1970 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 29th 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)

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 1970

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 413 ]

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 1970

The House met at 2 p.m.

BUDGET DEBATE

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Minister of Industrial Development.

HON. W.M. SKILLINGS (2nd-Victoria): Mr. Speaker, as this is

the first occasion I've had to stand in my place representing the great

capital City of Victoria, I first would like to express to you how very

happy I am that you are again in our Chair as Speaker, and I think that

now that tempers have cooled a little, I think all members of the House

know in their hearts that you always do a good job.

I think also, Mr. Speaker, that I would be remiss if I did not

compliment the eight new members on this and on that side of the House,

who have brought to this House youth, enthusiasm, and experience, and I

understand that they have impressed the Opposition no little and,

believe me, it's a wonderful experience. I've been in this House for

ten years, and to see such bright, intelligent, young people coming up

on our side of the House,

whereas we still have the same old, tired,

little group across in that corner….

I would particularly, Mr. Speaker, like to thank the voters of

Victoria, and I would particularly like to just make this little

summary, particularly for the first member for Vancouver–Point Grey,

because you know he came dashing across in the last election in that

wayward bus of his, and the things that he wasn't going to do, was just

nobody's business. I want to tell him that just ten years ago his

little splinter party had a member in the House from the City of

Victoria. Yes, he's gone to his just reward, he's now on the bench. At

that time, Mr. First Member from Vancouver–Point Grey, I won that seat

from the Liberal party by 1,100 votes. In 1963, another election, and I

beat the Liberals by 5,000 votes, and in 1966 that Liberal candidate,

or the two Liberal candidates for your party, dropped not from second

place, but to third, and I won the seat by 7,500 votes. In 1969 I beat

your top Liberal candidate by 10,500 votes, so I think that you could

spend your time, Mr. Leader, to better advantage going out on the

hustings and trying to win people to your ideas of thinking, rather

than making up those ludicrous budgets that you do.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Minister of Public Works has been carrying you for years.

MR. SKILLINGS: I may answer that, Mr. Member, by telling you

that there are only four M.L.A.'s in the Province who got an excess of

15,000 votes, and my colleague was one, and I was one of that four as

well, so I wasn't carried too far, was I? I may say that during the

election campaign I had a serious accident and I broke two ribs and

damaged a kidney, and only had to speak once. My good running

mate….you're all spoiling my story….my running mate said to me,

"Waldo, next time don't speak at all, you might beat me!"

But I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that the Liberal leader gave out,

you know, that budget of his a week ago yesterday, and he was throwing

millions of dollars around just like there was no tomorrow. He reminded

me of a one-armed paper hanger. He was throwing $40,000,000 to this,

$40,000,000 to that, and he said furthermore, he said I would have

$15,000,000 additional for the Department of Industrial Development,

Trade, and Commerce. He said we would come in with incentive

programmes, we would have financial assistance programmes, and we would

attract sophisticated industry.

I want to tell the honourable member just one story. Four years ago,

in 1966, a well-known industrialist in Victoria by the name of Harold

Hilband approached this Government for financial assistance for one of

these sophisticated industries and it was the manufacture of heavy

water. I may say the Government took it under advisement and turned it

down. The Province of Nova Scotia took it on, and I want you to listen,

my friend, because this is a little different twist than that one

thought that you have. The Province of Nova Scotia took on the

manufacture of heavy water some four years ago, and up to the present

time, they have invested…. I didn't make this speech last year at

all. Mr. Speaker would you ask that member over there from Foggy Bottom

to keep quiet for just a few minutes, he might learn something, because

his demonstration in the House today, apart from smear, has been

nil…. Up to date the Province of Nova Scotia has spent $120,000,000

trying to make heavy water, and up to date they haven't made one drop.

It is anticipated that they are going to need another $40,000,000 to

$60,000,000 to further progress along their development of heavy water,

and at the end of that time they still are not sure whether or not that

the plant will be feasible and viable. So you see, Mr. Leader of the

Liberal party, that $15,000,000 would have gone just on one, as you

call, sophisticated industry. You know it's not a question, in either

business or government, how much you spend, it is how efficiently you

spent it.

I want very, very briefly today to outline the policy of this

Government, the policy it has carried on for the past 17 years, it's

not the policy I instituted, but it was instituted by the Social Credit

Government back 17 years ago.

We believe to attract industry, secondary industry or any other kind

of industry, you have to have four basic requirements. First of all,

you have to have proper transportation, and as you know, prior to 1952

our ordinary road system in British Columbia was pathetic. The next

thing we did after getting in a real good highway system was to extend

the Pacific Great Eastern Railway both north and south, and at the

present time, as you know, we are presently taking the route into Takla

Lake and also up to Fort Nelson. In the Province of British Columbia

today, we have the greatest railroad development in all of Canada, and

in fact all of the free world.

The next thing we said you have to have to attract industries was an

abundance of hydro-electric power, and everybody on that side of the

House, no matter what they say, were opposed to the two-river policy of

Columbia River and the Peace River, and I may say we are the only

Province in Canada today that has abundant electrical energy.

The third thing, of course — and I want to say, while I'm on that

one point, who could foresee eight or ten years ago that we would have

such a state of inflation and prime money at 10 per cent? I see my

banker up there in the gallery today. I guess he's here to make sure

I'm not going to say anything bad about Chargex, and I'm not going to

say anything about it, either. But I may say I was talking to one of

the senior vice-presidents of Merrill Lynch in New York a week ago

today, and he said, "You know, it's a funny thing, but there wasn't one

money manager or one person in Merrill Lynch, or in New York State,

that ever could foresee such a tight money market." He said if any had

existed they could

[ Page 414 ]

have been billionaires by now. Well, I say that's a

funny thing. He should have come to British Columbia. We've got 12 in

the Opposition and five Liberals that knew all along that the tight

money situation was going to come along and they could have figured it

all out. The experts couldn't.

The next thing, of course, to attract industry, you must have a

competent labour force, and I may say we now have in British Columbia

over 800,000 of the best-trained labour force in Canada, who are

working under the best possible conditions and for the highest wages.

Last but not least, you must have stable Government. You must have a

Government with vision. You must have a Government with foresight and

you must have a Government that has balanced budgets. We in British

Columbia for a number of years have had the lowest taxes of all Canada.

Besides these three points, we…. Now just a moment, Foggy Bottom, you

just listen for a little while, because we went through an hour and a

half yesterday with you, and I didn't interrupt you once, so you just

have the same courtesy to me as well, will you? Mr. Speaker, would see

that member from Foggy Bottom doesn't….

MR. SPEAKER: Order. The honourable Minister realizes that's not parliamentary language.

MR. SKILLINGS: I withdraw, but I'll tell you, you got to

fight fire with fire, I found that out for a number of years Another

thing, Mr. Speaker, that this Province of British Columbia has done. On

June 2nd, 1971, from June 2nd to June 10th, we will have our fifth

International Trade Fair, and I feel that following on Osaka '70, it is

going to be the finest trade fair we have ever had. And don't think for

one minute that this trade fair or these previous four trade fairs have

not stimulated industrial development in our Province, because they

have. As a matter of fact, on December 8th, we had our Consular Dinner

in Ottawa, just a little over two months ago, and we attracted to that

dinner some 47 either ambassadors, charges d'affaires, or heads of

state to hear our presentation on our new International Trade Fair. I

was talking to my counterpart in Ottawa, the Honourable Mr. Pepin, and

I want to tell you right now, he's a fine gentleman. He said to me,

"Waldo," he said, "how do you do it? How do you get a crowd like this

out in Ottawa when a Dominion-Provincial Conference is going on, and to

have a group as large as this?" I said, "Mr. Pepin, they've come to

hear Premier Bennett, but basically they've come to see 'The Good

Life." We showed that in Ottawa that night and it went over very big

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you sign any autographs there?

MR. SKILLINGS: No, I didn't sign any autographs at all. But I

may tell you that the senior Cabinet Minister from Vancouver, Art

Laing, was there, and he said it was one of the best organizations and

best dinners that he'd attended in Ottawa for some time. He's been

there for some time. No, I didn't organize it at all. I had the

president and the executive of the International Trade Fair look after

the arrangements.

But I want to compliment you, Mr. Member, because the honourable

member from North Vancouver–Capilano at least had the interest of his

constituency and the interest of British Columbia at heart, to attend

the Outlook Conference on January 8th and 9th of this year. I want to

say there were invitations sent to every member of the Opposition, and

you were the only member, Mr. Member, that showed up and I want to

compliment you for it, because there were other people right from the

City of Vancouver that didn't show up at all. Mr. Speaker, I only throw

that in to show you they do a lot of talking about how interested they

are in industrial development, but I show you how barren they are of

ideas, when they are issued an invitation and not one of them had the

courtesy to say, because I haven't got an expense account, or because

of other commitments, I cannot attend.

Now I want to say a word, too, about what British Columbia has done

as far as the Osaka World Fair is concerned. You remember three years

ago, British Columbia went in with the three western provinces and put

on a display in Montreal. It was a very, very good display, but this

year, in 1970, British Columbia is putting on their own display in

Osaka Japan, and I hope that every member of this Legislature has taken

the time and trouble to look at the model, that you can see outside,

that the B.C. Telephone Company has supplied to us and at no expense to

the Legislature whatsoever. I may say our pavilion may not be the

largest in Osaka, or the most expensive, but I can tell you this, that

we stayed within our budget and we're going. to have a display that I

will venture to say will rank with the first five of the 78 pavilions

in Osaka. We have had terrific cooperation by our agent the Dominion

Construction, Company, and I see Mr. Doug Sutcliffe — we used to call

him when we were over in Prague, worry-wart — because he is the man who

has had to draw all of the different components together, and I want

here today to compliment Mr. Doug Sutcliffe for a terrific job.

The Osaka World's Fair, through our pavilion, will put British

Columbia in its true perspective before one billion Asiatics, apart

from the Europeans that come to the Fair itself. My Deputy and I will

be leaving, before the House rises, for the opening ceremonies on the

14th and 15th days of March of this year. I may tell you, that apart

from the structural aspect of our pavilion itself, the audio-visual

portion, as I mentioned a year ago, with this 42-foot screen,

perpendicular rather than horizontal. The new concept that the Czech

group has put into our pavilion, is going to be something that I really

hope that we can bring back, that spherorama concept, so that we can

show it, during our Centennial year. I know that Mr. Sutcliffe and

myself, when we are in Tokyo and Osaka, will speak to the Czech

consortium to see whether or not it's within the ball-park to bring

this terrific spherorama back to British Columbia so that everybody, in

fact not everybody, but a great many people within the Province will

have the opportunity of seeing it.

You have on your desks today two typewritten sheets of paper giving

you some idea of the different periodicals that the Department of

Industrial Development, Trade, and Commerce publish, and I may say that

they are available to anybody, if you wish to send for them. They say

once in a while they might be out of print. There are three different

basic types. There's a Regional Economic Study done by my Department

itself, and then there is a Regional District Economic Study, of which

we pay 50 per cent along with the region that's interested, and then

the Participation and Feasibility Studies. On the second page the

Department's industrial studies Are all there — they are not all there

— actually there are more. On the second sheet I want you, and I want

particularly the first member for Vancouver–Point Grey to note — I have

taken as a comparison today the three prairie provinces and compared

them with British Columbia.

