1975 Legislative Session: 5th Session, 30th

Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational

purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, MARCH 4, 1975

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 317 ]

CONTENTS

Privilege

Accuracy of statements made by Minister of Housing re

purchase of Casa Loma complex. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 317

Mr. Speaker — 317

Routine proceedings

Oral Questions

Victoria-Seattle ferry service. Mr. Bennett — 318

Tabling of MacDougall report. Mr. D.A. Anderson —

New government policy on B.C. Tel shares purchase.

Mr. Wallace — 319

Cabinet table purchase. Hon. Mr. Hartley — 319

Purchase of European ferry. Mr. Curtis — 319

Under-age students in pubs. Mr. Wallace — 320

Firing of Tom Machin. Mr. Phillips — 320

"Knighting" of Mr. Cass-Beggs. Mr. L.A. Williams

— 320

Cancellation of ICBC fire insurance. Mr.

McClelland — 320

Federal foreign ownership controls. Mr. Gibson — 321

Ferry purchase negotiations. Mr. Curtis — 321

Budget debate (continued)

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 321

Ms. Sanford — 324

Mr. Morrison — 327

Mrs. Webster — 330

Mr. D'Arcy — 333

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 336

TUESDAY, MARCH 4, 1975

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, on a question of

privilege: I would like to bring to your attention what appears

to me to be a breach of privileges of the Members of this

House. I realize, Sir, that Ministers of the Crown are under no

obligation to answer questions in this House, but it is my

understanding of the rules that if they choose to answer, the

Members have a right to accurate information.

On February 28, following a series of questions by myself

and other Hon. Members, the Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr.

Nicolson) rose in his place and made a statement about the

government's purchase of the Casa Loma Motel apartment complex.

In his statement he said — and I am quoting now, Sir, from the

statement made....

MR. SPEAKER: Excuse me, what page are you referring to in

the advance copies, so I can at least check that page?

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, at a later time.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Certainly, Sir, I'll give you that. The

quote here is:

In this connection, the $3,177,500 purchase price for

the

completed 125-unit building works out at $25,420 per apartment

unit, as opposed to Dunhill's estimated replacement costs,

exclusive of developer's profits, of $29,650. I must stress

that this is for completed construction, this cost....

He goes on to say that this is for a completed project. Last

Saturday the Vancouver Province ran a story under the

headline "Casa Loma May Cost One-Third Million More,"

asserting that the total cost was not as stated, $3,177,000,

but in excess of $3.5 million.

MR. SPEAKER: Excuse me, Hon. Member, I'd like to interrupt

just for one second. Were you in question period yesterday when

the Minister spoke?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, no.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the matter was probably cleared up by

the Hon. Minister in terms that explained what he meant. Now I

would be prepared to go ahead with this, if you want me to look

at the question.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: In my next paragraph, Mr. Speaker, I refer

to the Minister's statement in the House. Unfortunately, when he stated

that he had not intended to mislead the House.... This may have been

accepted, Mr. Speaker, except that the statement he made in the House

yesterday during question period, and the information he gave yesterday

in his "clarification," was as inaccurate as the original statement.

It is that point, Mr. Speaker, on which I believe there is a

question of privilege, not on what took place previous to that

time.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I'd be glad to look at your point and

discuss it with my advisers and report back to the House.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Right, Mr. Speaker, I'll give you then

these three paragraphs of information on that.

In the House yesterday the Minister admitted that the total cost of

the Casa Loma project was not $3,177,000 but $3.53 million. He added

that the extra $350,000 was for administration costs of Dunhill of

$33,000, modifications of $100,000 and, Mr. Speaker — and here is the

point in dispute — interest on advances, until the CMHC loan is

received in June of $218,000.

The Minister then said that this interest was on the

"$540,000 and the $300,000-odd figure." Those are quotes. Not

only were both these figures at variance with information given

to the House on February 25, when he said $570,000 and

$450,000, but even taking the latter and higher figures into

account, interest charges come nowhere near the amount

stipulated by the Minister.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): For what period?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: We'll come to that in just one moment,

Mr. Attorney-General.

Interest at 10.375 per cent on the $570,000 figure from

January 14, which is the date the agreement for sale was

signed, to June, the date given by the Minister — four and a

half months — equals approximately $22,000. The interest on the

$450,000 from the period March 1 to June is approximately

$11,700. Mr. Speaker, you total these up, you subtract them

from the $218,000 figure given by the Minister yesterday and

there is a discrepancy of some $184,300 unaccounted for. I

think it's time that this House indicated its displeasure at

this sort of misleading information from a Minister.

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

Don't be picayune.

[ Page 318 ]

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I would ask you to consider the

discrepancy between the Minister's statement, Mr. Speaker, and

the facts and rules as to whether a prima facie breach of

privilege has occurred. If your ruling is affirmative, I will

make the appropriate motion.

MR. SPEAKER: As I said, I'll look into the question and

obtain a transcript of your remarks so I can get it

accurately.

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

further evidence of the goodwill on all sides of the House, I'd like

everyone to join with me in welcoming a group of students from Nanaimo.

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): Mr. Speaker,

I'd like to rise and welcome three guests from the Nicola

Valley — Ken Bernard, Mrs. Dorothy Mackie and Bobby Powell. I'd

like to thank them on behalf of the House for bringing this

fine Nicola sunshine down to Victoria.

At 3 p.m. we'll have a group of secondary school students

down from Princeton.

Oral questions.

VICTORIA-SEATTLE FERRY

SERVICE

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

the Minister of Transport and Communications: could the

Minister assure the House that a ferry service will be operated

on the route between Victoria and Seattle during the summer of

1975?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I can't give that assurance.

MR. BENNETT: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Can the Minister

advise the House if — because this route has been abandoned and

I know that he would probably have discussions on an alternate

service — he has held discussions with Ottawa in overcoming any

difficulties with respect to the British North America Act that

could interfere with the provincial government or a Crown

corporation operating an international route such as this?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I've already drawn to the attention of

the federal government their obligations Under the British

North America Act.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): I just wonder if the Minister

could expand slightly on that question, Mr. Speaker. The

British North America Act says that it's the exclusive

jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada to operate ferries between a

province and any British

or foreign country, or between two provinces. It also outlines

that a province may take undertakings other than lines of steam

or other ships, railways, canals, telegraphs and other works

and undertakings connecting the province with any other, or

others of the province, or extending beyond the limits of the

province.

Mr. Speaker, the question is: with regard to the now

government-owned Vancouver Island Coach Lines, and other bus lines

which this government may have, are they violating the constitutional

rights of the province?

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sorry, the question will be out of order.

In Beauchesne , at page 147,

it says: "A Member must not

ask the solution of a legal problem or legal proposition such

as

interpretation of a statute, a Minister's own powers,

et cetera." Therefore it's obviously out of order, isn't it?

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, could I ask, Mr. Speaker, if the

Minister's had any discussions with the federal government

concerning the problems with relation to the BNA Act and

operating its buses outside of British Columbia?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It's nothing to do with us.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): On the same

subject, to the Minister of Transport and Communications: has

the provincial government or B.C. Ferries approached the

federal government with regard to an operating subsidy for the

Victoria-Seattle route, should it be operated by the

province?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I've asked the federal government to

recognize their obligations to British Columbia, and I've asked

the same treatment for British Columbia that they extend to the

east coast of this country.

MR. CURTIS: A supplementary to the Minister. Can the

Minister inform the House if any consideration has been given

to operating a vessel already in the fleet on the

Victoria-Seattle service — as an example, the Sechelt Queen,

which is the former motor vessel Chinook, as the Minister

knows?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The question is being examined.

TABLING OF MACDOUGALL REPORT

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: To the Minister of Lands, Forests and

Water Resources. May I ask the Minister whether he is willing

to table the report of Professor

[ Page 319 ]

MacDougall of Dalhousie University on the question

of the

Columbia River treaty?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources): The answer is no, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary. May I ask

the Minister when Professor MacDougall reported to him?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I'll take that question as notice.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: A further supplementary. May I ask the

Minister when the document tabled yesterday in the Legislature,

or the copy thereof, first came into the Minister's

possession?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I indicated to the House that I saw the

document only after the question was asked in the House.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The question was: "...first came into the

possession of the Minister?"

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I don't have the date, Mr. Speaker.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): On the same

subject, I wonder if I could ask the Minister if he would be

prepared to table into the House the 10 pages of questions and

answers given to the CBC — between CBC and his office — that he

referred to in the House yesterday, which presumably, having

been given to a news organization, is a public type of

document.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I'll take the question under advisement,

Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

NEW GOVERNMENT POLICY ON

B.C. TEL SHARES PURCHASE

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): I'd like to ask the Premier, in

light of his statement on radio yesterday that the

nationalization of B.C. Tel is no longer a priority of this

government, whether he can tell the House if the government is

continuing to buy shares of B.C. Tel.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Wrong number. (Laughter.) I'll

take it as notice.

CABINET TABLE PURCHASE

HON. MR. HARTLEY: I would like to ask a question of the

Leader of the Opposition. (Laughter.)

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Somewhat unusual, but what is the question?

