, a Social Credit riding.

One other riding here which is an NDP riding — 58 per cent decrease.

AN HON. MEMBER: A Vancouver region.

MR. NUNWEILER: That's the riding of the Premier — 58 per cent decrease. I'm not going to tell

[ Page 224 ]

him about it because I want some more money in my riding, too.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to make a few comments about my riding of

Prince George, which is after all the gateway to the north, to the

northern development, to the northwest and the northeast of the

Province of British Columbia. It is a referral centre for many services

in the region where there are industrial, commercial business services,

government services — education, health care, vocational training, and

so on.

One thing I really want to make an observation on, speaking of the

northwest part of the province — I'm very happy to repeat this

observation like the Hon. Minister did yesterday — is that the

government action in the northwest of purchasing a major industrial

pulp operation, Columbia Cellulose, was a spectacular achievement on

the North American continent. The company was on its way down the tube,

obviously, because it was of concern for a number of years and had been

propped up by tax concessions, stumpage concessions and in many other

ways. But by pulling it out of the fire, as it were, by the Minister,

through his team, it has really created a new life in the region. It is

also spinning off into my region and will continue to do so; I'm very

confident of that.

Many communities in the area would have found themselves in a real

state of recession. It's of much pride to many of us that this company

is now owned and controlled by the people of the province, rather than

by the boardrooms of some foreign country. Not only did the government

action rescue the employment and the economy in the region, it has also

made it possible for this company now to be able to pay its full taxes

to the towns and the cities and communities of the region — its full

taxes. No more tax concessions.

Somebody mentioned tax concessions a moment ago. Why does any group

need to have tax concessions? That company now is able to pay full

taxes and they will no longer have to be propped up by tax concessions,

stumpage concessions, to keep the area alive, or to keep the company

alive.

MR. CHABOT: They are stealing their chips, though.

MR. NUNWEILER: In addition to all this — a very interesting

observation — they are able to make a profit rather than a loss. Up to

this time, which is less than a year, Canadian Cellulose has generated

a profit which is the equivalent to financing two major extensions of

the hospital in our city — in fact, it's close to three hospital

extensions. That's the kind of profit that this corporation has already

made. A very interesting observation: no more concessions, and making a

profit which is being injected into the economy of that part of the

province — and throughout the province as a whole, of course.

The concessions of the industries mentioned a little while ago by my

friendly neighbour were removed effective January 1. This had a

tremendous impact in my region. Just to give you an idea, it turns out

to be about a $500,000 additional tax revenue by removing that tax

concession alone. The industries have certainly.... Well, nobody likes

to pay higher taxes; you can't blame them for being unhappy about it.

But it's a fact of life that we don't want to overtax anybody.

Also, I don't think we want to under tax them. So I think it's just a case of everybody paying their fair share.

Now this tax concession also removed the stipulation that had

originally restricted the collecting of business tax on some of the

pulp mills in the province. I notice that Prince Rupert has taken

advantage of this and now is getting the full business tax from

Canadian Cellulose, which obviously would indicate that if the industry

can pay the taxes in Prince Rupert, surely they can do the same in

other communities throughout the province.

My friend mentioned that there was a contract giving these tax

concessions. I don't know if he was implying that the contract was

broken or something. When I heard this word "contract" — that the

industry had a contract with the government not to pay taxes, or to pay

less taxes, rather — I tried to get hold of a copy of this contract to

see what it says, to see what it's all about. I've been trying ever

since I heard these statements — for the last couple of months — and

I'm still waiting for a copy of a contract.

There is no contract that exists; there were letters patent that

were signed a number of years ago that simply stated: "You will charge

the mill rate of the industry a certain amount" — which works out to

the 10 mills, as compared to 52 mills in my city.

You were able to charge only 10 mills to the industry. There was no

contract; it was a letter patent, which in fact is a licence issued to

a city to be able to administer within a certain boundary. Of course,

these are some of the conditions that were listed in the letters

patent, and that was one of them.

Just to give you an idea of the way the structure of the assessment

and taxation was in our industry, the assessment of our industrial

plant site is $60 million. Many think sometimes that they are paying

taxes on the $60 million, but they're not. Of that $60 million, $35

million is knocked right off the top, which they call machinery. A lot

of this machinery makes you wonder whether it's machinery, but it's a

term that is used because it's got a different function than the actual

structure itself. Some of them are on cement foundations and so forth,

but they still call them machinery.

Anyway, it brings the amount down to $25

[ Page 225 ]

million that the municipality is able to tax. On top of that

reduction, instead of charging 52 mills on the $25 million, they were

only getting 10 mills on the $25 million. So it would be just the same,

as if in your own home you were able to pay taxes on just a chunk of

your property and get off free on the rest of it. The same formula,

where applied in the average home, would work out that a person would

be paying about $40 to $50 municipal taxes in one year.