[ Page 415 ]

Now the leader of the Liberal party always keeps talking about

Ontario. Now there is no way that British Columbia can be compared to

Ontario. In the first place they have three and a half to four times

the population that British Columbia has. They are in Central Canada

and they have the benefit of restrictive tariffs from the outside

world. They also have the preference as far as rail rates are

concerned. They can ship west cheaper than we in the west can ship

east, so they are not comparable in any way. So I have taken from the

Dominion Bureau of Statistics the last ten-year figures — from 1959 to

1968, a ten-year period — of a comparison between British Columbia and

the fourth region, the prairie provinces. You will notice there that

British Columbians for capital and repair expenditures during that

ten-year period generated, $3,100,000,000. Alberta, $923,000,000.

Saskatchewan, $318,000,000. Manitoba, $709,000,000. Making a total of

$1,951,000,000.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that private of public?

MR. SKILLINGS: This is public and private. This is D.B.S. I

had nothing to do with the preparation whatsoever. And so that my good

friend won't say, "Well, there are three or four pulp mills thrown in

there," I would like you to look at the British Columbia portion. It is

divided into seven segments, for employees under five, employees under

15, employees under 20, employees under 30, employees under 50,

employees under 100, and over 100. You will see that in that ten-year

period British Columbia attracted 1,967 new businesses,

whereas the

three prairie provinces combined only attracted 1,830.

Now I just give you those figures, Mr. Speaker, so that the members

of this House can have some appreciation of what this Department has

been doing with a very limited budget. But I will repeat, it's not how

much you have to throw around, it's how you spend it. I may say that

the policy of this Government, very simply, is we do not believe that

tax money should be taken from successful businesses to supplement a

marginal business or a hard-up business to get them started, because

they can't pay the wages that labour wants, and they are always a stone

around your neck because they never blossom out into their true worth.

For that reason we want to attract healthy business.

AN HON. MEMBER: How about the iron bounty?

MR. SKILLINGS: The iron bounty is not a bad thing. It is a

start, and at some time I hope that we will have an iron industry in

British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about the incentive programme for the Okanagan?

MR. SKILLINGS: The incentive programme in the Okanagan was a

Federal one, and can you imagine anything more ludicrous, Mr. Speaker,

than giving $5,000,000 to a distillery to go to the Okanagan?

AN HON. MEMBER: Nothing for the apples.

MR. SKILLINGS: No, nothing for the apple industry. Nothing for the basic industry. So if you like, and I may tell you….

AN HON. MEMBER: Just state whether you are for or against the programme.

MR. SKILLINGS: Well, as a matter of fact, I am against the

programme, yes. Because I tell you it's discriminatory. Mr. Speaker,

let me tell that leader of that little Liberal group what Mr. Ross

Thatcher said. I had the real pleasure in June of being at the first

Dominion-Provincial Conference last year, and also in December, and

Ross Thatcher said, and these are not my words, but the Premier of

Saskatchewan said, "This new incentive programme is just something for

the Canadians east of Three Rivers." East of Three Rivers. The Okanagan

programme phases out at the end of this year. $5,000,000 for a

distillery.

As a matter of fact, the trouble with the first Area Assistance Act

was, they set up certain criteria. If you made that criteria you got

the grant, irrespective of what your plant was or what it would do for

the community. Now the new Area Assistance Act…. Just listen a

minute and you'll learn something, because your big trouble is you

shoot off before you know what you're talking about…. Now the new

area incentive programme — and I may say I was in Ottawa in June of

last year and I listened to the Minister at that time and Mr. Kent who

used to be in the Prime Minister's office, as you know, and he is now

the Deputy Minister of that particular department, and the original

intent of the Act was that they would have this incentive idea with

consultation with the provinces. But when the Act came out, only the

very little eastern comer of British Columbia is included, the rest of

British Columbia is not included and I say….

AN HON. MEMBER: You're against the programme.

MR. Skillings: I am against it because it is discrimination.

When I spoke to Mr. Kent — when I spoke to the Minister, I said, "Let's

have every application adjudged on its merits, and if it deserves to

have financial assistance, rather than pick out some particular

area…" As a matter of fact, as I told you, if you had been listening,

it is

not the policy of this Government to have those supplemental

assistances. I never announced it once.

AN HON. MEMBER: You announced it last year three times. Did you get stuck?

MR. SKILLINGS: Well, it's tough, you know, Mr. Speaker, when

you've got to be heckled by the Opposition. When you start to get

heckled by your own backbenchers you're in bad shape. But I tell you,

every time the good member from over there gets up he speaks nothing

but sense. Nonsense, that's what he is talking about. And I want to

tell you this. I have sat now for three and a half weeks and listened

to this debate in the House. You know there is one thing that hasn't

settled in — I was going to say something unkind but I won't say it — but they haven't yet realized that last August the 27th the people of

British Columbia elected a new Legislature. Now they voted us in. It

wasn't you people.

AN HON. MEMBER: We've already been through that.

MR. SKILLINGS: Isn't that too bad. And I have got another 30

minutes, too, and if you keep on interrupting, my friend, I may go to

five or six as you did.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will the members please address the

[ Page 416 ]

Chair?

MR. SKILLINGS: Yes, Mr. Speaker. And I want to tell you, you

know when you're getting to them, when they start to prickle their ears

and the way those members from Point Grey are doing, and they know,

basically, that they haven't got a leg to stand on as far as national

policy is concerned. I would like to say to the House this, Mr.

Speaker, by what stretch of the imagination, or by what authority has

Pierre Elliott To-do — not Trudeau — now coming in, suggesting that the

way to solve the problems of Canada is to create further unemployment?

I want to tell you, that is really the best!

But I want to finish the other point that I had in mind. It hasn't

soaked in or hasn't penetrated — that's the word — to some of their

thick skulls, that on the 27th of last August the people of British

Columbia spoke, and they spoke in no uncertain terms, and believe me

they have given us a mandate for the next four or five years to govern,

and that is what we intend to do, no matter what that little

Opposition, whether it be the little dreamers over here or the

socialists over there, have to say. We accept our responsibility and it

is our intention to carry on.

There is one other thing I would like to ask — it is too bad the

first member for Vancouver East is not in his chair, because he made a

tremendous oration last Friday an how he is going to stand or fall on

the hydro rates. I am not going to discuss hydro rates but I want to

ask, Mr. Speaker, how they feel now when the Province of Manitoba, with

their great N.D.P. government, are going to come up with a 14% per cent

increase? Oh, there is nothing — you've got nothing to say about that?

I got it. I got it. Sit down. I am going to tell you — I am going to

tell you, Mr. Past, Past, Past Leader, or whatever you happen to be — would the real leader of that party stand up. Oh, Leo!

Well, I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I have a great personal

admiration for the past, past Leader, and I can remember when I first

came into this House he used to stand up and say, "Nobody, but nobody

fools Bob Strachen," and one day a couple of years ago, and I made this

statement, he woke up and he found three stilettos in his back, and he

says, "No, not three, only two." That was his words, not mine. It is

pretty tough you know, when you've got to walk around with two

stilettos sticking out of your back.

Now there is another subject I'd like to discuss, and that is….

Now that second member for Vancouver–Point Grey, he is a great talker

but he's not much of a listener, is he? I want to discuss a problem we

have in Victoria, and, as a matter of fact, my friend, we in Victoria

are very proud, my colleague and I, that the citizens of Victoria for

six times returned the Minister of Public Works and for four times

returned myself, and as long as I sit in this Legislature I will speak

for all the people, all the people of Victoria, not just the doctors,

or not just the labouring force, but all the people.

AN HON. MEMBER: You don't mind making mistakes again.

MR. SKILLINGS: Oh well, of course, you know, to err is human, you know.

There is a problem in Victoria now, and I think I should mention it

because it has come up several times, regarding St. Joseph's Hospital.

I think that my position is this, that I think that hospital beds are

first priority and roads and transportation are second. That's where I

stand on this subject. I think that it is a good thing to have this

question aired now between the Provincial authorities and the

municipalities but it is a further proof that what I said in my maiden

speech in this House — it is time that the four contiguous

municipalities of this Province got together, stopped their little

empires, stopped their four little mayors, the four little fire chiefs,

and their four little police chiefs, their four little empires and

amalgamated to make Victoria a really — the Capital City of this

Province that it should be.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear. That's right.

AN HON. MEMBER: Rubbish!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order please.

MR. SKILLINGS: I don't care. I don't care, for example,

whether you say rubbish or not. The thing is this, that the principle

is good and when you've got to go to regionalization like our little

friend from Oak Bay, who made the aside, and said, they want the region

to look after all of the tough problems, but the ordinary, everyday,

mundane, problems they want to solve themselves. Eventually it has got

to come, so I just say, why not now?

Now, as far as this street plan is concerned, I really had something

to say, but in fairness to our ex-mayor who is holidaying in Hawaii, I

will not say some of the things that perhaps I was going to say. But I

certainly do hope that the hospital authorities will ask, when he does

return, how that report, and how a couple of pages were lost, and how

the experts first of all advised against cutting the property up, and

then in the second report they suggested that it should be cut up. I

don't think this is cooperation.

I may say, since I became the M.L.A. or one of the M.L.A.'s for this

area, I went down on more than one occasion and offered full

cooperation with the mayor and aldermen of the City of Victoria, and

the only time I was ever called by the last three mayors was to put a

couple of small amendments to our Victoria Private Act, and when they

got into this kerfuffle about the Blanshard Street extension, that is

the only time the City has ever come to me at all. But I may say, a new

mayor of the City of Victoria was elected last December. He showed real

leadership, I think, when this question of hospital or metropolitan

health care came up, by inviting all the M.L.A.'s of this area to come

down to City Hall and discuss the problems. Because, you know, the

region under discussion — perhaps some of you don't know how large it

is — it is south of the Malahat taking in all the unorganized

territories, taking in all of Esquimalt, all of Oak Bay, all of Saanich

and Victoria, and right out to the Gulf Islands. I may say that it is a

refreshing treat, you know, because for many years the three

municipalities — as far as their mayors were concerned — were Liberally

dominated, and for the first time there is only one now that is still

in the Liberal camp, and we have now, I think, in Esquimalt and

Victoria fair-minded representatives who will do a job for their

respective municipalities. And I say that with some experience. I hope

that —

AN HON. MEMBER: I don't think you have the right to say that.

MR. SKILLINGS: I have the right to say it, yes, and I am not

hiding behind any immunity of the House when I say that. It is my own

personal opinion. As a matter of fact, if

[ Page 417 ]

the good member for Cowichan-Malahat was a little

bit more guarded in some of his statements, he wouldn't look quite so

ridiculous in the press a few days later. The problem facing us now,

Mr. Speaker, is whether or not we are going to have real cooperation

both at municipal level and Provincial level, and I say in this House

tonight that my colleague, the Minister for Public Works, and myself

have offered to the administration full cooperation, and that is what

we intend to have as far as our Capital City is concerned.

The question of health services — my good friend the Minister of

Health Services will be handling this question himself, because it is a

very, very complicated problem, and I think that the Minister of Health

himself will have a further statement on the entire Metropolitan Health

Board when he speaks to this House I would say perhaps later on this

week.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I have always tried, when I address this

House, to get any information I have across in 30 minutes and I may say

that I have, right from the day of my maiden speech, always been

heckled. But I am going to tell you, anytime I'm not heckled I am

disappointed. So I may say the House today has not disappointed me

again.