(Laughter.) What is the question, please?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: In the verbatim report of the Leader of

the Opposition's speech yesterday, page 340-3, it states: "We

all know the tale of the $30,000 cabinet table." Now this would

befall the Department of Public Works. I know nothing of this.

I would like the Leader of the Opposition to tell us more about

it. If he has some facts and some documents, I'd like to see

them tabled with the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Resign, resign!

MR. BENNETT: I'll take it as notice, Mr. Speaker.

(Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: While the hon. leader is taking the question as

notice, I'll take it as notice, too, to look up standing order

47 with more particularity to see whether it is a question, in

fact, that deals with public business where, as such, the

Member may be concerned. I must look at that before I rule on

the question. That would allow the Hon. Member in any case to

renew his question and the Hon. Leader of the Opposition to

answer under the rules.

Interjections.

CHARTER OF EUROPEAN FERRY

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, it's nice to know that the present

government is practising its new role of opposition, which should come

along fairly soon. (Laughter.)

To the Minister of Transport and Communications. I wonder

if the Minister....

Interjection.

MR. CURTIS: Not yours, buster. (Laughter.)

I wonder if the Minister of Transport and Communications

could assure the House that his department and/or B.C. Ferries

is not considering the chartering or leasing of another

European vessel, or of a European vessel, for service in the

B.C. Ferries fleet?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I classify that question in exactly the

same way as I classified the news story

[ Page 320 ]

which purported to say just that. I said that that

news

story was garbage; it's still garbage.

MR. CURTIS: Supplementary. There is absolutely no activity

with respect to — not purchase — leasing or charter of a

vessel?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Any such suggestion, as I said, that fits

in with that story, is garbage. There's no truth to it.

MR. CURTIS: On the same subject, Mr. Speaker. Is the

Minister of Transport and Communications aware of any plans for

a design or construction of a bridge link, or study of the

feasibility of a bridge link, between Mayne Island and Saturna

Island in the southern Gulf Island group, thus eliminating the

ferry run to Saturna Island?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I have no knowledge of any such

study.

UNDER-AGE STUDENTS IN PUBS

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the

Attorney-General a question with regard to the incident in

Nanaimo at the weekend where the RCMP are reported to have

found a couple of pubs looking like a junior high school

meeting. Does the Attorney-General have any evidence to

indicate that this lax enforcement of the liquor laws is

province-wide?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I'll have to take it as notice.

MR. WALLACE: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Has the Minister

not ordered some inquiry into the Nanaimo situation?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Not yet, and maybe never, but I haven't

received the information yet. I just wish to thank the Member

for drawing it to my attention.

FIRING OF TOM MACHIN

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): I'd like to direct a

question to the Minister of Transport and Communications and

the president of the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia. Would

the Minister, due to the fact that the insurance corporation

seems to be having a lot of management problems, explain to the

House the circumstances surrounding the untimely firing of one

of the best insurance men in North America, Mr. Tom Machin.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Two phrases were "management troubles"

(we're not having any) and "untimely firing" (that's your phrase). I'll

take your question as notice.

KNIGHTING OF MR. CASS-BEGGS

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr. Speaker,

I have a question to the Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests and

Water Resources regarding B.C. Hydro. In light of the practice

adopted by the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly), could

the Minister advise us when Mr. Cass-Beggs will be knighted?

(Laughter.)

HON. MR. BARRETT: You mean they spent all that money on you

and that's the only question you can come up with?

MR. SPEAKER: I imagine that that comes under the heading of

irony, and that there is not really a requisite for an answer.

Knighthoods have not been permitted in this country since

Mackenzie King. (Laughter.)

CANCELLATION OF ICBC FIRE

INSURANCE

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question

of the Minister of Transport and Communications as well, with

regard to ICBC. Is it true that the corporation is cancelling

tenant packages for fire insurance for people who are, first of

all, tenants, under 30 and single?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That's the second ICBC question this

session. I am not quite used to ICBC questions. I'll take that

one as notice.

MR. McCLELLAND: While he's taking that as notice, could I

also ask if the corporation is also cancelling fire insurance

policies for tenants who are unemployed or living common law,

and whether or not there will be written orders coming out from

ICBC detailing whom agents can accept as applicants for fire

insurance and whom they can't accept?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That's not a question; it's straight

innuendo.

MR. McCLELLAND: Of course it's a question.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'll check into it. But, frankly, any

question you ask about ICBC, I am almost certain to be wrong,

because all you do is indulge in innuendo and smear. I don't

believe a word of it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

[ Page 321 ]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Throw him out! It's all he does!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! I don't think that the Members'

speeches should be characterized as innuendo or smear.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw!

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'll withdraw that statement, but he

should withdraw the question, because the question has innuendo

in there!

MR. SPEAKER: I think it's well known that every Member must

take responsibility for the statements they make in this House.

If it proves on investigation that they are not correct, then

they must bear the obloquy of that statement.

MR. GIBSON: I'll try not to bear any obloquy for this one,

Mr. Speaker. (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: I'll try and look up the pronunciation when I

retire.

FEDERAL FOREIGN OWNERSHIP CONTROLS

MR. GIBSON: A question for the Minister of Economic

Development: in view of the fact that most of the provinces

have been making representations to the federal government with

respect to the proclamation of

Part II of the Foreign

Investment Review Act, which would call for the assessment of

expansion of operations by foreign companies within Canada, has

the Minister made any representations to Ottawa on behalf of

British Columbia in this regard or does he plan to?

HON. G.V. LAUK (Minister of Economic Development): I have

had discussions with Alastair Gillespie and those discussions

at the official level are continuing with respect to the

proclamation of the second part of the Act. They will be

continuing throughout the next several weeks.

MR. GIBSON: On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the

Minister could advise the House as to the general attitude of

the government with respect to the proclamation of

Part II.

HON. MR. LAUK: It's one of inquiry. We find that dealing with

federal empires is very difficult. We are trying to find out how they

would enforce the second part before we can formulate our opinion,

because we don't know how it will affect us economically until we know

how they are going to enforce the second part. So we are at the table

trying to figure out what they are going to do, and they won't tell us

until they find out what our attitude is.

FERRY PURCHASE NEGOTIATIONS

MR. CURTIS: To the Minister of Transport and Communications

with regard to B.C. Ferries again: has the government or B.C.

Ferries requested Canada Steamship inspection or any other

federal inspection of the Princess Marguerite, the CPR vessel,

while possible purchase is under consideration by the

government?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I would have to check on it, but I think

we have.

MR. CURTIS: Will we have a reply?

Orders of the day.

ON THE BUDGET

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

Speaker, I don't quite know which one to start on, but I want

to say how pleased I am to be here to be able to discuss the

great budget with the House. I spent the weekend painting 4 X 8

signs — this orange and black on my hand is paint, not lack of

soap. (Laughter.)

We're now debating, of course, the greatest budget ever

presented to this House. I want to congratulate the Minister of

Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) for the production of this budget

which shows his confidence in the people of this province.

Through his vigorous and dedicated leadership over the past two

and a half years there has been great headway made in the

Province of British Columbia. Here we have a Minister of

Finance who knows what finance is all about.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. LORIMER: He uses the tools at his disposal to

change the trend and growth of the province.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): You're reading it exactly the way

I wrote it. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. LORIMER: As the result, while there is a recession

in the western world, in British Columbia we see economic

growth.

Here's your notes. (Laughter.) Now we get back to my

prepared statement.

The doom-and-gloom gang over there were very happy on

Friday. They thought there was going to be a budget come down

which would have big deficits and so on and so forth. As the

speech was progressing, the faces got longer and the smiles a

little less; the joy in the heart ebbed quite quickly.

[ Page 322 ]

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): How do you know?

AN HON. MEMBER: His wife told him. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. LORIMER: Apparently it was on TV. (Laughter.) I

might say, this was not a vintage day for the opposition. I

felt sorry for the speakers yesterday, though. Their

responsibility was to criticize the budget, and that would be a

difficult job even for a good leader. (Laughter.) What the

speakers did lack in quality they certainly made up in length,

and I want to congratulate the speakers for crowding a

10-minute speech into an hour and a quarter. (Laughter.)

On Saturday, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) said

there was going to be a deficit. On Monday he said there may be

a deficit. And I think tomorrow he might get close to the truth

and say there's not going to be a deficit. Well, it was a bad

day for the opposition yesterday, and they handled it that way.

(Laughter.)

First, I'd like to discuss a few things in regard to

transit. The programme throughout the province is going

reasonably well. The problem of delivery of vehicles is holding

up some services that should be in place at the present time.

Through our purchases of 114 new buses in 1973, 250 new buses

and 54 used buses last year and the additional orders of 175

new vehicles this year, we will basically have doubled the

vehicle capacity of the B.C. Hydro fleet.

People's expectations throughout many, many areas of the

province are rising. Although we will not be able to provide

services immediately for all localities, we will be and are

presently progressing with planning of a number of areas in

preparation for arrival of vehicles so that they can be put

into service immediately.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): How about

Skookumchuck?

HON. MR. LORIMER: Skookumchuck is next on the list.

We're also studying the feasibility of manufacturing

vehicles in this province under licence from a European bus

firm. When that feasibility study is completed we will then be

in a position to determine whether or not it is a good

project.