[Mr. Kelly in the chair.]

AN HON. MEMBER: Do they get all the services?

MR. NUNWEILER: Most municipal services are based on a

self-liquidating utility basis. So if you have a water utility, you pay

your bill every three or four months of so many dollars, and the

revenue from that will pay for the operation of that utility. It does

not come out of the mill rate in most municipalities. So a lot of

people are supplying their own water service and their own garbage

service by virtue of a self-liquidating utility which has no reflection

in the mill rate, generally speaking.

As I mentioned, Mr. Speaker, the industry has complained, and I

don't blame them, naturally. But I'd just like to explain to them that

we are not out to overtax them, we're not out to under tax them; we're

out to ask them to pay their share like everybody else — that they

don't pay the equivalent of what a homeowner would pay if he had to pay

on half his house.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to touch on the policies of this

government in the budget that have been very significant to help our

area: the one-third reduction of welfare cost to the municipalities,

the extra $2 per capita grant, the $30 renters grant and up to $40

grant to homeowners for school tax reduction. If I work all this out

since January 1 up until the present day, between the new government

policy and this budget, the municipality in my community has actually

gained up to $800,000 to $900,000 as a result of the policies of this

government. We always hear the story that the former speaker had

mentioned about municipalities, but I'd just like to simply draw that

to his attention, and that equals from 10 to 12 mills in taxes from

which they are benefiting in my city.

I'd like to mention some of the problems in my area regarding health

care. We are a major referral centre. We have a new extension to the

hospital opening shortly, but one of the real problems in the area is

the need for intermediate care. We find that there are just no such

facilities available. The crowding situation is overwhelming. We do

have a facility which is called personal care which is, in fact, a

boarding home for senior citizens. In this case it has only 40 units.

It doesn't take long for the senior citizens to graduate into a

situation where they need some form of minimum care — in effect,

intermediate care. Consequently, in this special-care home of ours,

over 50 per cent of the people in there are no longer special-care

residents; they are intermediate-care residents, living in a

boarding-home situation and it's just creating a tremendous pressure on

the people that run it. I would urge the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr.

Cocke) by all means to expedite a programme for intermediate care in my

region, because the need for that care is bordering on an emergency

situation.

Another thing is the shortage of psychiatrists for our area. We have

a large region. The ratio of psychiatrists for the lower part of the

province generally, I think, runs around one doctor per 20,000

population. In our area, with approximately 125,000 population, we've

got one psychiatrist, and the work pressure is tremendous. But now I

find out that he is going to be leaving in a couple of months, so we're

not going to have any unless we're able to make some special

arrangement. I want to draw this to the attention of the Minister to

see if something can be worked out to give relief in this area of need.

I was very pleased to hear the Minister of Housing speak on his

subject. It's very encouraging. I want to take particular note of his

land assembly policy. When I go out into the rural areas, quite often I

find that a young couple will come in, they've got a job, they want a

place to live and there's just no way that they can make any

satisfactory arrangement because nothing exists there. What is needed

is for the community to have some way for a land assembly and then some

way to build the homes on them. The only way it can be done is to have

leadership from the Department of Housing, together with Municipal

Affairs. I heard it mentioned that he would invite municipalities to

put in their requests for assistance for land assembly. I think this is

going to be a very relevant thing in my area and I'm certainly going to

ask my people to take advantage of that.

Another problem I would like to raise is the quality of some mobile

homes. I've had many complaints about this. I would urge the Minister

of Consumer Affairs (Hon. Ms. Young) and perhaps also the Minister of

Housing (Hon. Mr. Nicolson) to take special note of this problem, to

make sure that the standards of mobile homes are somehow set to avoid

the exploitation of people who buy them and find out later on that

something has gone wrong such that they wish they hadn't touched it.

I ran into one situation just a few weeks ago where these people

were sold a mobile home and they were promised that it was going to be

set up on their lot and so forth. This all happened last summer —

sometime in the early fall, I guess it was. It was a double-wide, and

shortly after they moved in they had problems with a leak in the roof.

They kept

[ Page 226 ]

coming back and patching it, and it would hold for a short while and then start all over again.

When winter rolled around, by the time the holiday season arrived,

they had already made arrangements and they were forced to move out of

it because it was just so terrible. The roof kept leaking whenever

there was a thaw in the ice, and one thing and another. There was also

a leak coming through, not only at the joint where the two halves were

welded together, but throughout the rest of it as well.

When I was invited in to have a look at it, there was water coming

out of the dining room light and there was water coming in from the

edge of the outside walls. I was told that they could feel the icicles

dropping down from inside the walls. So whether there was insulation in

it or not wasn't clear. But they suspected that there was not even any

insulation in it.