I would simply say this, that as far as inflation is concerned, and

they are discussing this very question back in Ottawa now, I say this,

it's the Federal Government's policies, their monetary policies of high

interest rates, deficit financing, and reckless spending that have

caused this galloping inflation, and the quicker they realize that, the

better, because British Columbia's record stands beyond any comparison

in all Canada. We are the fastest-growing area in Canada. We have had

17 years of balanced Budgets. We are growing twice as fast as the

national average. We have the finest work force in all of Canada, with

the highest wages, and I don't see how anybody on that side of the

House, when it comes their opportunity to stand and vote for this

Budget, has any alternative but to vote yes.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Burnaby-Willingdon.

MR. J.G. LORIMER (Burnaby-Willingdon): Mr. Speaker, I am very

pleased to take my place in this debate. I notice today that I am the

one member of the Opposition speaking with seven members of the

Government, and if you'll pardon the expression, it's like the famous

pullet in the fox house. But in any event, I don't intend to deal much

with the Industrial Development, Trade, and Commerce portfolio — I

don't know much about it either.

It is somewhat difficult to find something to speak about when

you're at the end of the speaking list. However, I thought I'd look at

the Budget and might discuss some things that are in the Budget to go

on. Now, I think by reading the Budget, that the big winner in this

year's Budget is the B.C. Hydro. They've been given the additional

power to borrow another $250,000,000 and, as a result, they are enabled

to borrow up to one-quarter of the revenue of this Province. Now, add

this to the $2,000,000 in long-term debt of the Authority and we

come….

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member certainly is aware of the ruling

of the House and of the Motions and Bills on the Order Paper, and will

he please comply.

MR. LORIMER: Well, I'm certainly not going to deal with anything with reference to any of the Bills or the other matters.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, the matter of Hydro fiscal structure is in the Bill and also in the Resolution.

MR. LORIMER: We'll carry on to, on page 23 of the Budget

Speech, Mr. Speaker, we have reference made to the Pacific Great

Eastern Railway. It states that, "To continue the Provincial

Government-owned Pacific Great Eastern Railway's construction push into

our resource-rich northern regions, the Government will submit for

approval the investment of an additional $35,000,000 in the share

capital of the railway company, also from current-year revenues."

Now I am completely in favour of spending $35,000,000 for extensions

of the Pacific Great Eastern if it is, in fact, needed, and I believe

that the advantages to our northern country and to the Province as a

whole will more than cover the cost of the $35,000,000. However, I

think that what we should do is admit that the $35,000,000 is strictly

a grant to the Authority, and is not a question of purchasing further

stock in the company. The Government has owned 100 per cent of the

P.G.E. for a great number of years, and this is strictly a transfer of

funds for the Pacific Great Eastern Railway, and I think that we should

tell the people, you know, the way it is.

I hope the Premier will announce further extensions if same are

required and also, if necessary, take money out of general revenue to

have those extensions built. However, if the purpose of these

extensions, Mr. Speaker, is strictly to facilitate the removal of our

raw materials from our northern areas for processing outside the

Province, then I feel that the benefit will be indeed short-lived and

the whole exercise will be a waste of time.

Now, I was pleased to note in the grants that the Government

proposed an outright grant of $500 on a second mortgage, and $2,500 on

the purchase of an existing home, for persons who have rented homes in

the Province. Now, this measure will help those of better than average

income and as a good measure also the 5-5-5 Plan — I think it's every

bit as good as the input-output plan of last year — and I think it's of

some help. But really, we're only scratching at the very surface of the

housing problem and a number of people have already spoken about this.

This matter has been previously discussed in this debate by the

honourable Leader of the Opposition and other members on this side of

the House, and I only intend to deal very lightly with the problem.

This Government, I think, has had a record of failure in the housing

field. They've failed to stop the spiraling costs of land and have

failed to cooperate with municipalities and senior Government in the

assembly of land, and they have failed to curb the speculation in land.

Money should be made available, it seems to me, for the Purchase,

servicing and assembly of lands in cooperation with Central Mortgage

and Housing Corporation and the local governments. These lands should

be leased and retained in the hands of a Government authority. Federal

funds are available for land assembly and servicing under the National

Housing Act.

Now we're late, we're late here in the housing field, but now we've

entered a new era, we're into the 70's, I am of the hope that the

Government will move ahead with bold proposals and get the question of

the land problem off the ground, and allow a number of people in the

lower income groups at least to get a part of the share of the

so-called rounded life. I think we should review the taxing methods

that we have on land in urban areas as well as in rural areas.

Now the honourable Minister of Agriculture suggested

[ Page 418 ]

yesterday that the Federal Government should pay

more money toward housing, and I agree with him, I think they should as

well. However, by and large the tie-ups, the hang-ups, that are faced

by the local governments are not the making of Central Mortgage and

Housing Corporation. Basically, the tie-ups are in Victoria, although I

do think that the Federal Government could spend a great deal more

money in the housing field.

Now in the subsidized housing field we notice that for a great

number of years the Budget has called for $5,000,000 for expenditures,

and that is under 5 per cent of the revenue of the Province, but each

year there's very little of this appropriation ever spent. Now I

suggest that for one of the greatest social needs in the Province, 5

per cent of the Budget is really quite a low figure, and I would

certainly hope that a review be made of this figure and some action be

taken to help the situation. Now the original figure was $5,000,000,

but I noticed in the expenditures for the first nine months a figure of

some $2,300,000 has been spent this year out of the $5,000,000. Now I

think that the $5,000,000 is a disgraceful figure to start with, but

the spending of only $2,300,000 out of that $5,000,000, I think, is

even worse. But really, the sad part of the whole situation is the fact

that this is probably the best year they've had in years in housing — that this $2,300,000 is more than has been spent, I would suggest, in

housing for a great number of years.

Now I suggest that the housing problems are very obvious. The

housing projects should be initiated not by the local governments, I

suggest that the housing projects, if we really want to tangle with the

housing problems, should be instituted by the Provincial Government,

and lands assembled, and so on. Too often the Provincial Government is

dragged to the cost-sharing procedures by the local governments who

have accepted their responsibilities in this field, but there's too

many of the applications made, I suggest, by local governments, that

are being refused by this Government. The estimates for next year on

housing is still $5,000,000, so I can see that there's really been no

new thinking in this field by this Government. Low rental housing

schemes are financed to the extent of 75 per cent from Federal revenue.

There's money available in the Federal field. The Province of Ontario

has gone into housing in a big way. Alberta has started to go into

housing. Now why should we not take the initiative now and go into the

housing as well? The whole housing question has resulted, also, in the

number of problems faced by tenants in urban areas, and this whole

field of tenant-landlord relationship is connected almost directly with

the problem of the housing situation, and I will be speaking further on

this at a later date.

Another improvement I notice in the Budget, I suggest, is the

increase of the social welfare recipients who are in receipt of

supplementary allowances. The increase is going up $5. Now I suggest

that $5 is really a sop to the people in need. It'll take care of the

cost-of-living increase and a very little more, and I suggest that we

should put a little bit of heart in this Budget and do a little more

for these people, $5 a month is what we're talking about, $5 a month.

Now when we look at the $5 a month, we find that the Federal Government

will be paying $2.50 of this $5, the local government will be paying $1

or 20 per cent, so in actual fact the amount given on this increase by

the Provincial Government amounts to $1.50, so it's not a $5 heart

we're talking about, it's a $1.50 heart — a twelve-bit heart. Now I

would suggest that surely a substantial increase is fitting for this

time in our history, and the fact that the Province is well off, the

revenues are high, surely we can look after these people that are

needy, and are unable to help themselves.

Now the Budget has also shown an increase to the municipal

governments, a $2 increase per capita, which is a welcome step to

assist the local governments in their financing. However, I suggest

that the $2 per capita increase will not anywhere near meet the

additional cost that the municipalities will be involved in, in the

current year. I foresee that the local taxes, and as has been stated by

a number of city fathers, that the $2 increase will not cover the

additional costs involved in local government, and I think the

honourable member from Nanaimo spoke about the great need for further

revenues for municipalities when he spoke in the first Debate.

Now there are a number of responsibilities that are added to the

municipalities and cities. First of all there is the additional $12 per

annum for each individual on supplementary allowances that will be paid

by the municipalities. The second item is the change in the legislation

with reference to traffic offences. I know that this was changed in

part of the Province last year, but it will take effect, as I

understand, throughout the Province this year. I hasten to say that I

am not disputing the wisdom of the legislation, I'm only talking

finances, and suggesting that there will be a considerable reduction

this year in a number of areas from the revenue that they received last

year as a result of this, that's in the fines from the so-called

roadside suspensions, and so on. I understand that, as an example,

Burnaby has budgeted for a reduction of some $250,000 in their budget

in the question of revenues on account of this one measure. The per

capita grant on 117,000 residents will bring it up to around $235,000,

so this one item, in itself, more than covers the additional cost of

the loss of revenue. Also, there are added responsibilities given to

the local governments with reference to the increased cost of operation

and performance of the Regional Districts. Now this, although it's not

handled by the local governments, the money for the Regional Districts

comes in part, from the local taxpayers, and all increases of this

nature come right back to the land and the local payer.

The ever-increasing cost of education, of hospitals — they're all

provincial matters — will be borne in part by the local taxpayer.

Public health costs will undoubtedly rise and they're continually

rising each year, and this again is part of the additional expenses

borne by the local taxpayer. Administration of justice costs will rise,

even though the revenues will fall. Welfare costs will likely rise as

they have every year, and these are all costs — 20 per cent on the

welfare costs — paid by the local taxpayer.

Now I understand that a committee has been set up by the honourable

Minister of Municipal Affairs to look into this question of taxation,

and I certainly commend him for this, and hope that the study will be

in depth and their report will be completed without too much delay.

I think the two basic problems the municipalities face at the

present time — one, is the inability to sell their bonds except at a

very high rate of interest, and secondly, always the problem of the

passing of responsibilities from the Provincial field to the municipal

field without the corresponding transfer of sufficient funds to carry

out these responsibilities.

I was somewhat amused at the chart that shows up here on page 34 of

the Budget Speech. This is the chart that's intended to show that the

municipalities and cities in B.C. are treated much more fairly in B.C.

than in other provinces in

[ Page 419 ]

Canada. Now it may show this, I don't know.

However, what I am getting at is — and certainly this chart doesn't

show it — that before such comparisons can be made there have to be a

number of items considered. In the first place, the percentage of

residents residing under local jurisdiction is one thing that

fluctuates from province to province. The responsibilities given to

local governments to carry out provincial responsibilities is another

matter that hasn't been decided in that schedule. Some provinces look

after costs of education, others look after costs of health, others

welfare, others administration of justice. Now there's no way, there's

no way, that such a chart can be properly made in this way. To come to

a decision as to whether or not the local governments are better

treated in B.C. than in other provinces, I suggest, would take a lot

longer study than even the writing of this whole Budget Address. Now

there is a book called "Provincial Finances" which deals with all the

different types of taxation in all the different provinces, and I would

suggest that the comparisons are impossible, and therefore that this

chart in the Budget Address is absolutely meaningless. I would suggest

that there is no one on that side of the House who has made an over-all

study of all these items to determine what is right and what isn't

right. They may be better off, they may be better off, but they may be

worse off, I don't know, and I don't think anyone over there knows,

either.

Now cities, municipalities and villages are the creation of the

Provincial Government, everyone knows that. There's a child-parent

relationship, but unfortunately this Provincial Government is not

strictly a loving parent, and takes some advantages of its child at

every opportune time and in a number of areas.