There are a number of advantages. One, of course, is that we would

have control of our deliveries. A second thing is that we would be able

to produce vehicles that are best suited to the needs of this

particular province. Thirdly, of course, is the question of employment.

It could create not only jobs in the factory but could create a lot of

jobs for the existing factories that would be producing parts for the

vehicles.

I am pleased to report on the good progress and design of

the ferry for North Vancouver across the harbour. This will be

an innovative, transit ferry and is being pushed through by

B.C. know how and through the consulting operations of a

Victoria firm.

I want to make a few remarks about housing, which is one of

the major social problems that we're facing in the province. I

am concerned by the actions of some municipalities, or

alternatively the non-action by some municipalities, and delays

in preventing needed housing units going ahead. This is not a

widespread problem, but it is a very big problem in two or

three municipalities, and they are standing and throwing

roadblocks in the way of building and housing.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Which ones?

HON. MR. LORIMER: The charging by municipalities of impost

fees may be a valid charge, but when that inpost fee becomes a

penalty, and a roadblock against construction and services

beyond the scope of that particular development, then I think

that it's gone too far. The municipalities I'm referring to get

out of hand, and these blocks are being used only to prevent

housing developments from proceeding. The government is going

to have to take a look at the situation and take action to

circumvent this type of action taken by some of the

municipalities.

Some municipalities have been delaying decisions and

delaying passing of bylaws to prevent needed construction. In

some cases, requirements keep changing from month to month to

discourage applicants. Other actions by some municipalities are

certainly hard to understand. We have information that in some

cases there have been delays of up to two years on granting

permission to proceed.

There are a number of examples of small things that take

place. As an example, a person appealed under

section 707(

a) of

the Municipal Act against the ruling of the council and the

board of variance. In this particular case it was an old

subdivision in which there were two 33-foot lots next to each

other. Since that time, the building requirements stated that

the square footage had to be of a larger amount than was

contained in one of those lots and they demanded that they buy

the other lot and combine it into one lot. This sort of

approach to our housing problem seems to me to be irresponsible

and totally non-acceptable. Instead of having two units in a

properly planned area at one stage, they demand only one unit

next door to other lots in which the houses are sitting on

33-foot frontages.

Restrictive zoning regulations of this type and

[ Page 323 ]

opposition to town houses, to cluster housing, to

mobile-home sites and to cooperative housing are all factors

that deny to people the housing that they so dearly need.

The province, through the Department of Housing, is making

great strides in the housing field, with efforts to stimulate

the building of accommodation of all kinds. Last year an

amendment to the Municipal Act gave them the power to install

basic services with funding in advance, and this programme is

proceeding satisfactorily. The province is going all out on

housing, and municipalities must give us their

cooperation.

In planning and zoning, municipalities enjoy a very large

measure of autonomy — almost total autonomy. In Ontario, the

province can exercise substantial authority over planning and

zoning in municipalities. Now, I hope it will not be necessary

for this province to follow the example of Ontario, but unless

some attitudes change in some municipalities, special

provisions will have to be made.

The municipalities and regional districts, like other

governments, corporations and individuals, are having problems

with inflation: costs are spiralling. Municipalities need

money, and they need it badly. They have a lot of problems that

they financially cannot afford to carry out at the present

time. In matters that they proceeded with a year ago, their

estimates that they received at that time in actual cost in

dollars will probably rise 20 per cent by the time the matter

is completed. The costs of materials and wages have risen

sharply, but so have the demands from the residents. Demands of

the people residing in municipalities and their expectations

are mounting just as rapidly as the costs.

The cities are faced with the problem of supplying services

that are being demanded and trying to hold taxes down, and are

met with the increasing costs; however, it is apparent from a

view of the audited financial statements and other statistical

information that British Columbia municipalities generally

enjoy a reasonable and sound financial position. These things

are all relative, of course. My predecessor used to make a

number of yards every year on reciting statistics, and I will

fill you in on the picture again on statistics but you can take

it for what it's worth.

During the year 1973, the last year for which

audited financial statements are available, revenues, including

those of all utilities, were in excess of $700

million, an increase of $90 million over the year

before — a record year.

Capital projects undertaken by municipalities in

1973 amounted to $338 million — another

record.

Reserves and surpluses held in all accounts amounted to over

$185 million — an all-time provincial high.

While most municipalities will report a further surplus this year,

the financial assistance to the municipalities last year was very

great. I'll go into that in a little more detail. But I notice in the

newspaper here that Burnaby expects $1.5 million surplus. We haven't

got a record of all of them as yet. They won't be in for a few months.

I understand that New Westminster has a surplus of around

$600,000. Many cities did have very high grants and revenues

from the province last year — the best year they've ever had — and a

number will carry on this year as well.

A couple of months ago, as you know, the Premier announced

the agreement with Ottawa to increase the price of exported

natural gas and that the increase would be shared one-third to

municipalities. Now this commitment is not only important to

British Columbia municipalities, but it is important for all

Canadian municipalities. It's the first effort ever made in

this country to tie a sharing programme into a revenue source,

and this has been the request of the municipalities throughout

Canada for a great number of years.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): How many

dollars?

HON. MR. LORIMER: They're all talking about making it

different now or adding something to it. I'm telling you that

this is the first time in the history of Canada where there has

been a revenue programme that has been shared by municipalities

in accordance with the....

This commitment is not only important to British Columbia,

as I said, but it is important throughout Canada, and at our

last tri-level conference one of the major requests by the

municipalities was for such a sharing formula.

As a result, the municipalities will be in an even sounder

financial position next year. The added amounts received this

year will allow the municipalities to carry out many of the

needed projects which have been delayed over the previous

years.

The municipalities received more assistance last year than

ever before with community recreation grants; welfare costs

reduced from 15 per cent to 10 per cent; in Vancouver the

removal of the costs of the administration of welfare; increase

in the per capita grant; removal of the costs of administration

of justice, and many other programmes including the sewerage

facilities Act, which benefited the municipalities probably

more than any single piece of legislation in the past great

number of years.

Since the Act was passed last spring, the assistance

totalled over $5.5 million, which was paid out to 79

municipalities in the province. This Act amended the Act

previously put in by the previous administration. I would like

to review some of the areas to see what was actually paid out

under this statute.

[ Page 324 ]

In Kelowna the sum of $97,000 was paid out to the City of

Kelowna. In Langley it was almost $64,000, which amounts to

about $13.62 per capita; in Central Saanich, $62,500, equal to

$12.16 per capita; Chilliwack, $17,500; Delta, $224,000;

Richmond, over $1 million; Saanich $500,000.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LORIMER: No, one is the District of Saanich — I

forget which one it was. Central Saanich was the other. Squamish,

$112,000, equal to $18.39 per capita; Fort St. John, $9.73; Golden,

$31,000, $10.46 per capita.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LORIMER: I can't find Invermere. The tourists have

the same problem.

Midway, $11,000, $22.80 per capita. It's a terrific piece of

legislation, and the people in this province certainly accept

it as such.

Under Social Credit legislation for assistance to sewage

disposal, the total sum paid covering the years 1971, 1972 and

1973 amounted to $215,000 — for a total in three years. In one

year under this legislation there's over $ 5.5 million, and we

expect that the amount will increase next year.

During the summer I had the privilege of serving on the

municipal matters committee of the Legislature which was

charged with the responsibility of conducting public hearings

throughout the province, and I might say that it was a very

good committee. It used to be an all-party committee. The

committee agreed that there was a need for an in-depth study of

the total real property taxation field in this province.

I am pleased to announce today that a committee has now been

formed and set up for this purpose. The chairman of this

committee is Robert McNab of Richmond. The members are: Mrs.

Alice McKenzie of Vancouver. Ross Marks, the past president of

the UCBM and mayor of 100 Mile House; Mr. Bruno Myers, a

businessman of Prince George; Sid Thompson, labour leader from

Vancouver; Professor Robert Clarke of the University of British

Columbia; Dr. Mason Gaffney of Victoria; Dr. Stan Hamilton of

the University of British Columbia.

Interjections.

HON. MR. LORIMER: The terms of reference for the study will

be, in part, the following:

Philosophy of the property tax, whether or not it's progressive or

regressive in British Columbia; property tax legislation in other North

American jurisdictions; property tax legislation in British Columbia

past and present; distribution of the property tax load between classes

of property in British Columbia; distribution between the municipal and

the rural tax load; how the level of property taxation in British

Columbia compares to other provinces; actual-value assessments and

shifts of tax burdens; property taxes on Crown corporations; property

tax exemption; to what extent property tax is an adequate source of

local revenue; machinery tax; legislative changes, I will request from

the committee that at their first meeting, if they wish to broaden the

terms of reference, or change the terms of reference, I will be very

happy to receive their suggestions so we can have a complete study of

the many, many problems that we as a committee found in the taxation

area.

MR. GIBSON: Will it be a public report?

HON. MR. LORIMER: It will be a report to the government.

MR. GIBSON: Will it be made public?

HON. MR. LORIMER: I haven't seen it yet.

Interjections.

HON. MR. LORIMER: The official opposition, since the

election of 1972, I might say in finishing, appears to be

unable to accept the fact that they have lost the election. I

would suggest that they completely resent our presence on this

side of the House, and their programme has been basically to

stir up the fears and the hatreds in the province. It is an

opposition of innuendo, rumour, fear and hysteria. I would

suggest, to you that these tactics will not bring you back into

power. You've cried wolf probably far too often.