There was a number of problems with shabbiness and one thing and

another, so I think there must be some device to get at this type of

problem and to ensure people that they're not going to be exploited by

people dealing with substandard mobile homes.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to also make mention of one other item which

my colleague mentioned yesterday regarding the Egg Marketing Board.

There has been a great deal of frustration with the producers up in the

northern regions. The Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) also touched on

that, too, I believe.

There is the problem of quota, which in effect is a licence for

people to be able to market. The production in our area is

approximately 20 per cent of what the consumption is. In Prince George

there is around a 750-case quota, and the consumption in the region is

around 6,000 to 7,000 cases a week, so that's a very small part of

production in relation to the consumption in the region. There is

absolutely no quota, no production permitted in the Peace River.

There's absolutely no quota, no production.

As a matter of fact, in the Bulkley Valley, which is the Burns

Lake-Smithers-Hazelton-Houston area, there was a quota of 28 cases

until late last year, and that quota was transferred to the southern

part of the province, where there already is a glut, an overproduction.

They permitted 28 cases to go from that area to an area where it's just

absolutely useless. I was told by the board, "Well, the only reason we

did that is because the fellow that had these 28 cases sold it for $300

apiece." — $300 per case, that is. Twenty-eight cases would bring about

$8,000 or so in revenue, and that is just one piece of paper, one

licence that is valued to that amount to transfer from the Bulkley

Valley to the southern part of the province.

I think that this is really doing a disservice to the region as well

as to the people who want to get into production to be able to serve

the local consumers with fresh eggs, as well as protecting the consumer

prices.

The Minister has indicated that he's going to inquire into this, and

I certainly am very pleased that he's going to do this. But I certainly

would like to see some results in the very near future.

Another matter I was going to raise was the matter of energy. The

question has been coming up from time to time about generating

electricity from sawmill and pulp mill waste from the hog fuel.

Northwood Pulp is one company that has just recently installed a

generator to generate electricity that is fed by the hog fuel. I'm

advised that they're getting almost enough electricity out of the waste

to provide the electricity for the plant — that is, they've got a pulp

mill and an adjacent sawmill.

That is an indication that these kind of things can be done. I

understand that there are one or two other places in the province that

are doing it. I also understand that B.C. Hydro is now going to do some

experimenting in the economics and the feasibility of setting up

generating systems that are fueled by sawmill wastes, so that we can at

least utilize this waste and get some energy out of it. I think it's a

step in the right direction.

I've also talked to some sawmill owners in our area who are very

interested in seeing some way to get together to be able to pool their

hog fuel and have it generated into electricity. I would hope that B.C.

Hydro would provide their experience from their experiments to be able

to assist these types of smaller industrial people to pool their hog

fuel and come up with useful production out of it.

Also I would urge the Ministers of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr.

Lorimer) and Lands and Forests (Hon. R.A. Williams) to be conscious and

to take notice of the need for a hydro grid from the Valemount-McBride

area through to Prince George.

That would be the grid that ties together the Mica Dam and the Peace

River Dam and that's the gap that needs to be filled from Prince George

to McBride-Valemount. It's just south of Valemount that they tie into

the Mica Dam. The hydro rates are still high in that region even though

they have been brought down considerably, thanks to B.C. Hydro and our

directors here. But the rates are still so high compared to what they

are in Prince George or down here in Vancouver that the grid should be

the answer to it.

It's obvious that the Mica Dam, when it's dammed up, is going to be

13 miles from Valemount. Yet Valemount has to pay a hydro rate based on

diesel-fuel generation which is a higher cost. It doesn't really make

that much sense to have a hydro dam on your doorstep and have to pay a

high diesel rate for the use of your electricity.

Mr. Speaker, I won't make any more points at this time; I'll save it for the rest of the estimates. Thank you very much.

[ Page 227 ]

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Deputy

Speaker, it's good to see you in the chair. You must tell the House

about McIntyre Bluff some time. But perhaps not this afternoon.

I'm also sorry that on Valentine's Day, a day traditionally

associated with good feelings and love, that this has to be a

reasonably unpleasant address. But I think there are a few things to be

said.

I wouldn't have expected it possible for this new and

once-enthusiastic socialist government to have created such widespread

and often bitter resentment as it has in such a relatively short space

of time. The budget document which we are now debating has, in my view,

done relatively little to ease the situation or to ease the fears of

British Columbians.

Surprisingly, perhaps, to some that bitterness and disenchantment

appears to be at its most intense level not in the management

boardrooms of Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal and New York, not in the

plush offices of the corporate presidents — the "corporate giants" I

think is the phrase that has been used quite often — but through a very

wide spectrum of our entire provincial community: in homes and offices,

in coffee shops, in service stations, in stores, wherever the so-called

average citizen gathers to spend just a few minutes discussing the

present and future circumstances of life in B.C. Disenchantment,

disappointment, a feeling of frustration and annoyance with the now

almost countless examples of this government's incompetence and

amateurism in guiding the affairs of the province and its people.