The Provincial Government pays grants in lieu of taxes on lands that

are held, but that's not altogether true, and it's very difficult to

speak on the subject due to the fact that there are an awful lot of

varieties here, but in any event, generally speaking, I think it is

fair to say that lands that are not occupied or being used by the

Provincial Government are not taxable. They pay tax on lands that they

are using and they don't necessarily pay taxes on lands that are lying

fallow. Now no grants are given on a number of buildings such as

primary schools, secondary schools and so on, which are actually

serving a Provincial function, but there is no tax payable on these.

There is no tax payable on regional colleges, vocational schools or

universities.

No grants are paid — pardon me — where grants are paid they are paid

on an assessment, not by the municipal assessor or the city assessor

but paid on a Provincial assessment. Now, the Provincial assessment may

be lower than the municipal assessment but there is no appeal to this.

The assessment is made by the Provincial Government and they pay the

tax on this assessment and, generally speaking, the tax paid by the

Provincial Government is based on 15 mills. I would suggest that this

is substantially lower than the tax paid throughout the district, and

that in some cases I would suggest that it is probably about half the

taxes paid in some of the areas. However, they pay a flat rate of 15

mills. Now there are other questions of whether or not tax is paid on

sewer installations and so on by Provincial Governments, but in some

bases, pardon me, in some cases they are and some they are not.

Now the Crown corporations, the B.C. Hydro pays full tax on their

properties, the Pacific Great Eastern pays nothing. The Liquor Board

pays full tax. It was interesting to note that there has been

statements made that the P.G.E. might be taking over the B.C. Hydro

rail system. Now, at the present time, the system is paying full tax to

the local municipalities through which the track is running, but if it

is taken over by the P.G.E., the P.G.E. Is exempt from taxation and the

local governments in the Fraser Valley and in the lower mainland would

suffer a considerable loss unless an allowance is given to the change

of ownership.

The Pacific Great Eastern Railway, over and above the rail

right-of-way, owns huge tracts of land, and I noticed in "The Profile

of a Modem Railway," it was estimated in, I think, 1968 that the

holdings of the P.G.E. amounted to some 70,000 acres over and above the

trackage. This acreage is for industrial and commercial use, and on

this 70,000 acres there is no tax paid to local administrations in that

area. The industrial and commercial land presently being expropriated

in Delta should be certainly of concern to the people of Delta and to

the member in this House from Delta, because if, in fact, this property

is turned over to the P. G. E. the municipality is going to have a

large loss, not only in the trackage but in the industrial and

commercial lands being expropriated for this purpose. Now I would

suggest that Delta's lost revenue will certainly be substantial.

Now, there are a great number of other examples of areas where local

governments are subsidizing the Provincial Government. One example is

under the University Act which releases universities from paying tax,

not only on their own property but on property which they own anywhere

in the Province.

Section 37 of the University Act defines land, and

states that all real property vested in a university, so in the event

that someone leaves the university a building block downtown, in actual

fact if the university so wishes they can, I suggest, take that

building off the local tax roll and it will be non-taxable.

This is bad enough, but there are commercial enterprises in the

areas that are also non-taxable. On page 11 of the Budget Address,

there's a picture here of the construction of B.C. Hydro's facility on

the Simon Fraser grounds, and it is the System Control Centre, and it

would appear to be a substantial structure and worth considerable value

from an assessor's point of view. However, the issue I wish to point

out is the fact that the B.C. Hydro constructed this facility on Simon

Fraser grounds and, of course, no tax is returnable to Burnaby from

this beautiful erection. Now, it's bad enough that the Provincial

Government does not pay its share of tax on the university areas, but

it is much worse that commercial and private and public enterprises can

hide behind the University Act to defeat local governments in their

pursuit of these tax dollars.

The loving parent, however, takes advantage of its municipal child

in other ways. As an example, Burnaby was anxious to have a university

within its border. Burnaby was prepared to pay in a real way for this

facility and in fact donated 400-plus acres to the Government for the

purpose of erecting Simon Fraser. Now, this area was not sufficient for

the complete construction, and the Provincial Government found it

necessary to buy some property from the City of Vancouver adjoining

this land and paid full value for it, and the reason, of course, was

that Vancouver's had more experience with dealing with the Provincial

Government than Burnaby.

Now, but one would think that the parent would be appreciative of

the cooperation and generosity of the municipality, but apparently this

isn't the case. The university needed water and they were still

cooperating at this time, so Burnaby said fine we'll build you a water

line up the

[ Page 420 ]

mountain. The Provincial Government in an informal

meeting at the time, said the fact that you are building the water

line, we will supply highways to the university because there is going

to be a lot of traffic. They said yes, we'll build a highway up to the

top of the mountain. We're going to build it from the end of Hastings

St. We'll build 'er up there. We'll build another one from the

university to service the Port Moody and Port Coquitlam area, and also

we'll build a connector to the Lougheed Highway and carry on to the

freeway. Now, they had the water up there, the Gaglardi Way was built

from the university as far as the Lougheed Highway, the other roads

that were promised some great number of years ago are still, I think,

not in the planning stages yet and I don't think it's even in the

survey stage for construction.

I am sure I noticed the

Minister of Highways making notes, and I'm sure the survey crews will

be out shortly to look after this oversight and it will be greatly

appreciated, because — at the present time I would guess that 20 per

cent of the traffic going to Simon Fraser use Gaglardi Way, 80 per cent

wind through the local streets, causing great hazards to the children

and the residents of this area, and I would hope that the Minister of

Highways would take prompt action in this area.

Now, the Budget Address as printed is distributed to hundreds of

thousands of people throughout the Province, at least I'm guessing that

because I am on the mailing list. I know I get one at my office and I

presume I'm not the only one. Now, these unsuspecting readers, when

they look at these charts, you know they might take them at full value

and not face value and not look behind as to the real meaning of these

charts and these pictures.

Now, I only intend to deal very briefly with a page of pictures on

page 29. These pictures represent some Provincial spending, and there

is no question about it, however, the pictures give no credit to the

municipal governments that are spending money here, private societies

that are spending money here, and also the Federal Government is

spending money. I'm just going to deal with them very briefly. There

are some pictures here of the low-income housing in Vancouver, and they

are undoubtedly built under

section 35A of the Central Mortgage and

Housing Regulations, in which case the Federal Government pays 75 per

cent, the Provincial Government 25 per cent, and losses if any are

shared 75, 12% by the Provincial, 12% by the local government. But,

this isn't mentioned here.

There are other pictures of Senior Citizens

Housing. Now, the Provincial Government does give a grant for this and

up to, I understand, one-third. I don't know what the grants were with

reference to the pictures here, and there is no question there was

Provincial money put in, but the balance of these monies are paid by

the societies and the mortgages through the Central Mortgage and

Housing Corporation. Now, I can see that the Provincial aspect of it is

a straight grant, but still and again, I think that if we are going to

have these pictures in this Budget Address, I think we should have a

little bit of description, give a little credit where credit is due to

other jurisdictions.

Now a number of people have spoken on pollution and I don't want to

spend too much time on that, but I do want to mention it in passing.

Last year the Minister of Health attempted to get some action going on

pollution control and he attempted to publish air and water quality

standards, but the honourable Minister of Lands and Forests did hold

this up for a time being, and did finally issue the air standards some

months later. But on reading an account from the Vancouver Sun

of March the 6th last year, it states, "A Cabinet Order-in-Council

Tuesday added the names of Resources Minister Ray Williston, Health

Minister Ralph Loffmark, and Municipal Affairs Minister Dan Campbell to

the Board which remains under Williston's jurisdiction." Then down

below it goes, "His efforts…." He's talking about the honourable

Minister of Health, and he states, "His efforts to publish air and

water quality health standards last year were delayed after he

submitted them to Williston. The air standards were finally released in

January, but the water quality standards have not yet been published."

Now, the air standards were published, due probably to the fact that

there is no Air Pollution Act in this Province, so this was safe enough

to do, but the water standards were much too high for the present

situation in the Province and could not be released.

But in any event these three honourable Ministers didn't delay, they

went right to work, and on March the 14th they issued their manifesto.

The policy declaration on behalf of the Government included the

following points. "One. The discharge of untreated domestic sewage to

enclosed or confined bodies of salt water be prohibited where there is

any doubt as to the adequacy of flushing effect of the tide." Now, I

have a clipping here that says something about some ducks being killed

by poison off Stanley Park, so apparently the flushing effect in this

area isn't very good, but there has been, to my knowledge, no action

taken to remedy these areas. This duck was killed, as I understand, in

February of this year, the year after the manifesto was brought down.

The second important item here is that, "The discharge of untreated

domestic sewage to any body of fresh water such as a lake, a river, or

a tributary to a river be prohibited." Now I don't believe that has

been done. And it goes on and on, but what I'm suggesting is that

really the Cabinet members of the Control Board have made a variety of

statements all in different directions in the past year, but what is

required, of course, is an Air Pollution Control Act regulated and

enforced by Provincial authority. Now, I suggest that it is no answer

to transfer the responsibility of air pollution to local governments. I

suggest that the situation has to be handled from Victoria, and handled

in and policed by Victoria.

AN HON. MEMBER: Easier to pass the buck than the three of them work together.

MR. LORIMER: The requirement is for an aggressive policy of

enforcement. Now our waters are being polluted more and more every day

and really nothing is being done, at least nothing apparent is being

done. Let's tell the polluters that they've had their day, that things

have to be corrected. Now we're told that the Government is taking

dynamic action in this field, but where and when is it going to have

some results? We certainly have witnessed no dynamic attack on

pollution in any of its forms. The future certainly does not look too

encouraging. But even this Government, I suggest, can do an awful lot

better, mid must do better, if we are going to survive to go into the

next century.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Richmond.

MR. E. LeCOURS (Richmond): Mr. Speaker, when I took my place

in the Throne Speech debate I had occasion to make some rather critical

remarks about the operation of the

[ Page 421 ]

Jericho Hill School. I am happy to learn now that the Minister has

sent a competent man into Jericho Hill to investigate its operation,

and I'm looking forward to some very progressive improvements in that

school in the near future, and I wish to thank the Minister for taking

the matter at hand so quickly.

I would also like to deal just briefly with a matter which was

brought up by my good friend and colleague, the honourable member for

Langley, with respect to the beating of a Provincial Government

employee in the Province of Quebec. I agree with my good friend on some

of the points he brought up, but I wish to disagree on others, and I

think that it's important we show that difference because I think that,

in a way, we have been misled by what appears to have happened. In

quoting from a newspaper account, the honourable member for Langley was

reported to have said that the real problem was that the Quebec

the rights and traditions that all western Canadians cherish are down

language." I don't agree with that analysis, Mr. Speaker. I don't think

the language barrier had anything to do with the deportment of the

policemen in this instance, any more than they are any part of the

cause of similar incidents which happen here in British Columbia.

I think that most honourable members in the House will recall some

four or five years ago I cited a number of cases of brutality, or

should I put it a bit more mildly and maybe call it undue roughness, on

the part of policemen on the lower mainland and particularly in the

municipality of Surrey, which the honourable member and I represented

until 1966. I cited instances where women — on one occasion, a crippled

woman of some considerable age was beaten mercilessly, of another woman

who had burn scars over almost half of her body — were treated

unnecessarily rough by the R.C.M.P. from Surrey. I have witnessed

myself unnecessary roughness on the part of policemen in applying arm

locks, for example, to small people and wanting them to stand still

while an arm lock is being applied or a hammer lock is being applied,

which in itself makes it impossible to stand still. I must say that in

all those cases I looked, in vain, for support from some of the other

members of this House, and under the regime of the then

Attorney-General, all that was done was the great white-wash brush was

put over the whole thing and never any concern was shown. I am very

happy to note, Mr. Speaker, that the present Attorney-General has

responded to whatever complaints I have ever made to him with respect

to the operation of his department, and I thank him for that I am happy

to note, also, that he is concerned about police brutality in Quebec,

because if he is concerned about that, I think he will also be

concerned about police brutality in British Columbia. I hope that when

such occurrences take place in British Columbia, the Attorney-General

will be as anxious to get to the bottom of them as he is in this case,

and rightly so.