New policies, better programmes, providing they're

believable, will eventually defeat this government. Hysteria,

divisiveness and fear will never defeat the government in

British Columbia. I'd suggest that you discuss the issues of

the day, tell the people of your new policies, of your new

programmes. Tell them what programmes you would cut out. Tell

them how you'd do away with Pharmacare, how you'd do away with

Mincome, how you'd deal with ICBC. Tell them what cooperation

you'd give Can-Cel. Tell them these things. Carping criticism

and hysteria really aren't the answer.

MR. SPEAKER: While she is getting ready, I've looked up the

word I was trying to find. It's "obliquity." I think the

students in the gallery will appreciate the fact that I can

even spell it now.

MS. K. SANFORD (Comox): It's a pleasure to take my place in

this debate on what is a fantastic

[ Page 325 ]

budget for the people of the province.

It's been interesting to watch the opposition shift its

ground on financial, budget, money matters from the position

that it has taken the past few months. You know, the opposition

has been critical of the government on the grounds that the

government was bringing the province to financial ruin, was

overspending and running the province into debt and that

capital was fleeing the province. But now, with a $3.2 billion

budget and a surplus of $70 million, and an increase in

investment of 16 per cent, they're shifting ground; and

perhaps, as the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) suggested

in his speech the other day, they are also losing ground at the

same time.

They're now calling the budget inflationary — this is the

shift — and they're calling it irresponsible. Yet at the same

time, Mr. Speaker, they're calling for more capital investment

in the province to support its needed social programmes.

They're being inconsistent. "Irresponsible," they say.

Is it irresponsible to provide Mincome, day care, Pharmacare,

community recreation facilities, schools, hospitals, help to

farmers and on and on? Is that irresponsible? That's what this

budget is for. That's what we're doing with that money.

The Leader of the Opposition criticized us for making

purchases which didn't create jobs. "Non-job-producing capital

investment," he called it. The First Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) yesterday made the same sort

of charges, and I'd like to quote from the Blues as to what he

said:

If they take over forest companies, they're

merely doing themselves what private industry did

before. There are no new jobs, no new production.

The Leader of the Opposition named some of the purchases and

investments that we made, this so-called "non-job-providing capital

investment." He talked about Panco Poultry, Dunhill, Kootenay Forest

Products, and many more. There were some investments of this government

that he didn't mention: Can-Cel and Ocean Falls, for example.

I would like to point out to the First Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey that we are not merely doing what private

industry did, as he suggested, but we're doing something quite

different. If we had not acquired an interest in Can-Cel, there

would be no jobs at the mill at Prince Rupert because that mill

would have been closed down.

Interjections.

MS. SANFORD: If we had not purchased Ocean Falls, there

would be no jobs there, nor even a town because the Socreds

were prepared to let that town die.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Right on. True,

true!

MS. SANFORD: They were already in the process of moving out

when this government took office, Mr. Member.

The Leader of the Opposition may not recognize it, but the

workers at Kootenay Forest Products do recognize that at a time

of the slump in the world market of lumber, they have not been

laid off and are still working.

Interjections.

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

Order!

MS. SANFORD: Let's have a look at Panco. This is another one

of the firms mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition.

AN HON. MEMBER: Pinko Panco!

MS. SANFORD: That's what he called it.

At Panco, there was a processing plant which processed 60

per cent of the poultry in the province. With that, there was

also a feedmill and a hatchery, and there were 13 farms

associated with Panco Poultry. A number of those farms weren't

even in the ALR (Agricultural Land Reserve).

Panco had been trying for over a year to sell that poultry

processing plant as a going concern and they had given up. As a

last resort they turned to the government and said: "We would

like you, within a week, to make a decision about buying Panco

Poultry or we will liquidate the assets. and shut down in a

week." This is what they said.

MS. BROWN: Shocking, shocking!

MS. SANFORD: There were 433 jobs that would have been lost

if we had not moved in. We are providing jobs and we're keeping

jobs.

MS. BROWN: Shocking!

MS. SANFORD: What about Dunhill? He suggests that Dunhill is

one of those that is not in the process of creating jobs, or is

a non-investment designed to create jobs in the province.

The Leader of the Opposition needs new researchers. Dunhill,

which now employs 350 people directly and indirectly will

employ within six months, directly or indirectly, 1,450 people.

That research was not done for the Leader of the

Opposition.

He also mentions that this is a "no-home government."

He and his researchers have obviously not read the annual

report of Dunhill. It's quite clear

[ Page 326 ]

in there the kind of work that's being undertaken

providing homes. I think I would like to review for the record

just some of the projects that are being undertaken by the

Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Nicolson) through Dunhill.

Look at the 102 condominium townhouses that are being

created at Simon Fraser Hills in Burnaby which will be

completed by June of 1975; 16 rental duplexes at Lister Street

in Burnaby will be completed by February, 1975. Irmin

Street, Burnaby, 6 rental units already completed in 1974;

a 102-rental apartment complex on 2nd Street in North Vancouver —

completion November, 1975; 4th and Wallace Streets, 200

senior citizens apartment complex — completion in June,

There is a whole list. All they need to do is look in the

annual report of Dunhill to find out that this government is

creating homes and that Minister of Housing is getting the job

done.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON (Kamloops): Don't confuse them with facts.

MS. SANFORD: One of the topics mentioned in the budget was

the completion of the road to the north end of the island. The

people of the north island will certainly welcome that news

because they have some skepticism as to whether or not the

government was actually going to award all of those contracts

in order to complete that road. And they should be sceptical,

for they have listened for 14 years to empty promises offered

to them by that opposition over there.

But the budget does not make any mention during the speech

of any special tax or any specific action on land which is now

owned by foreign absentee landholders. I'm somewhat concerned

about that, although I recognize that there is a decision to be

handed down by the federal courts on this. I expect that that

decision will be handed down shortly with regard to Prince

Edward Island.

The government, during the last session, accepted my

amendment to the Land Registry Act which made it mandatory for

those who were purchasing land in this province to state what

their citizenship was. This was done in an attempt to get an

inventory of the sale of land to non-citizens. Many people have

expressed concern about the sale of land to absentee foreigners —

certainly in my riding they have. Because the government

could only guess at how much land was being sold to absentee

foreigners, the decision to amend the Land Registry Act was

made so that an inventory could be started.

The amendment came into effect on August 1, and an analysis

of the date which was collected was undertaken at my request.

Those figures are available now and I think they are important,

certainly to my constituents.

I recently sent out a questionnaire, and on that

questionnaire I asked the following questions: do you agree

that absentee foreign ownership of B.C. land should be

prohibited? The response to that questionnaire from over 1,000

of my constituents was almost 80 per cent in favour of

prohibiting the sale of land to absentee foreigners in this

province. Even without knowing how much B.C. land is being

purchased by absentee foreigners, nearly 80 per cent of my

constituents who returned the questionnaires wanted the sale of

land to absentee foreigners to be discontinued.

The analysis which has been undertaken by the Land Registry

office on the statistics of non-citizen purchase of land was

done for a three-month period from August 1 through to October

1. Presumably all the figures that I have could be multiplied

by four to give a picture of what happens in one year.

Because there has been no record of the citizenship of the

landowners in the province, these figures necessarily do not

show how many sales by foreigners were made to foreigners. We

could not determine that. Nor is there a record of the sale of

B.C. land by foreigners to Canadians. I would like to make that

clear before I give you some of the statistics involved in the

sale of land during that three-month period.

I would like to give you some of the figures that have been

compiled in the Land Registry Office. This represents the

totals of all of the seven Land Registry Offices in the

province. During that period of time, August 1 to October 31,

there were 35,166 personal declarations registered in the

offices. In addition, there were 8,247 corporation declarations

listed.

I would like to give you a breakdown during that period of

time, as far as absentee foreigner purchase is concerned.

Foreign citizens purchased 663 parcels of land during that

period of time, for a percentage of 1.9. In other words, nearly

2 per cent of the sales of land in that three-month period, on

personal declarations, were made to non-citizens. Immigrants

purchased 4,690 parcels of land, for a percentage of 13.3.

Now you may realize, Mr. Speaker, that I've had no quarrel

with landed immigrants purchasing land here in the province, so

I don't think that those statistics are particularly

significant as far as my interests are concerned.

The matter of corporation declarations was a little more

difficult. It's difficult to determine what make a foreign

corporation. How do you define it? The only criterion that the

land registry office used at this time — and I think that that

can be open to a lot of question and criticism — is a

corporation which shows one or more of the directors to be

foreign citizens. On that basis there were 848 purchases of

land, for a percentage of corporation declarations of 10.3.

I would like to turn for a minute to the Victoria

[ Page 327 ]

land registry office alone. We've had a more

detailed

breakdown from the land registry office on Victoria land

registry recording. In the Victoria land registry office, which

includes Vancouver Island and some of the Gulf Islands, there

were 7,809 personal declarations and 1,411 corporation

declarations made. Foreign citizens' personal declarations

purchased 128 parcels of land, for a percentage of 1.6.