For the government, when the next general election is called, that

disappointment and disenchantment and frustration I think will be

translated into a very significant vote against the New Democratic

Party.

The NDP, as I understand it, has made some mileage provincially and

federally in speaking about the corporate rip-off. However, the people

of this province are now coming to realize that they have fallen victim

to something resembling a socialist rip-off: in Autoplan; in property

assessments; in land prices; in action or, more correctly, inaction in

the housing Ministry; in poorly conceived and very hastily executed

purchases of a number of companies where such purchase was not

necessary in the interest of British Columbia; in the clearly evident

intention on the part of the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) to settle some old scores, to retaliate

for real or imagined injustices stretching back over a number of years.

There is an element, Mr. Speaker, of jealousy and vindictiveness

apparent in many of the actions of this government which is not in the

best interests of the province or its people.

Other Members have spoken about the budget document itself and the

fact that it is inflationary, that it carries many reminders of an

earlier era in terms of boasting about bigness and record spending and

new highs in this department and that department.

However, it isn't the document itself which concerns me as much as

the doubts I have, I believe along with so many British Columbians,

about the ability of this government to carry out the necessary degree

of careful and diligent management of the affairs of the province.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett), who is

actively consulting at the moment with the Minister of Transport and

Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) — I wonder about what — is an

excellent tactician in this Legislative Assembly. No question about it.

He performs well on radio and television — and I don't use the word

"performs" in any derogatory sense.

But many of us now wonder, and I think with very real justification,

about his capability to guide and control the fiscal affairs of British

Columbia. In his capacity as Premier we have to ask about the way in

which he guides and directs some of his cabinet Ministers. We have to

ask also how he can effectively handle the varied and vocal opinions of

his caucus. I'm sure he must ask the same kind of question in his quiet

moments when the television and radio and newspaper reporters aren't

around, when the hotline shows have closed for the day.

How does he react to some of the incompetence and the carelessness

with which certain government departments and agencies are operating in

British Columbia? How does he really feel about his Minister of

Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) pro tem and the

incredible blunders of ICBC and the ad hockery of Autoplan rate

adjustments, revisions and "corrections"? I wonder how he feels about

the Minister's thoughtless comments during question period this

afternoon.

How did the Premier enjoy breakfast or his midmorning coffee with

the headlines such as that which appeared in the Vancouver Province on

February 6 which reads: "More fast switches on Autoplan premiums"?

How does the Premier respond when a lifelong CCF-NDP voter says he

is so angry over this government's amateurism that he is determined

never to vote socialist in British Columbia again? How about the former

NDP candidate — a candidate, Mr. Speaker — who has given up in disgust

and is prepared to work towards the defeat of this government starting

today, right now?

The government backbenchers. I wonder what their reaction is to the lead editorial in the Vancouver Sun for February 12?

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): We don't pay any attention to the Sun anymore.

[ Page 228 ]

MR. CURTIS: Well, perhaps you should, Mr. Premier, through you Mr. Speaker. The lead editorial of February 12 reads in part:

"Premier Dave Barrett's new budget is irresponsible.

At a time when inflation is gorging itself on the expectation of worse

to follow, any government should be relied upon to show some evidence

of a decent restraint in its scale of its expenditure. Mr. Barrett's

monstrous spending programme for 1974-75 shows none."

The assessment matter, Mr. Speaker. I see the Member for Cariboo

(Mr. Fraser) is back and we can have part two of that little battle in

a short while.

The assessment mess: a tangle of mass confusion, with a directive to

assessors coming out of the assessment commissioner's office on January

22, 1974, more than three weeks after assessors have closed their rolls

for the new year. We have the spectacle of the Premier and the Minister

of Finance of this province pleading the excuse, publicly, that

assessors have somehow misinterpreted the directives issued after the

spring session last year, that they didn't quite understand what it was

all about.

What directives? What directives, Mr. Speaker? Well, there were six

different letters to assessors from the assessment commissioner's

office in the course of the balance of 1973 — that is, after the spring

session and into 1974 — all of them with slight changes in

interpretation and various shadings of instructions for the individual

assessors.

Then we have that very regrettable attempt on the part of the

Minister of Finance to pass the buck to the assessors, perhaps to

ultimately place the responsibility at the door of the assessment

commissioner's office itself. I'm not prepared to stand back quietly

when the first Minister of this province, in a chaotic situation like

this, trundles out the lame excuse that the assessors didn't quite

understand their instruction