Now I do agree with what the honourable member for Langley said with

in this House and I repeat, that for anyone to live in Canada or in

is the language of the country, the language with which we must do most

of our business, and it's the necessary language to know in order to

get along in Canada, and in North America. The member said that their

political and spiritual leaders have led them up a blind alley, and he

said a French-Canadian will become a stranger beyond his own borders if

when I was down to Expo in 1967 and visited some of my relatives and my

wife's relatives, we found this to be a fact. We found that the younger

people, particularly, found themselves strangers in their own land when

they went away from home. They found themselves strangers when they

went across the line to the United States and were unable to be

understood, and they look back on those who had caused this situation

younger generation, as they come along, are going to insist. You are

going to have some of the bigots who are going to want to retain

nothing but French, but there will be few of those. Those who realize

I think will help to have a better understanding between the East and

the West.

Now there is one other little item here with respect to the remarks

of my friend, and the paper says here, "Mr. Vogel said he had never

heard of a prisoner not being allowed to make a telephone call in

similar circumstances." Well, that is a laugh, because one of the women

that I was talking about a few moments ago was picked up while walking

home at night, minding her own business, and thrown into gaol, in spite

of the fact that she had severe burn scars on her body, and whose

husband didn't know where she was, was not allowed to make a phone call

home until the next morning, when the matron came into the prison — into the gaol rather — and I think this is deplorable. It happens here

quite frequently, and I would like to suggest at this point to the

Attorney-General, that something be done to institute this into the

laws of this Province — that any person who is arrested and taken to

gaol, has the right, the undeniable right, to make a phone call to

someone within the hour, within the first hour of his imprisonment. Now

I know policemen use all kinds of ruses to escape that now, and I have

been told by policemen that there is no right, that an arrested person

has no right to demand a phone call, and I think it should be made a

right. It should be one of the basic rights that we should enjoy.

There was another little part that fitted in with that, and in

fitting it in with that the honourable member for Langley said,

"Canadians should ask themselves," he said, "what happened to good old

habeas corpus, and a man's right under British law?" and I agree with

him. What has happened to the rights under British law? I have said on

many occasions in this House that British law is laughed at by some of

our law-enforcement officers, and I want to make it quite clear, Mr.

Speaker, that when I talk about police brutality or illegal procedures

on the part of policemen, I am not for one moment suggesting that there

are a majority of policemen who behave in that manner. But as I said

before, that if there is one, that's one too many, and there are some,

it is a well-known fact.

As a matter of fact there was a time, a few years ago, when I was

keeping a closer eye on the R.C.M.P. in Surrey, when it was almost a

routine matter that every week someone was beaten up in some way or

another. I know of one chap who was tossed into a cell head first,

battered up on the way in because he had been banged against the bars

several times. He was finally tossed in head first, landed against the

leg of the bed, was knocked unconscious and was left there in an

unconscious state, and had many marks when the photographs were taken

of him later. As a matter of fact I attended the County Court hearing

later on, of an appeal in which the judge severely criticized the

R.C.M.P. for their

[ Page 422 ]

callous treatment of this man. It happens too frequently to ignore,

and I think it's time that we should do something about seeing that it

doesn't happen again, and in that respect, I want to quote from Le

Droit , an Ottawa French-language newspaper, an

article which is

reproduced here in the Victoria Times , and I want to quote the last few

paragraphs with respect to the Redel incident. "The Quebec Justice

Minister Remi Paul has promised an investigation of this incident.

Fine, but this is not enough. What is needed is an investigation of all

brutality cases of the last few years, and the establishment of

training courses in deportment for all policemen who need them.

Fortunately, all policemen do no conduct themselves as Mr. Redel's

torturers did, but cases of mistreatment are too numerous for justice

to be satisfied with investigating one case." And I say Amen to that.

Mr. Speaker, we are discussing the Budget, and I would like to

address a few remarks in that direction. I suppose that the most

important document for a business man is his profit and loss statement,

for that is the indicator for whether or not his business is operating

successfully. In government the Budget reveals what is happening to the

affairs of the people of the Province or the country. If a business man

hired a manager to look after his affairs, and at the end of the fiscal

year discovered that the business was operating in the red, and was

able to keep going only through large borrowing, I am sure that he

would start to look for a new manager for his business. On the other

hand, if the business showed a good profit, and a comfortable bank

reserve, the business man would likely be very happy with his manager

and retain him.

A government is elected to do for the people it represents the many

things which the people cannot do for themselves. The Budget tells us

where the money is coming from, and what is being done with it, and the

Budget therefore can be compared to the business man's profit and loss

statement, and I think it's a real measure of how efficiently the

Government is operating the people's business.

Our Government's record of 18 consecutive balanced Budgets has to be

one of the most important features in returning it to power year after

year for the past 18 years. This is true I believe, Mr. Speaker,

because when people go to the polls they realize how important good

management is to them. They're not concerned about the next guy, they

think of number one and they say, how important is good management to

me, and who must I elect in order to be sure of good management, and

they vote Social Credit and that's as simple as that.

As we examine the Budget, many of us will think there should be more

money spent in certain areas, but I'm sure that if any of us were to

start looking around to find out where you would take a few dollars to

place them elsewhere, we'd be hard pressed to come up with a legitimate

answer. It's hard to know where you're going to subtract in order to

add to some other place. Mind you, I think that many people forget

that the Government can only spend that which is obtained from the

taxpayers, and many of these people keep crying for more expenditures

in all departments, and they are not being realistic, as this can only

be done through increased taxation. If you want to spend more than you

are spending now, you have to have increased taxation and, of course,

those people who keep crying for more spending are usually not prepared

to pay more taxes.

Now the N.D.P., particularly in the last few elections, have been

notorious for their wild promises, and I brought along some of them

with me today, because I think it is an indication of how the people

look upon the promises they make and how they react to them. They have

been promising year after year to spend about twice as much as we are

now spending, while at the same time lowering taxes, and of course this

is a wild rumour people know cannot come true. I have here a part of

their platform for 1966. It wasn't quite as bad as in 1969, they

sharpened up a little bit in the meantime, but I want to show you just

how ridiculous some promises can be, and it's clear why people do not

swallow such large hunks of nonsense. Here's what they promise — no

more dental bills for children, no more prescription drug bills, no

more ambulance bills, no more chronic care bills, no more premiums or

deterrent fees, no more university fees, no more textbook fees, lower

auto insurance, lower gas and oil bills, lower natural gas bills, lower

property taxes, lower prices — all that. Everything is going to be

lower, Mr. Speaker, and they are going to spend more. Now even a child

in Grade 3 wouldn't believe that, because it's too easy to see through.

That's the N.D.P. budget.

This unrealistic and unbusinesslike approach to government is the

reason for their failure at the polls, Mr. Speaker. I think, at the

same time, it is a tribute to the voters of this Province that they

have been able to distinguish between the impossible dreams and the

realities that we are offering them at the various elections which we

have held in this Province.

One must admit, however, that we have had some substantial

surpluses, and I think there may be cases where we could spend a little

more here and there without hurting our situation whatsoever. I think

that these surpluses are due to the ability and the caution of our

Minister of Finance, and no less a person than Jack Webster said, this

morning, that British Columbia has a good Minister of Finance. And when

Jack Webster says that about the Minister of Finance, you can be sure

he is a good Minister of Finance. I quite agree, Mr. Speaker, we could

spend a bit more in some directions without affecting our tax structure

whatsoever, because the surpluses would be just a little bit less, but

generally speaking, I am very happy with our Budget.

However, there is one avenue in which I am not at all happy, and I

have criticized this in the past and I criticize it again, and I am

sorry that the Minister of Welfare is not in his place, because this is

directed to him. I was happy to note the other day in his speech, I

think it was Thursday or Friday, that he came up with some new ideas

with respect to the administration of the Welfare Department. I'm

looking forward to some improvements and some changes there, but I

still think, as I said in the past, that the welfare allowance for

single people living alone and unable to work is completely inadequate.

I'm not referring to other classifications, I'm talking about the

person who is living alone and who is unable to work. The allowance up

to this point has been $75, and it is going up $5, which is most

inadequate. I want it to be clearly understood, Mr. Speaker, that I am

not referring to those people who are able-bodied and could be earning

a living, if they would only get out and hustle a little, and there are

some of those.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you call them "deadbeats?"

MR. LeCOURS: I called them "deadbeats." Yes, I agree with the

Minister of Welfare in that respect. I called them "deadbeats," and

there isn't a member, I'm sure, Mr. Speaker, there isn’t one member in

this House who does not know some deadbeats. The Minister has been

criticized for saying that he was going to get the deadbeats off the

welfare roll. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. He didn't

[ Page 423 ]

say there were many deadbeats on the welfare roll. He said he was

going to get rid of the deadbeats who were on the welfare roll, and I

say, more power to him. I think that's the first thing that has to be

done. I'm not saying there are a lot of them, but as I've said before,

there are some, and I'm positive that other members know many of them

as well. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who is in good health and able

to work and still draws welfare year after year is a deadbeat, and I

know some who do that. I don't think the taxpayers of this Province

should have to provide beer and cigarette money and bingo money for

people on welfare. Maybe some will disagree with me, but I don't think

we should have to provide beer and cigarette and bingo money, and I

know people who expect that.

I don't believe, either, that just because a young boy or girl, for

example, doesn't get along with his parents he feels are too strict,

that he can just take off and leave home, report to the welfare

authorities, and go on welfare. I don't think this is right. I think we

need some discipline in the home. I think the parents should have that

discipline, and the welfare department shouldn't come to the aid of the

young boys and girls who do not want to submit to their parents'

discipline and provide them with welfare.

I don't think, either, that the taxpayers of this Province should

have to support winos and rubby-dubs as we've been doing, because these

people don't want to work, they want to live on welfare and enjoy the

good life on welfare, and they turn around and they turn in their food

certificates, and so on, trade them off and go and buy wine, and what's

that stuff they drink? You know….

AN HON. MEMBER: Bay rum.

MR. LeCOURS: Bay rum, yeah.

On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, I believe that those who need and

deserve welfare should be given adequate help, and not be required to

struggle along on much less than an adequate pittance. The one category

I am most concerned about, as I said before, is the single person in

poor health who is living alone. These people have to pay the same

rent, the same heating bills, the same light bills, and the same

telephone bill as a couple would, and by the time they have paid all

those fixed charges there is very little left for food, and the odd bit

only for new clothing, and I don't think they should have to go around

to rummage sales to clothe themselves. I think that if these people,

through illness, are unable to work, they should be able to live in a

dignified manner.