Corporation declarations — showing one or more directors, that

is, to be foreign citizens — purchased 169 parcels, for a

percentage of 11.7. In the Victoria land registry office the

personal purchases of land by absentee foreigners, in total

acreage, was 1,334 acres purchased by non-citizens — in the

Victoria land registry alone. So out of Vancouver Island and

the Gulf Islands, during that three-month period, 1,334 acres

were purchased.

Based on the data that we were able to collect in that

three-month period, Mr. Speaker, I think a significant number

of land sales in this province are made to absentee foreigners,

and I certainly look with interest to the supreme court

decision on the constitutionality of Prince Edward Island's

legislation on the sale of land so that we in British Columbia

can begin to take some positive steps regarding the sale of

land to foreigners.

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, it is a

pleasure to take my place in the debate. I would like to start

by saying that there appears to me to be a special significance

in the picture which the Minister of Finance has chosen to

place on the cover of the budget speech presented in this House

last Friday. It's a delightful picture, a beautiful picture; a

picture of two young children romping in the grass — two

youngsters living for today without a care for tomorrow. And

it's people like these two, the youth of our province, who are

the future of our province. It is the youth of our province who

have the greatest stake in the destiny of British Columbia, and

it is that once unchallenged destiny which is being seriously

questioned by British Columbians as a consequence of the

policies and programmes of this government.

British Columbians were once known as the Texans of Canada.

In all of Canada British Columbia had a special place in the

sun — a province with opportunity and a future unequalled

anywhere.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Where's your leader?

MR. MORRISON: Since the NDP government came to

power in August of 1972, that destiny is now in question. The

combination of waste, welfare, incompetence, which has

characterized this government, has brought a grey cloud over

the future of this province...

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): The sun shines

today.

MR. MORRISON: ...a threat which British Columbians,

only a few years ago, thought impossible. This budget,

presented by the Minister of Finance is the most serious cloud,

the blackest storm cloud yet, which hangs over the future, the

destiny, of this province.

Referring to the picture again, I think it's interesting

that it's a "babes in the woods" picture. It's a picture of two

youngsters who don't have a single care about tomorrow, about

the future.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Doom and gloom!

MR. MORRISON: That picture is a great cover picture

to characterize this budget because it has been written by a

Minister of Finance who is a babe in the woods when it comes to

responsible operation of government. The thrust of this

incredible document by any standard gives no regard to ensuring

opportunity and a future for British Columbia.

I want to concentrate my comments on the specifics of this

budget on the reverse side of the ledger, the side where the

money comes from.

[Mr. Liden in the chair.)

As the leader of my party said so well yesterday, both sides

of the ledger in this 1975 budget are subject to serious

challenges, but comment about the expenditure side of a budget

brought down by the Minister of Finance is hardly an exact

science. How could it be with a government which is used to

overrunning expenditures by $350 million? With this Minister of

Finance there is not even such a thing as a ballpark figure

when it comes to spending. More appropriate, the term for this

Minister of Finance might be an Esquimalt Harbour figure.

However, on the reverse side, past performance and trend

indicators, coupled with the far more exacting standards of a

private sector with respect to accounting practice, make it

possible to gauge in reasonably accurate terms what this

government might take in by way of revenue in the coming year.

Revenues of $3.2 billion are big — they are big numbers, a big

government.

In this budget, the Minister of Finance plans to spend

practically all of the $3.2 billion. He has left no margin for

error and no hedge against the possibility that some of the

departments of the government might spend a little more than

this budget estimates — not a lot more, like 1974; not $350

million, but just a few cents more. The structure of this

budget does not permit a red cent of overrun. If the Minister

of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi) over spends by $1 million — not $100

million like he did, but just $1 million — there'll

be trouble.

[ Page 328 ]

On the revenue side, a shortfall on the revenue side of $100

million — and that's a small amount; it's peanuts against the

big numbers of this budget — a shortfall of only 3 per cent

would mean that for the first time in decades British

Columbians would be faced with a deficit budget.

As recently as today, Statistics Canada announced a drop in

the gross national product of 1.75 per cent in the last three

months of 1974 in Canada, pointing up a shortfall possibility.

As I have already emphasized, that deficit could be much larger

because of the undisciplined spending of the Minister of

Finance and of this government.

The revenue estimates of this Minister of Finance, however,

offer a different kind of picture, though no less disturbing.

The revenue estimates show the priorities for the Minister of

Finance, the leader of the government of British Columbia. I

will tell the Hon. Members of this House what those revenue

estimates show. They show a Minister of Finance and a

government which will not make ends meet unless inflation

continues not at a moderating rate but an excessive rate, a

rate which all citizens of this province, save the members of

this government, deplore. If the rate of inflation decreases,

as British Columbians hope it will, this budget won't hold

together. The estimates of this budget with respect to revenues

are married to inflation in order to be achieved.

Let's look at personal income tax. How can we expect an increase of

$182 million on a base of $473 million to be met just by a new wage

earner coming on stream in the coming year? That's an increase

approaching 40 per cent, and the Minister of Finance has already had

his problems with unemployment figures. I am sure he will admit that a

40 per cent increase in the provincial share of income tax won't come

through the creation of new employment. Where is the bulk of this

increase going to come from? Obviously from inflation. This budget is

married by its nature to inflation.

If you had wondered what had happened to our taxes, take a

look at page 51 in the budget. Personal income tax returned to

the province in 1965 was just over $45 million — $45,723,349 to

be exact. In 1970 it was over $190 million — $190,606,209. But

the projected increase for personal income tax for 1975-76 is

$655 million. That's an increase of over 14 times.

The Minister of Finance, I'm sure, is well informed on the

wage demands which can be expected in this coming year when so

many of our major unions will be negotiating new contracts. The

Minister of Finance recognizes that in the coming 12 months,

major unions such as the IWA will ask to keep pace with the

cost of living by new demands.

What the Minister of Finance has apparently not been told is that

all British Columbians, whether they work in the city or in the

forests, want to lick inflation. The only way to do that is to put a

strong damper on cost-of-living increases, and only the government can

take the lead, by showing stringent restraint.

The saddest part of this budget is that it cannot afford to

let it end. It cannot afford to let inflation end. It can only

survive by rampant inflation. The government has done nothing

to curb its spending. As I have pointed out, with respect to

the estimates of revenue from personal income tax, this

government is married to a high rate of inflation.

Will the Premier or his Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King)

urge restraint when the IWA sits down at the bargaining table?

Will they be able to state that they have taken the lead in

curbing spending and therefore persuade our labour unions to do

the same? Will they be able to say that restraint in wage

settlements will not curb purchasing power because the cost of

living will level? No, they won't, because they'll be thinking

of that big 40 per cent increase they need from personal income

taxes to make this budget balance.

Turning to the other estimates of revenue, there are many

which fall under the same category of being married to

inflation. In each case where an estimate exceeds the previous

year's estimate by more than the normal growth rate of

consumption or use, the balance of the difference can be

accounted for by inflation.

Let's take a look at the estimates from social services and

fuel tax: parimutuel betting services revenue up 37 per cent;

social services tax revenue up 47 per cent; gasoline tax

revenue up almost 50 per cent. In the case of gasoline taxes,

in order to pay for the waste and extravagance of this

government at a time when consumers have less and less

disposable income, the Minister of Finance has found it

necessary to raise gasoline taxes. Not even the forces of

inflation this Minister of Finance is counting upon will be

enough here; not even the forces of inflation will pick up that

slack. Motor fuel tax is up 45 per cent; cigarette and tobacco

tax is up 11 per cent; hotel and motel room tax is up 45 per

cent.

Even if we take into account the basic shift in the

procedure of accounting contained in this budget, even if we

eliminate the 25 per cent growth in revenues over estimates, as

reflected in the revised estimates for 1974, this budget

clearly shows that it will only succeed if double digit

inflation continues in our economy. Double digit inflation is

the tax which robs the purchasing power of everyone. Do we have

to have that in order to make this budget balance?

Look at corporate income tax — up 97 per cent. Corporation

capital tax is up 142 per cent. Corporation income tax in 1965

was $40 million; in 1970, it was $86 million; but the

projection for 1975-76 is $260 million. Of course, in 1965 and

[ Page 329 ]

there was no corporation capital tax, but for

1975-76 it

will produce $17 million.

It's already been pointed out in this House that capital is

fleeing the province. Capital projects in the buoyant pulp and

paper sector of our forest industry on the books are now only

14 per cent of a similar total for Quebec and Ontario. In

British Columbia over half of the softwoods desired for these

operations are located here. Small businesses are leaving the

province. There have been cutbacks in the capital spending

programmes of our forest companies and our mining companies to

the extent of $300 million. It almost boggles the mind to

consider the number of jobs that could have been created in

British Columbia if the capital for investment was here, but

instead it's going to Alberta, eastern Canada and the United

States. In this climate, the Minister of Finance has decided

that now is the time to double the tax on corporation

capital.

Property taxes have grown from $8,299,815 in 1960 to

$14,166,342 in 1970, and are projected to $23 million for

1975-76. Social services tax: $125 million in 1960; $205

million plus in 1970; and an estimate of $480 million in

1975-76.

The frustrating thing is that municipalities are still going

to be supporting education through property taxes.

This government has said that they were going to move

education costs away from the mill rate base. True, they are

doubling the rebate, but this is still a long way from removing

the education costs from the property tax and will not nearly

keep up with the soaring costs of education placed on the

shoulders of the municipalities.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

The assessment base is frozen for another year at 50 per cent of

the 1973 assessment. Therefore the municipalities have no choice but to

raise the mill rate in order to increase their revenue. Municipal

increases of 10 mills are talked of as minimum increases in many

municipalities. What will many of these do who are almost at the 5 mill

maximum limit? Obviously they will apply for special arrangements to

exceed that limit, and the municipalities will be blamed for the tax

increase instead of the provincial government. Very cute, Mr. Minister

of Finance.

And there is the pie-in-the-sky promise to share the gas revenue

increases. Perhaps the most remarkable statement contained in this

budget's estimate of revenue is the almost 200 per cent increase

projected for petroleum and natural gas royalties. Let's take a look at

all the "ifs" contained in this figure. What if the federal government

does not approve of the $1.93 export tax? In the style of the Arabian

blackmailers, what if our major customer, the United States, curtails

its buying, as it has so successfully done with respect to oil

purchases? What if consumers, who are the big buyers of natural gas,

switch to other less expensive fuels, as many of them in the United

States are equipped to do? What if anti-pollution legislation in the

United States is rolled back, as it is suggested will be done, and

low-cost fuels such as coal are used? If, if, if. We are talking about

$150 million increase in revenues which are all "ifs."

Certainly all British Columbians support the principle of a

fair and a premium price for natural gas. But that is no

guarantee that these estimates can be met. If, as a consequence

of the extreme pricing policies of this Minister of Finance,

the Government of British Columbia finds itself in the position

which the OPEC (Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries)

is now in, financial chaos will be the consequence of this

budget. As Members of this House well know, the OPEC countries

hiked prices to astronomical rates over the last 18 months, and

for a brief period they looked like they would own the world.

Now, with stringency and restraint, consumption is falling

rapidly for oil. Storage facilities are full to capacity, and

rumours of financial problems circulate around the Arabian

oil-producing countries.

[Mr. Rolston in the chair.]

Is that the type of poker game this Minister of Finance wants to

play? Does he prefer the international grandstand to a reasoned

approach to government as well as producers? The type of increase that

this Minister of Finance talks about hardly falls within reasonable

limits.

It is interesting to note that while the Premier and Minister of

Finance is doing his grandstanding along with the Arabs and telling

British Columbians that his government is committed to a greater share

of resource revenue going back to British Columbians, the contrary is

true. Resource revenues, as a percentage of total revenues, will

decrease in this budget, to be replaced by increased revenues from

taxation — money that comes out of the pockets of British Columbians

rather than out of the ground. It's right there.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Where's the

increase?

MR. MORRISON: I took note yesterday of the comments of the

Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) on election reform.

Though they were somewhat roundabout and seemed concerned with

ensuring financial support out of the public purse for his

personal party, they sounded Re support for election reform.

Since it is possible that election

[ Page 330 ]

reform could mean a change in the provincial

Treasury, I

think it is appropriate to make a brief comment on it.

Electoral reform is a very good concept. It is clear, both

from events in this country and others, that in an affluent

society such as ours new approaches to ensure that the people's

choice in elections be clearly heard must now be taken. My

party is of the opinion that electoral reform in British

Columbia must be undertaken now, and we look forward to the

opportunity to evaluate the legislation which we are told the

government plans to bring forward during this session. We hope

that it will be strong and clear and not a toothless public

relations Act like the disclosures Act which is not a statute

of this province.

I am pleased to inform Mr. Speaker and Members of this House

that the membership in my party has grown rapidly over the last

two years. At this time I feel confident in saying that

whenever an election comes — and the sooner the better — the

British Columbia Social Credit Party will be able to finance

its election campaign directly through its membership.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MORRISON: Directly through its membership, through the

membership fee, and possibly by a very small assessment —

perhaps $3 to $5 per member.

Interjections.

AN HON. MEMBER: Living in the past.

MR. MORRISON: The British Columbia Social Credit Party

supports electoral reform; and I believe that British

Columbians support political parties that seek to improve the

opportunity of citizens to take intelligent direct political

action. The days when political parties could be servant to

special interest groups are gone — whether big business, big

labour or big government advocates. The special interest groups

must never have a special position in our system of

government.

HON. MR. COCKE: Where were you for 20 years?

MR. MORRISON: We look forward to legislation which will

ensure that each voter, as a citizen of this province, will

have an equal share in determining British Columbia's

leadership and priorities. We look forward to supporting the

electoral reform legislation which will honestly improve our

citizens' right to directly participate in government.

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

Go back and read that again.

MRS. D. WEBSTER (Vancouver South): Mr. Speaker, I'm

very happy to take

part in this debate.

First of all, I would like to congratulate the Minister of

Finance for a very fine people's budget.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MRS. WEBSTER: The needs of people have to be met; and no

matter what the opposition says in regard to big business, big

business is not suffering. It's not suffering. Believe me, it

looks after itself pretty well.

I was rather amused yesterday and enjoyed the speech by the

First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer). He's always

sort of light-hearted in his replies to the budget. He has a

very interesting style, and he goes through his yearly gambit

of presenting the shadow budget, as he calls it, for the

Liberal Party.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It's a shadow party.

MRS. WEBSTER: But he reminds me of Peter Pan — he never

wanted to change, never wants to change. Yesterday he wasn't

quite in his usual form. Other years he has always said "woe"

and "distress" and "not nearly enough money for education."

What did he say yesterday? He wanted a reduction of $38 million

from the Education budget.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Be flexible.

MRS. WEBSTER: Oh, he certainly is flexible, but I'm sure

that he hasn't talked to teachers or school boards or parents,

and it's obvious that he doesn't know what's happening in

Vancouver schools.

HON. P.F. YOUNG (Minister of Consumer Services): Or what's

happening in Vancouver.

MRS. WEBSTER: I'm most anxious to enter this debate because

I would like to speak about the situation in education in

British Columbia, which is reaching, particularly in Vancouver,

into a real crisis. I am referring, to put it simply, to the

British Columbia, most of whom have settled in Vancouver. The

problem it creates for the school system is absolutely

mind-boggling.

Before I continue, let me say that we heartily welcome these

new Canadians. We hope they will be happy in this new land,

particularly after they have made their initial adjustment.

Most of our parents or grandparents were immigrants. They

found the first few years frustrating and sometimes

heartbreakingly lonesome, I'm sure. But with their wonderful

spirit, which they carried

[ Page 331 ]

down to their children and grandchildren, they

developed and

cultivated this nation, giving it a vigour that is evident in

every aspect of Canadian life today. I personally know what it

was like to begin school without having the facility of

deal of courage and determination on the part of my parents to

for them to articulate in a language in which they were not too

familiar.

That is the problem that's facing many of these immigrants

today. But some of the more recent ones have greater difficulty

Last fall, after school opening, I visited about half of the

27 schools in my constituency of Vancouver South in a general,

informal way. I have tried to keep in close touch with the

schools because I am interested in what is happening in the

educational processes in this province, and particularly what

is happening in my own riding. I am absolutely surprised at the

changes that have taken place in the short time since our party

came into power.

Wherever I went last fall the teachers on the whole seemed

fairly pleased with the pupil/teacher ratio. Also, I am

constantly intrigued with the changes which are taking place in

the alternate methods of teaching to suit students with

different backgrounds, abilities and needs. But I am simply

astounded at the tremendous increase in the immigrant student

population in Vancouver.

For example, let me take Sexsmith Elementary School, which

is one of the elementary schools in my riding. It has changed

so much that now approximately one-third of the students are

new Chinese immigrants. Another one-third are East Indian or

Ugandan East Indian. The other one-third are Canadians or

immigrants of European background. That same situation exists

in other schools in that southeast

section of Vancouver.

For instance, in Moberly School Annex, if I take that as a

token example, in one primary classroom that I went into, out

have their first language as German, Finnish, Portuguese,

I particularly asked the teacher to ask them because I wanted

to know what their background was.

But now let me go back to Sexsmith school to illustrate another

point. To attempt to bring the immigrant children and their parents

into the Canadian family more quickly, the Vancouver school board has

undertaken to make Sexsmith into a community school. In this way, there

is access to the school in late afternoon and evening for classes for

the parents to participate in, or for them to participate in community

programmes. The evening and late afternoon programme is very popular

and is well used by families with western cultural backgrounds and by

the East Indian Canadians. To help these East Indians to adjust to the

community school programme, some fine East Indian women have been

enlisted to act as consultants and teacher aides.

But there is a great difficulty penetrating the Chinese

community. This is an entirely new Chinese community, separated

entirely from the one that is in the core of the city. Because

of this it is naturally very close knit. Because of language

and cultural differences from the people surrounding them, I'm

sure that this whole experience of living in a new land and in

a culture which is foreign to them is a frightening experience.

So naturally they tend to cling together. I understand that the

northeast sector of Vancouver is very much the same; it has the

same type of problems. Some of the national groups are

different. For instance, there is a concentration of Italians,

of Japanese and of native Indians added to the cultural mix

that we have in Vancouver South.