The support allowance for a single person is $45 a month, with $30 a

month going for shelter. Now you take out the heat, light, phone, and a

few dollars for incidentals which everyone has, and you have about $20

a month left for food and clothing. Twenty dollars, Mr. Speaker, to

feed a person for 30 days. I don't think that we should be very proud

of ourselves when we talk about that. A couple with the same fixed

costs — the couple has the same cost for rent, or could easily have,

and for light and for fuel and for telephone, and they won't have very

much more for incidentals, so with the same fixed costs of

approximately $25 a month, they receive a support allowance of $80 and

an extra $10 a month shelter allowance — $40 a month shelter allowance.

So they, in fact, have anywhere from $55 to $65 a month more to spend

on food and clothing, and goodness knows, that is little enough. In my

opinion, anything less than $90 per month for a single person living

alone is a disgrace to this Province, and I hope the Minister will take

steps to bring the figure up to at least $90, and preferably $100 for

the single person who is unable to work.

I believe that people who are really deserving of welfare should be

given it as a matter of right without any stigma attached to it and

that those who are able to work but prefer to stay on welfare because

they don't have to get up in the morning should be cut off the welfare

roll. No one has the right to live at public expense simply because

having to work is inconvenient People who are working have their own

families to support, and it's not right to ask them to support their

families plus a member of someone else's family because that person

doesn't want to work.

I know that some people prefer to be on welfare because they can get

more that way than they can earn. As a matter of fact I understand some

civil servants could get more — Provincial civil servants — could get

more on welfare than they are getting from this Government, and I'm not

very happy about that. But I think that this is partly due to the fact

that our approach in the past has been wrong, and that's why I'm happy

that the Minister of Welfare has expressed a desire to revamp the

welfare situation, and I hope he will have successful results. The

purpose of welfare for people who are healthy and able to work should

be to tide them over some rough spots. If a person remains on welfare

simply because he gets more that way than working, we should modify the

regulations to meet that person's needs and help him to get off the

welfare roll.

I am satisfied that we could cut our welfare costs by a considerable

amount if we brought a more practical approach to the problem. Let us

take the case, for example, of a man and wife with two children, as an

illustration. They'd be entitled to a basic welfare payment of $191 a

month, and I think that allows for about $55 a month for rent. Now if

their rent is $110 a month, which it is likely to be, or maybe more,

then they can be paid a supplementary allowance for rent of $55, shall

we say, bringing their entire payment up to $246 a month.

Now maybe this man could go out and get himself a job at $300 a

month, but the first thing that comes to his mind is the fact that if

he goes to work he's going to have to have some new and better

clothing. He's going to have to have more and better food, and he's

going to have to have transportation. So he might say, well, I can't

afford to do all those things and go to work and still keep my family

and still pay for my Medicare and other things that he might be called

upon to pay for if he's working, so he stays on welfare. Although he's

getting a few dollars less he stays on welfare because it's an easier

way out for him, and in thinking of his family and the welfare of his

family he feels that this is the right thing to do, and it may very

will be in some instances.

But I think we could do something about that, Mr. Speaker. I think

that if we encouraged him to take the job and subsidized him to the

extent of another $100 a month until he brings his wage level up to

$400 a month, we would be doing him and ourselves a favour, because we

would be returning his pride in himself, we would be restoring his

dignity and we would give him a chance to get on his feet and take

himself off the welfare rolls when he got a few raises in pay. I think

this would be much cheaper in the long run than keeping him on welfare

as we're doing now. We could save the taxpayer $146 a month right off

the bat, or maybe more, and we would give the man a chance to become a

useful citizen. We'd give him a chance to join the production line,

instead of being a sponge on the rest of society, and I think

[ Page 424 ]

we should give serious thought to making taxpayers out of those who

are now a drain on our economy, and this is one way of doing it.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I don't plan on being very much longer, but I do

want to say a few words about a related subject, and that is poverty.

Poverty and inflation. I think the two are related because, as the old

saying goes, in times of inflation particularly the poor get poorer and

the rich get richer. Those who have large sums of money to lend out at

high interest rates are making a real bonanza of this thing, and the

poor people are getting poorer. Those on fixed incomes, the pensioners

and others, are having money taken from their pockets every day because

of the rising prices.

I don't think, Mr. Speaker, that any government in Canada has ever

done anything seriously to try to put an end to poverty. I don't think

any government has ever done anything, and I think it's a disgrace.

Incidentally, I'm not going to let it off with governments alone, and I

want to go back to the little bit that I quoted with respect to my

friend from Langley here a few minutes ago and he said, regarding the

people of Quebec, "Their political and spiritual leaders have led them

up a blind alley." Mr. Speaker, our political and spiritual leaders

have led us all up a blind alley with respect to poverty. As I said

earlier, no government, no government — and it should be the Federal

Government that should do something about it — but no government has

ever seriously tackled the problem of poverty, and I don't think the

Church has taken its fair share of the blame in that respect. I think

the Church is prepared to accept the fact that there is some virtue in

poverty, and I don't think that there is any virtue in poverty. I think

too many of the Church people are willing to be satisfied if the

individual has a few cents to put in the collection plate on Sunday

morning. Poverty is immoral, because in a country as rich as ours — I'll listen to you tomorrow — in a country as rich as ours there's no

earthly reason for people living in poverty. It's simply a matter of

proper distribution of our wealth. While I agree that that distribution

is dependent upon the willingness of people to work, there should be no

question that those who are willing to work have an opportunity to get

out and do so to earn a decent living for their families.

I recall when I first became interested in Social Credit back in

late 1934, during the great depression, there were thousands and

thousands of people out of work. There was plenty of work to be done,

there were plenty of goods in the stores and warehouses, but there was

one thing missing, and that thing was money. And now we have the

situation where we have money but it's very expensive money. Banks and

other institutions, lending institutions, are being allowed to extend

credit at rates of 18 and 20 and 24 and more per cent, which is a

disgraceful situation in any civilized country, in my opinion. I think

that the main fault for this can be laid at the foot of the Federal

Government, which has failed to utilize the Bank of Canada to provide

funds for public expenditure in this country.

I'm not going to go into a lot of this, but I want to quote one

little excerpt here from what the former Minister of Finance said, the

Honourable J.L. Ilsley said some years ago with respect to creating

money through the Bank of Canada. A lot of people say oh, if you do

that you're going to create inflation, you're going to cause inflation.

Well, they haven't been doing it and we have inflation. What we want,

Mr. Speaker, is some cheap money to be made available for housing, for

the use of municipalities and cities for building sewer plants and

other things of public expenditure. Cheap money could be provided

through the Canadian Government via the Bank of Canada at anywhere from

three to five per cent, at anywhere from three to five per cent, Mr.

Speaker, and not 10 and 12 and 15 per cent as they have to pay today.

I want to quote just one brief paragraph here. Mr. Ilsley admitted,

under questioning, that if the Government changed one word in

section

59 of the Bank Act, making it necessary for the chartered banks to hold

100 per cent cash reserve for the increased deposit with the Bank of

Canada, instead of as it was then five per cent and as it is now about

eight per cent, and here's the direct quote. Honourable Mr. Ilsley — "There's no more inflationary effect in borrowing money from the Bank

of Canada than there is in borrowing from the chartered banks, and we

are forcing governments across Canada, and the Federal Government

itself is borrowing huge sums at high rates of interest."

As you were told yesterday, and have been told many times before,

we're paying between $4,000,000 and $5,000,000 a day in the interest on

our national debt because the Federal Government has failed to avail

itself of the authority which it has under the B.N.A. Act, to issue

credit and currency as required by the people of this country. While it

has no relationship, Mr. Speaker, to what's going on in this country, I

think it's an illustration of how illogical governments can be and how

illogical our Federal Government is to indebt us to the point of almost

reaching bankruptcy When they don't have to, when they have the

facilities at their hand. I want to point out what happened across the

line with our friends in the United States recently, when the President

okayed a budget expenditure requiring taxation of $400 per capita for

defense purposes. $400 — an appropriation of $400 per capita — the

President okayed that. But a few days later, or a few weeks later

perhaps, he vetoed an appropriation of $13 per capita for health and

welfare. Thirteen dollars per capita for health and welfare was vetoed,

and I think that gives you some kind of illustration of how governments

sometimes react to the needs of the people.

I think that this Government must take some leadership in prevailing

upon the Federal Government to do the things that must be done to put

an end to poverty in a country as wealthy as ours. I thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Esquimalt.

MR. H.J. BRUCH (Esquimalt): Mr. Speaker, it's a privilege to

again take my place in this debate. First of all I want to follow up on

some of the remarks made by my honourable colleague from Richmond. It

is interesting that we seem to have some shadow boxing in this nation

on trying to fight inflation, yet in the midst of this so-called fight

against inflation we see a structure introduced into our midst that is

basically accelerating the inflation structure. When they introduce

Chargex into our economy it just means that it is the merchant himself

who has to pay up six per cent of the sales within a two-month period,

and, therefore that amount of money that he is dealing in is used six

times over in a year. It means that the merchant has to pay 36 per cent

interest for the privilege of using Chargex. Over and above that, the

individual has to again pay exorbitant interest rates. When, in this

country, are we going to wake up to the fact that your basic problem in

inflation is the cost of money itself? It's interesting when the

National Government itself goes into a pyramiding position on the

national debt. A little over a year ago they came in and they told the

purchasers of bonds that they would give them two and a half times their

[ Page 425 ]

money in 14 years. A year later they came out with double your money

in nine years. I hate to think what will happen with the $2,000,000,000

that have to be redeemed this coming year.

When the situation is faced, we have to come to the conclusion that

they may do a lot of talking about holding the line, they may do a lot

of talking about balanced budgets, but there is only one balanced

budget in Canada, and that is the Government of British Columbia. While

others talk, we have the proof here that British Columbia has been

following the right course. But what concerns me is the way we are

headed into bankruptcy in this nation. How long will we be able to

maintain the proper position in this Province unless some realistic

attitudes are adopted at the other levels?

Now, Mr. Speaker, I was very pleased to see the honourable Minister

announce the other day that we are offering a quarter of a million

dollars in a competition to try and get a remedy to air pollution and

particularly the smell pollution from pulp mills. No, it's not a cheap

gimmick, because you cannot enforce pollution control unless you have

solutions to those problems, but I think that this is a method whereby

we can find solutions. Again, I think we can see an example here, as

the Federal Government admitted about a year ago in the field of

research, they were doing all kinds of research into what the problem

was, but very little in research into finding solutions to the problem.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make another suggestion, because in the

field of pollution I don't think that the smell from our pulp mills is

the worst offender. I think that in the field of waste disposal we have

to find new methods other than trying to put in a lot of sewer lines

and treatment plants. I would respectfully suggest that if we took just

one-tenth of the amount we are offering for smell control in pulp

mills, and offer just $25,000 for someone to come up with a proper type

of burner for effluent, we would not only be doing him a favour, we

would be doing ourselves a great favour, because I believe we are

moving into tremendous expenditures for something that is going to be

obsolete in a matter of a very few years.

Now, I want to urge on the Government and the Minister also that we

should implement a few better regulations in regard to septic tanks,

especially in the unorganized areas. I am quite perturbed with seeing

the Metropolitan Board of Health and the municipalities here trying to

force the unorganized areas into expensive sewer lines. Some of the

areas are just not compatible to it. The people in the area, in the

unorganized areas have accepted regulations, they have accepted

subdivisions in a manner that you have larger lots, but we do not have

any standards set out for proper operation and construction of septic

tanks. We do not have inspection of the septic tanks, and I believe

that the best form of tertiary treatment would be right there if we had

the proper regulations applied and enforced, and I would urge the

Government to do so in as big a hurry as they possibly can.

Mr. Speaker, one other point. I received a letter from a school

youngster not too long ago, complaining that perhaps we should not open

up new trails because of the experience that occurred when we opened up

the trail to China Beach, the other side of Jordan River, some months

back. I believe that some of the conservationists are taking the wrong

track when they come to the Minister immediately and want him to have

somebody follow up the people who use the trails to pick up the

chocolate bar wrappers and the sandwich wrappers. I would like to see

the Minister put in much stricter fitter regulations and a proper fine

and enforcement. It's time that we as citizens realize that we have a

responsibility not to litter, rather than ask the Government to come

and pick up behind us wherever we care to go.

Now, the other day, Mr. Speaker, the honourable member for

Cowichan-Malahat, with some glee, took a newspaper headline and tried

to impute certain statements to myself concerning the universities of

this Province and Simon Fraser in particular. I want to tell that

honourable member, as I have said everywhere, that I am pretty proud of

the young people of this Province in our universities and elsewhere,

and particularly the young people in Simon Fraser University, because I

took the occasion and spent five days at S.F.U. when they had their big

rumble. I also sat in on some of the teach-ins at U.B.C. and I was

disappointed, or I should perhaps put it a lot stronger, I was

disgusted at the actions of some of the professors, and particularly

the teacher assistants, in trying to urge the students to take the

wrong type of action. The members, I gave them the answer the other

day, that as long as you have people hiding behind the cloak of a

profession they have to take the total responsibility. They have to

take the total responsibility, and I am proud, Mr. Speaker, that these

students, despite the urging that they got from their teachers, from

their professors, took the right course. They took the right course.

Well, Mr. Speaker, some of the members of the Opposition party were

there helping along.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh….oh. Name names. Name names.

MR. BRUCH: The Leader of the Opposition, yes, the member for Burnaby-North, the member for Burnaby-Willingdon.

AN HON. MEMBER: What did they say?

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, the

member is inferring that I was at Simon Fraser inciting riots. I ask

him to withdraw, or make those statements outside the House.

MR. SPEAKER: The member is standing to a point of order, and

the honourable member, of course, will accept the statements of the

honourable member, and proceed.

MR. BRUCH: That's right, I did not intend to leave any inference that the member was inciting riots, but the member was encouraging….

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, one moment please.

MR. BARRETT: Encouraging what?

MR. J.G. LORIMER (Burnaby-Willingdon): I think that I was likewise referred to in a similar vein as has just been discussed, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member will accept the statement of the honourable member for Burnaby-Willingdon, and proceed.

MR. BRUCH: Encouraging the students to take the type of action that was being….

[ Page 426 ]

MR. BARRETT: This is an absolute falsehood, Mr. Speaker, and I ask an immediate retraction, and I'll supply him with my remarks.

MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member will simply accept the

honourable Leader's statement and proceed with his remarks. Statements

must be accepted by honourable members in the House when they are

declared by the member accused.

MR. BRUCH: Right, Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased….

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please.

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): And, my name and my riding were implied here, and I wish also a retraction that I took any

part in this.

MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member seems to be about 100 per cent in difficulty.

AN HON. MEMBER: Let's find out what they were all doing there.

MR. SPEAKER: Order please. But the statement will be accepted by honourable members, and would the member for Esquimalt please proceed.

MR. BRUCH: I am very pleased, Mr. Speaker, that the members

opposite were encouraging the students not to take radical action, and

that is the best news I've heard from the Opposition so far this

Session.

Mr. Speaker, the other point I wish to make is that today there has

been perhaps an undue emphasis on university education, and if the

young people and the professors continue at the rate they are going,

the degrees that are being granted from our universities will not have

the value they should have. Many of our young people are going to be

denied their chance in life because of some of the irresponsible

attitudes that have been present. I am pleased to see that the

situation is calming down, but my constituents have, in many cases,

expressed the opinion that if they do not wish to properly use the

university facilities, that we need far more facilities in the field of

technology and vocational training, and I would far rather see the

institutions used for that purpose if the students cannot act in a

responsible manner.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Richmond made a remark that I want to

disagree with, because when he speaks about R.C.M.P., I have not heard

of any accusations of brutality whatsoever. In fact, I want to say that

in my constituency I'm afraid they are treating many of the offenders,

many of the juveniles, in particular, far too soft. Too many of the

juveniles are taking advantage of the laxity and are, in effect,

becoming serious threats on many occasions. When you have a drive-in

owner having to hire security people on Friday and Saturday nights in

order to keep his operation going, it is about time that we took a

little stricter look at some of these people when they become bullies

and start transgressing the Criminal Code.

Now, just one more point, Mr. Speaker, and that is that some years

ago in this Legislature we laid out a priority policy on highway

construction. The point was that we were going to move ahead with

four-lane highways radiating outside of our cities and towns, and most

certainly Mr. Speaker, I think this is the necessary priority. I don't

disagree with the work being done in some of the constituencies, but I

must say, Mr. Speaker, that we have a serious situation on the Sooke

Road radiating out from the City of Victoria. There is tremendous

traffic there, the use of the road has increased and multiplied, and it

is time that top priority be placed on this particular project. We need

the four-lane highway at the very least from the Thetis Underpass to

Colwood Comer. Particularly with the recreational complex that has been

put to such tremendous use, out along that road we do need action and

we need action very soon.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Second Member for Vancouver-Burrard.

MR. BERT PRICE (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, in taking my

place in the Budget Debate, I can assure you that I think one of the

most important things contained in the Budget was mentioned that

welfare recipients were going to get a little more money. This is a

very important thing, because people who must rely only on welfare

certainly have a most difficult time getting along. I am quite sure

that every member in this House wonders how they manage to get along,

and in most cases where people must rely on it, I'm of the opinion that

they should have still more than has been indicated this far in the

Budget.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.

MR. PRICE: Now, we've heard some discussion, Mr. Speaker, on

the contingent liability of this Province, which is now $2,250,000,000,

but when you consider the inflationary period that we are in, and the

fact that we are going to be paying back those dollars with 75-cent

pieces, or perhaps less, maybe we are fortunate that the contingent

liability is as large as it is and maybe it should be larger, maybe it

should be larger. I was very glad to listen to the lady member from

Little Mountain discuss housing in her talk last night, and I am only

sorry that more members won't discuss this problem, because I think

it's one of the more important that is facing Government today. We had

with us in this House, I guess, several hundred people today coming

over on a delegation from a tenants' organization, and the reason that

they are here, Mr. Speaker, is because there is a shortage of homes. If

there was not a shortage of homes they would have no need to come here,

because they could fit in somewhere down the line and find

accommodation that was within their price range and within their liking.

In B.C. last year we had a population increase of 53,000 and we had

housing starts of 32,000. It looks as though we are painting a pretty

good picture housewise, but from the standpoint of the movement of

people to the urban areas somehow or other this indication of 32,000

housing starts doesn't answer the problem. This is something, I think,

which will have to be faced by all levels of government, and I'm

looking forward to the possibility of the Strata Titles Act being used

to eliminate some of this problem if people win only take advantage of

it.

Now, I heard something over a radio station from Seattle last night

that worries me, and I think would worry a lot of other people, and

it's in connection with drilling oil in Puget Sound. I think the public

are frightened, both from a standpoint that wells may be drilled, and

also the possibility of spillage from tankers. Both these things are

very serious and within very little jurisdiction of this Provincial

Govern-

[ Page 427 ]

ment. I think, from what I heard last night, that a great deal of

cooperation is going to be needed between the U.S. and Canada regarding

oil drilling in the Straits of Georgia, because what I heard was that

the Texaco Company has completed deals with surface holders on Whitby

Island whereby they will receive a return on any oil found after

drilling on the Island, and they are evidently prepared to go ahead and

drill without delay. I think that this shows a very definite need for

B.C.-Washington cooperation in regard to drilling in the Straits of

Georgia, Mr. Speaker, and that also indicates to me that it is a vital

thing for British Columbia to have control over oil drilling for all

off-shore areas in British Columbia.

This has been indicated by many speakers as a possible year of

labour unrest in this Province because of the many major contracts

which are going to be open for negotiations this year. I have never

been one to find fault with the trade union movement because there is

no doubt that the trade union movement, not only in British Columbia,

but elsewhere has helped to spread the wealth of the earning power of

people, and on that basis has been the very thing which has helped to

increase the standard of living of all of us in this Province. However,

I don't think that the trade union movement, in itself, bears an answer

to our economic problems, because unions must of necessity be selfish,

they must take care of themselves.

I think we are most fortunate in B.C. to be in a place where we have

tremendous resources that other people need. However, we are faced with

the fact that people in other countries can only pay so much because

they can only afford so much, and wages can defeat themselves if they

reach a point where we become non-competitive with the rest of the

world. In this respect I am positive that a government must act as a

balance wheel, and in this regard, Mr. Speaker, I think that the

solution that is bound to come will be some form of profit-sharing

between industry and labour. Now, labour does not agree entirely with

this viewpoint, for the simple reason that in order to get more profit

usually it means less labour and less people employed. But as time goes

on I am quite sure that profit-sharing, particularly amongst big

industry, is going to become much more common. I think it is the only

method that will actually arrive at a situation where we prevent work

stoppage by strikes.

Just a word on automobile insurance, Mr. Speaker, and I can't help

feeling that the young driver is being penalized. I remember talking

many times to the late George Lindsay. He was Superintendent of

Motor-Vehicles in British Columbia, and he always assured me that as

far as their Department was concerned, 16-year-olds were no problem.

Yet if they own cars — the boys that are 17 and 18 — they are asked to

pay $450 premiums a year for insurance, even though they have never had

any accident. I think this is unfair, and perhaps the Government should

help, and I think that one way the Government can help these boys is by

having increased training facilities in the high schools for driving. I

think this is the only way to improve an accident record.

Furthermore, driver training is effective only if it is exactly the

same in all parts of the country, and I am very glad to find out from

the Motor-Vehicle Department that this is being arranged on a

Canada-wide basis right now, where they are trying to bring out

drivers' manuals which are common throughout all provinces. I think,

Mr. Speaker, this is the only way to develop better drivers and I

think, too, that it will go a long way to getting away from this

penalty that the young driver who has never had an accident is being

asked to pay.

Now, we have heard a great deal, Mr. Speaker, for several years now

— you fellows can talk later — about the losses concerned with the

Commonwealth Trust and their subsequent companies. Also, of course, in

the East we have the Atlantic Corporation which lost, I guess, ten

times as much for the general public as Commonwealth did. Now, I don't

know, it may be too late to help people that lost money in the

B.C.-based companies, but this much, I think, should be very carefully

noted — that it must not happen again. Now I don't know the kinds of

legislation that may be necessary to control organizations of this

type, but I would certainly appeal to the Attorney-General to make sure

that legislation is going to be in effect that will absolutely prevent

such a similar situation happening again.

AN HON. MEMBER: We've got the proper legislation, but the Attorney-General, or the Government, won't enforce it.

MR. PRICE: Another thing that I would like to speak about is

something that I have talked about many times, and that is metropolitan

government for the urban areas of our Province. The Government has

recently set up many Regional Boards, and I think this is a splendid

idea. However, they are not in a position to tax, and they are servants

of the municipalities they serve. But I think there are too many local

governments in small areas, and as the population increases this

situation is becoming worse. You take in the Fraser Valley, they have

Matsqui, Langley, and Surrey, and I think they should be combined into

one municipality. Around the Vancouver area we have Vancouver, Burnaby,

and New Westminster, and I think they should be one area, and there is

no doubt in my mind that if they were consolidated the taxpayers would

get more money for their tax dollars.