Here are some of the basic problems:

(1) Learning to

which is in evidence in every aspect of British Columbia life

in the schools;

(3) Because of the current housing shortage,

many of these people live in overcrowded, depressing

conditions.

If these are the problems of the various cultural groups

among our newer immigrants, you may well imagine the emergency

situation this has created for our schools and for the teaching

staff.

I would like to pay my respects to the dedication of all the

teachers who are a very fine group — as fine a group of

teachers as you can find anywhere. These teachers find

themselves faced with the overwhelming problem of spending most

of their time teaching immigrant children to verbalize in

regular classwork and, as they have to spend much more time

tend to neglect the others from time to time. In elementary

school grades this is a very serious situation. In high school

it is often the beginning of delinquency problems due to

boredom and misunderstanding.

Last night in The Vancouver

Sun the president of the

Templeton Home and School Association, a Mrs. Olivieri wrote a

letter in which she complained about this very situation.

"The point is that not only are special children being

deprived of equal opportunity but so are our

regular students."

She ends her letter by saying:

"All students — whether they be immigrants, the

average Canadian-born or students with special needs — must have an

equal opportunity to a good education. I would urge concerned

[ Page 332 ]

parents to pressure all levels of

government to act on this crisis immediately."

A Department of Education research survey shows that in

1973-74, Vancouver received approximately half of the 1,400

year alone. Many had already settled in Vancouver in the two

previous years. Also, many had settled in other areas of the

province but did not take long to make their way into the

Vancouver area to be able to be with their own ethnic or racial

group.

The Vancouver school board set up special classes to equip

these children to enter the regular classes. Children nine

years of age and over are given one year of instruction in

students, which is approximately 64 per cent of those who need

In Vancouver elementary schools about 13,000 students — about 34 per

second language. In the secondary schools 6,000 students — or

Principals report that 1,860 elementary school children cannot

only copy.

I think that's a disastrous situation. When I say that this

is a disastrous situation or a critical situation, I mean it's

really a calamity, Mr. Speaker.

I must appeal to the Department of Education, to the

Minister, and to the Minister of Finance to give special

consideration for supplementary grants to the Vancouver school

system to assist them in this impossible situation which has so

suddenly been thrust upon them.

In making this request I would like to remind this assembly

that the problem should rightfully be placed in the lap of the

federal government. I think that is something that the First

Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) forgot about

yesterday when he said there should be a reduction in the

amount of money going towards education.

Ever since Confederation, in accordance with the BNA Act,

education has been the responsibility of the provinces. That

Act was written when Canada was young and had a mainly rural

population. The west had not yet been joined to the eastern

provinces. Also, the church had a much greater say in the life

of the community, particularly in the field of education. But

over the intervening years the federal government has been

involved in education in many areas, and I would like to list

them.

Universities. It now provides grants to public universities. In

fact, some of the Catholic universities, such as University of Montreal

and University of Ottawa, during the last 10 or 15 years have gone

public, retaining control of their religious schools separate from the

main university in order to qualify for the grant.

Armed Services personnel. Young people going into the armed

services can receive their university education or their trades

training while they are in the services.

Children of service personnel. The federal government takes

full responsibility for the education of children of service

personnel who are serving overseas. For example, the NATO

forces in Germany.

Native Indians and Eskimos. Their education on the reserves

or in integrated schools is funded by federal moneys.

Bilingual education. Hundreds of millions of dollars of

federal money is being spent to make the federal civil service

bilingual. Also, federal grants are made to the provinces to

promote French schooling in districts throughout Canada where

there is sufficient Francophone population to make it viable.

Grants are also given to provincial education departments for

the teaching of French as a second language.

In Vancouver South there is one such school devoted entirely

to bilingualism from kindergarten to grade 2. It started off as

kindergarten; the following year it was kindergarten and grade

1; this year kindergarten and grade 2. It will progress next

year. Of approximately 200 pupils in that school, less than 10

per cent are from French backgrounds.

Immigrant classes. On a basis of cost-sharing with the

provinces, the federal government provides language training

for adult immigrants not destined for the labour force.

Through Manpower and Immigration funding is provided for

training or retraining in the trades, but the federal

government does not provide for the language needs of immigrant

students.

Mr. Speaker, a committee of teachers from Lord Strathcona

Elementary School wrote to the Minister of Manpower and

Immigration (Hon. Mr. Andras) in regard to the problems they

have in that particular area, and this is the answer that came

back from the departmental assistant. I'll quote one or two

paragraphs. It says:

'' As you perhaps know, the federal/provincial

language-training agreements provide on a cost-sharing basis a

mechanism for the province to take agreed-upon action in the field of

language training for adults not destined for the labour force.

Unfortunately, perhaps, this agreement does not provide for the

immigrant students' language needs, because these are seen as the

prerogative of the provincial government school system. But it could

conceivably be that the medium through which services seen by teachers

as imperative for the growth and development of immigrant students

might be negotiated."

[ Page 333 ]

Might be. But they haven't been able to do anything

definite

about this yet.

"In this way your recommendation might be partially or

wholly met."

In another paragraph he says:

"Under the Canada Manpower training programme the

Department of Manpower and Immigration

provides training which will help workers to improve their

employment prospects. For new Canadians, acquiring fluency in

existing job skills. The department therefore offers language

training to many adult immigrants."

But nothing, Mr. Speaker,

for the immigrant student.

I suggest that this is a very serious weakness in the whole

federal-provincial arrangement regarding education. Certainly I

am not against the promotion of the French language in British

Columbia to weld our two basic Canadian cultures together

through mutual understanding. But surely the federal Department

of Immigration should be equally sensitive to the needs of all

of our immigrant population, and this should include the

students.

I say, Mr. Speaker, that the federal government is placing a

next-to-impossible burden on the school systems of our three

largest urban areas in Canada, which have most of the

time that we had federal/provincial conferences on education,

such as we have in other departments, to solve this very knotty

problem. It is incumbent on all of us in British Columbia to

bring pressure to bear on the federal government.

However, Mr. Speaker, in the meantime, I would urge the

provincial government to give supplementary assistance to the

Vancouver school board to help them overcome this almost

impossible dilemma with which they are faced.

MR. C. D'ARCY (Rossland-Trail): I would like to express to

the chamber and this House just how impressed I am with the

budget, not because of what is contained by itself in the

budget, though that is quite impressive enough, but because it

would have been impossible to produce such a work if it were

not to indicate the underlying solidarity and strength of the

British Columbia economy.

This is a strength which is based on our natural resources,

our people resources, the ingenuity and innovation of our

working people and our business people. In fact, I may be

prejudiced, but I believe that British Columbians are some of

the most innovative and ingenious people to be found anywhere

in the world.

I think there is a tremendous amount of enthusiasm from the general

public towards where we are going. When I say "we," I mean as a

province, as British Columbia, not as a government or political party.

While the rest of the North American economy is in a

recession — and indeed all of the western world — we have had

and are looking forward to a real growth of 3 per cent. This is

in the face of a national decline in the last quarter of

I've been rather interested, Mr. Speaker, in some of the

comments from some of the opposition spokesmen on the budget and

on the state of the economy in British Columbia.

The Liberals, for instance, would have had us stay out of

Can-Cel, both at the time the bill came in and today. I

suggest, Mr. Speaker, that that would have been a serious loss

to the economy of British Columbia if the government in fact had

followed that path. Of course, Can-Cel has been a success. But

I don't think they were a success because of luck or because of

any magic formula. Can-Cel has been a success because

investment decisions relative to that corporation, and

management and corporate decisions, have been made completely

independent of any political meddling by B.C. Cellulose or the

Province of B.C. Those business decisions were based on

hard-nosed criteria, a very careful inventory of species that

were available in the tree farm licences and of world market

conditions. I would suggest to everyone here that good business

management is good business management, and it's a winner every

time. It doesn't matter whether you're in the private sector or

the public sector.

I would hope that other jurisdictions in Canada, the federal

government and the provinces, could emulate a basic principle

here. I think that one of the major reasons public enterprises

in Canada in the past and present in other jurisdictions have

not been terribly successful in a business sense is because

there has been political meddling, and there has been business

interference on purely political grounds and, in fact,

generally incompetent business management.

I am also rather interested in some of the changes in the

budget that have been suggested by the Social Credit Party and

by the Liberal Party. Now the Social Credit Party, I thought,

with its last convention had kind of abandoned the funny-money

stuff. Yet I thought, when I listened to the Leader of the

Opposition (Mr. Bennett) yesterday, that perhaps they were back

into it.

They suggested that we were killing the economy in the

natural resource sector by high taxation. At the same time,

they were very critical of the government because of a cut-down

in the percentage of revenue going to Health, Education and

welfare. I would suggest to everyone that you can't have it

both ways: you can't keep the percentages up in every

department and at the same time slash income from this

resource-rich province.

I was rather interested in the Liberal attempt at

[ Page 334 ]

rebuttal. The First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey

(Mr.

McGeer) in his statement was at least consistent. He didn't

suggest that we cut revenue without cutting spending; he was

consistent in that he suggested we cut spending. But where did

he ask that we cut the spending? One of his major cuts was in

the Human Resources department. I think that the people of this

province, certainly many people in my constituency, are going

to be very interested to know that the Liberal Party thinks we

should chop down our spending on day care, for instance.