Speaking of the urban areas, Mr. Speaker, it is quite obvious to

everyone that the demand for services in all these urban areas is

taxing the tax-collecting abilities of councils, and the demand for

services is certainly exceeding the ability to pay. Somewhere down the

line we need additional sources of revenue, and I think that one source

might be a tax, perhaps of one per cent, on the sale of real estate.

The reason I say that is because for many years now, ever since the

last war, the value of real estate has been increasing, it changes

hands at a more rapid rate all the time, and I think that one per cent

tax on the sale of real estate would be a reasonable way of finding

money to aid the urban areas of this Province. It is done in the State

of Washington, and they earmark the collection for County, which is

quite similar to what I am talking about here, and I am of the opinion

that it could be collected by the Province and distributed to the

municipalities, and it would be a source of revenue untapped at present

and one which would not hurt the seller of real estate property.

AN HON. MEMBER: It would hurt the buyer, though.

MR. PRICE: I don't think it would hurt the buyer.

Now, Mr. Speaker, ever since I came to this House, which is going

back to quite a while ago, I have advocated that somehow or other they

try and move Oakalla Prison Farm away from Burnaby, and I am more

determined than ever that this should be done because it is not being

used. There are 700 acres around this Oakalla Prison Farm. At one time

it was used for producing farm products, which today it is not. The

only thing that's being used are the buildings, and I think

[ Page 428 ]

this property is much too valuable to remain idle. I don't know what

the value of it would be on the real estate market, I would think

probably about $12,000,000. But today this Prison Farm there, as it is,

is holding back the municipality, and I think it should be phased out

as soon as possible.

A number of times in this House I have spoken about some improvement

that is needed in game management, because the wild game in this

Province is very rapidly disappearing. In spite of what our game

biologists tell us, I think it is disappearing. I notice in the most

recent issue of Time magazine that even the polar bears are now in

serious danger of being exterminated with the ability of the motorized

ski vehicle, the helicopter, and the aeroplane. I think, Mr. Speaker,

very, very seriously that it is time we stopped killing our game for

fun. People like to see wild game, and I know any time that I have gone

through the national parks in British Columbia, if there is any game on

the highway on a fine day there isn't a car that will pass but what it

will stop and try to take pictures. I think it is one of the greatest

tourist attractions that we can have is to have wild game available for

people to see, but history shows that the more roads we have the less

game we have.

I would appeal to the Government to set up large reserves where game

can be permitted to increase, and encourage people to come and hunt

here with a camera. I don't know whether you know that it is being done

in Africa on a big scale. They have had tremendous success with

bringing hundreds of millions of dollars into the areas there, just

because people come in and see these game, travel where they are and

take pictures. But I can tell you this, that unless we take some steps

to preserve our game in British Columbia, in 20 years there won't be

any game left.

I think, too, Mr. Speaker, that it is time we took a good look at

the farm land area that we have in this Province and try and reserve it

for the production of food. I have made an appeal many times that we

should keep farm lands for farming, but the ones that are always

against this, of course, are the farmers themselves. They want to take

advantage of the possible capital expansion and sell their property at

a high price, and I can't blame them one little bit, I think I would

want to do the same. But the problem is that once this property is lost

for food production, it doesn't seem to be ever possible to regain it.

The Government has taken some steps in British Columbia to protect

our lake shores for public use, for recreation, and I think that the

time is overdue to protect the food-producing areas. Today we live on

exports and we have lots of money to buy food, but the time, I think,

is bound to come when we are going to need many of our areas to produce

food for our own use and I would appeal to the Government to take a

survey of this Province and wherever we have areas which can be used to

raise food I think it should be kept for that purpose, even if the

Government has to buy the land and reserve it.

Now, in the city areas on the lower mainland we have a very serious

problem of moving people from one place to another, people going from

one place to another, people going to work or going to town or so forth

and so on. This is particularly true in the City of Vancouver and the

lower mainland, and it seems to be agreed that neither freeways nor

rapid transit offer very little solution to this problem, and as far as

undergrounds are concerned, they need a very highly concentrated

population which in that area we do not yet have. Today the rush-hour

service of our buses is impossible, and maybe I'd better not talk about

them because I don't think you want to hear about it, Mr. Speaker. I

think that the problem is the automobile, and I think we should look to

the automobile for its own solution. I am of the opinion we ought to

look very carefully and give consideration to operating jitneys within

the lower mainland so that automobiles can charge to take people from

one place to another, and let's see if they won't solve their own

problem of transportation. We know today that the average automobile

is driving with one and two-thirds passengers each in it, and there is

no reason why a number of these cars couldn't permit themselves to be

used as jitneys, and carry people back and forth more rapidly and

without the problems of freeways or a very expensive subsidized rapid

transit system.

Now a thing which I think must be given consideration, Mr. Speaker,

is the additional power which is going to be needed in this Province as

time goes on, and it has been demonstrated that the cheapest power that

we can get in this Province is by damming the Fraser River, and the

problem is how to save the fish, and there is no argument that we must

maintain our supply of salmon. But I am told, and I think it is

recognized, that fish is an easy thing to raise, in fact it was

discussed in this House last night. I think our present methods of

catching fish are so antiquated that they should be done away with as

soon as possible. We can use traps and catch fish in a much better

condition for food than we do now with gill-nets, and I am of the

opinion that with artificial spawning areas it would be possible to

produce far more salmon than is presently propagated by natural means,

and it is well within the possibility of the Province to afford. With

the artificial spawning beds they can produce salmon and have them grow

much faster than they can with a natural state. I think that this is

something which could well be studied, because if we can do this it

will be money well spent and it will solve the power problem in this

Province probably for the next 25 years.

Now, another little thing that I'd like to mention, Mr. Speaker. It

may not be very important to the people listening to me on the floor of

this House, but it is more important to some of those upstairs, because

the seats that we have in the gallery are about the most uncomfortable

type of seats that you could find anywhere. In fact, they are the kind

that they had in theatres 50 years ago, and I think that we should try

and do something about it. It wouldn't cost very much, but when

visitors come to this House I think we should at least try and make

them comfortable, and if we can't have more seats, at least we can have

softer ones. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Minister of Public Works.

HON. W.N. CHANT (1st-Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I want to say

that I appreciate the opportunity of once again participating in the

Budget Debate. One of the main reasons is because it is a Budget of

which we can certainly be proud, because we again have, and this bears

repeating, a balanced Budget. The income and expenditure are being

balanced. That is a part of Social Credit and has been for many years.

You know, Mr. Speaker, our Premier and Minister of Finance has, in

spite of strong and at times vicious opposition, stood fast and given

the leadership since 1952 to maintain this record of a balanced Budget

in the Province of British Columbia, and there is no other area in

North America, that has such a good record in this field. Yes, I would

say it is possibly outstanding in the world. And

[ Page 429 ]

further, Mr. Speaker, the people in industry in British Columbia

have responded to its leadership and have made possible the continuing

and increasing services and benefits to the citizens of British

Columbia which we expect, and reasonably expect and, I'm quite sure,

will follow in the 70's.

But while the people in British Columbia and industry and the

Government have done our part to maintain a sound, stable economy,

nevertheless a high degree of inflation is rampant in our midst. Not

only here, but also in the rest of Canada and in North America and

other parts of the world, and it is quite evident that we cannot

entirely escape the ravages of inflation in British Columbia. To put it

very mildly, particularly the people on fixed incomes are now being

robbed of their savings because of reduced purchasing power, and this,

Mr. Speaker, is a very serious condition and situation, particularly

for people who gave up their life and services to help build this

country, and showed thrift and economy and saved for the future, to

find today that their dollar which they saved has been robbed of a high

portion of its value, in fact often 50 per cent, and in some cases more.

Speaking of the Victoria constituency and in the area which I

represent, along with my good colleague, we do require, in this

Government precinct — and when we can catch up with these other demands

that are being made throughout the Province, and which takes precedence

— there is needed in this area a new Government administration

building. The need for this becomes more evident as the time passes by,

and I look forward to the time when conditions level out somewhat, and

possibly catch up with some of these other highly necessitous

expenditures….

AN HON. MEMBER: Like schools, hospitals….

MR. CHANT: Well, there's a whole number of expenditures

required, and will be, in a rapidly growing economy such as we have,

and we have recognized this, Mr. Speaker, and have worked to develop

this condition and have been highly successful in so doing. At the same

time, Mr. Speaker, to many of us it's over a period of years, and

particularly in recent times, building costs have advanced very

rapidly, but at the present time the contractors in the Province are

really sharpening their pencils and we are getting good bids based on

cost of building at the present time. This is, of course, a matter, Mr.

Speaker, of competition and I would also like to say further, that in

the field of construction and building, I don't think there is any

other industry that provides a higher proportion or degree of labour

use or in which a greater percentage of the dollar goes in labour

expenditures than in the construction industry.

We look for further and increased efficiency in this field, and we

often hear spoken of a concept know as modular construction. This is

not a new idea. It is being used in some areas and in some structures,

but the greatest problem to overcome is for to obtain the materials, or

the suppliers of materials to get machined or prepared to supply the

materials that will fit into this policy of building. I think it is a

coming idea that will grow in use as the time goes by, and the

efficiency of it will prove to be highly satisfactory.

During this debate, Mr. Speaker, we have heard quite a lot of

discussion in regard to inflation, and the causes of inflation, and the

effects of inflation, and the people responsible for inflation. There

is no doubt there is an element of fact in all that has been said, but

nevertheless, there's a factor that I notice has been overlooked, or

not understood, or not comprehended, or not enunciated by the speakers,

and that is, Mr. Speaker, the primary cause of inflation on our economy

at the present time is in our banking system, and the function of

monetization by chartered banks. In so speaking, Mr. Speaker, I'm not

finding fault with banks or bankers as being any better or any worse

than any other of our good citizens in our country. This is not the

case. But nevertheless, the function of monetization is one that

properly belongs to and is the sovereign right of the Federal

Government. It's their constitutional right, and chartered banks can

only exercise it through the permission rendered them by Act of the

Federal Parliament, and this is allowed, and this is permitted. I might

point out that there are in general, and I will just use one

illustration a recent statement of an increase of assets which are only

a part statement in a public statement, banking statements made public,

only a partial statement of their activities. But the Bank of Montreal,

a well-known, well-respected and a good Bank, made a public statement

that they increased their assets in 1969 to the point of

$1,300,000,000. This is mainly on account of the power and function of

monetization. The power and function of monetization which creates a

shadow of wealth, bank deposits and buying power, which is money, to

all intents, practices and purposes, gives ownership to the real wealth

by producing the shadow of wealth.

As I mentioned before in my speech, Mr. Speaker, we have a condition

in our economy not only here, but throughout most of the world, where

the shadow of value rides in the saddle, while the producers of wealth

are compelled to walk in servitude. This is the condition. Now this

condition can be remedied and remedied very simply, and again I repeat

a statement — until you restore to Government, that's the Federal

Government and the Bank of Canada owned by the Federal treasury and the

people of Canada, until you restore to them the controlling issue of

money and credit, this includes bank deposits which do 90 per cent of

our business at least in our country, until it's restored, all talk of

the sovereignty of Parliament and democracy are idle and futile. Now,

Mr. Speaker, for us to dwell on…. Well, the leader of the Liberal

party apparent