Now day care isn't just a word. Day care is something which

assists a great many citizens — single parents of my

acquaintance — to work, to be employed, to be what they

themselves consider to be useful citizens, and still be good

parents;

whereas they would never be able to do it otherwise.

But the Liberal Party doesn't agree with that. There are a

great many handicap programmes and handicap societies that are

very active in this province. Apparently they would be cut

back, too.

The Mincome programme: I would assume that some of this $90

million-odd which is going to be cut from the Human Resources

budget by the Liberals...that would be cut back, too. I am

sure there are a great many senior citizens and handicapped

persons in this province who would be very interested in that

news.

The Pharmacare programme: the Pharmacare programme is rather

interesting because in many respects, or in one major respect,

it's kind of out of character for the usual kind of social

programme instituted by socialist-oriented governments.

Pharmacare has absolutely nothing to do with a person's

position in society, has nothing to do with their personal

holdings, has nothing to do with their personal income. Even

J.V. Clyne is eligible for Pharmacare. Everybody, when they're

aged 65, can get Pharmacare. I would assume that perhaps the

Liberal Party doesn't agree with this principle either.

The retraining and rehabilitation programmes of all sorts,

for some of which I must give credit where they started — under

the previous administration — they've certainly been carried

through, the positive programmes to help people help themselves

to get back into the labour force when, for no fault of their

own, they find themselves temporarily unable to earn a living.

Of course, when people get back into the work force or the

professional force, it not only is a saving to the budget of

British Columbia but it also, of course, produces productivity

and revenue for the province.

There were some major cuts proposed in the Provincial Secretary's

budget too. Of course, we know that the Provincial Secretary does what

in the larger scheme of things might seem to be a number of little

things. I would like to know exactly what was proposed to be cut from

the Provincial Secretary's department.

We in the West Kootenays — not just in the West Kootenays,

but all of the Kootenays — are in the process of kicking off a

regional library system. I think libraries are very important.

On a regional basis they cost money, but certainly they are of

benefit to many people, especially in the smaller communities

or in the rural areas, who have no access to libraries at all

and yet are taxed at the same rate as all of the rest of us.

Would we slash that programme?

What about the cultural and sports grants of all sorts that

come through the Provincial Secretary's department? It's rather

interesting that this should be suggested by one of the Members

for Vancouver–Point Grey, because when I deal with elected

presidents of swimming societies on a provincial basis, I find

that they often have Vancouver–Point Grey addresses. Perhaps

the Members over there know something about these people that I

don't. I don't know.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

There has been something said about taxes in general in

British Columbia. I'd like to talk just briefly about property

taxes, because certainly property taxes would appear to be

going up in British Columbia in 1975. I'm not talking about

assessments or mill rates by themselves; I'm talking about the

figure in the lower right-hand corner, which is what people

actually pay.

If one listened entirely to the opposition, one could get

the feeling that British Columbia was unique in Canada insofar

as nearly every community and every real-property owner was

facing increased property taxes. But there is a small headline

in the Financial Post of March 1, 1975, which says:

"Property Taxes are Rising 10 to 25 Per Cent from Bonavista to

Vancouver." They quote the usual increases which are common in

B.C.: 15 to 20 per cent education; 30 to 40 per cent repairs;

fuel 20 per cent; labour 15 to 20 per cent, and so forth, Also rather

interesting, Mr. Speaker, is that they say that

there are only two provinces in Canada that have planned

increased assistance to municipal governments. One is Alberta

and one is British Columbia. It's rather interesting that the

Province of Alberta is going into an election this year. I

wouldn't want to draw any inferences, but it's rather common in

political life in Canada, regardless of what party's in office,

to increase assistance of this nature when you're going into an

election year. But as somebody said before me in this House,

sometimes goodies come out every year, not just in election

year, and in British Columbia we're getting some goodies for

the municipalities this year.

I also note here that the predicted increase across Canada — and

this is a federal statistic — is around

[ Page 335 ]

$50 to $70 per household. We have already heard in

the

budget that there will perhaps be a $40 increase available per

household in the Province of British Columbia, which I would

suggest takes up the major part of the average increase in

taxation. All across Canada we see, so far at least, Liberal,

Conservative and even New Democratic governments on the eastern

prairies allowing all of this increase to fall on the

homeowner, the farm owner and the owner of business and

commercial property and industrial property.

There have been statements in and out of the House, not just

by the opposition, but by those in British Columbia who oppose

the policies of the present government, which is fair game,

that investment capital is fleeing the province. In fact, I

think that expression was used at least once yesterday in

debate. Well, Mr. Speaker, the statistics on capital investment

in British Columbia between 1964 and 1972, which was the year

this government came into office, averaged a $220 million

increase in capital spending per year in British Columbia. So

what has happened to that risk capital that supposedly has been

fleeing the province since the present government came in and

destroyed business confidence? Investors in this province in

1973 increased their investments — not by $220 million, but by

$600 million. Of course, some people might say: "Ah, but they

really didn't know what you guys were all about then." But they

really found out what we're all about, and in 1974 they

increased their investments by $800 million, a full $800

million, a full 33.3 per cent increase over the previous

year.

That's a two-year average of $700 million more per year,

which is somewhat more than 350 per cent increase over what

private investors were putting into this province before this

government came into office. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that that

is a tremendous amount of confidence in the Province of British

Columbia.

So when the opposition says that they speak for the private

sector and for people with risk capital to invest, they rather

lack credibility as far as this particular Member is concerned

in any event.

I would note also that economic surveys for 1975 and

questionnaires indicate that we will see another $700 million

increase in 1975 in private spending in British Columbia. Now,

knowing that business people, by and large, are very prudent,

very conservative in their outlook — which is correct, after

all — and that most questionnaires on the predicted future of

the British Columbia economy come back five or 10 per cent

light, always, we can assume that investment in British

Columbia will exceed the $700 million predicted increase.

I would suggest that we will probably go, in 1975, from total

capital investment of $5.1 billion last year to possibly as high as $6

billion in 1975. At the same time, as has been pointed out, our per

capita income in British Columbia, for the first time, is now the

highest in Canada.

In closing off, I would like to speak, I think, as a British

Columbian because I expect the opposition to do their job and

attack the government on its policies when they disagree,

attack it on philosophical grounds. It is fair game to point

out what they feel are alleged administrative failures as well.

But I would suggest that one of the most important things in

this province is the confidence that we have in our economy, in

our business people, in our workers, in our students, and in

our old people.

I personally, as a British Columbian, do not appreciate

people who go around this province, in or out of this chamber,

decrying British Columbia's future. Before I was elected and

this government was elected, I had always been very proud of my

province, even when I disagreed wholeheartedly with the

government. I feel we have a glorious province here. It is full

of wonderful people and it is full of bounteous resources.

It may have happened, but I don't recall, opposition people

in the past speaking against this province and its future. It

may have happened. I don't recall, opposition people in the

past speaking against this province and its future. It may have

happened. I don't recall. But, I know it has been a steady

stream of vitriol over the past 18 months from the opposition

benches and from spokesmen for their point of view. We had what

I felt was the absurdity, in my region, in the Kootenays, of

having two people come in and make speeches in recent months

about the terrible state of the British Columbia economy and

the terrible future.

One was Mr. Hamilton, whom I had thought of as an eminent

Canadian of the Employers' Council up to that point. The other

was a senior official of the British Columbia Chamber of

Commerce. I say "absurdity" because, in the West Kootenays, we

are presently going through an economic boom. It is an economic

boom which is not based on economic spending. It is an economic

boom based on private spending. It is the first boom we have

had in the west Kootenays since before World War I, in 60

years.

To have people come in from coastal British Columbia and

tell us about how bad things are really did riot go over very

well with me, nor did it go over very well with many of the

business people and professional people in our communities in

the west Kootenays. Maybe they think we are just dumb hicks up

there, but I would like to let them and this chamber know, that

we most certainly are not.

I believe very strongly in this province. I don't expect the

opposition to be loyal to the government, but I do expect them

to be loyal to the people of British Columbia in their

utterances and not destroy

[ Page 336 ]

our confidence in ourselves which people out there

know they

have.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I am

pleased to stand in my place, if only to annoy the Second

Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom).

I know that earlier, British Columbia had a special place in

the sun, something like Texas. That was the description. That

was our special place in the sun. Do you know, I think that was

apropos coming from that Member over there because, Mr.

Speaker, if there is any place in the world that has been taken

to the cleaners by the robber barons of North America — the

Rockefellers and the works — it has been Texas.

Those oil companies, those beautiful citizens have been

quite a contributor to Texas. But you know, it filters through

the business world.

I was in the insurance business — I was in the life

insurance business at one time, as many of you know. Texas —

notwithstanding Alberta, which is almost in that class in the

insurance business — was the laughing stock of North America

because of the way they could get away with virtually anything

they wanted to in that state, and unfortunately to some extent

up until not too long ago, in the Province of Alberta.

If there has been a change that has changed our position as

a province from one where we could be compared with Texas, I'm

sure that change cannot be anything but for the better.

No, Mr. Speaker, I'm glad that our special place in the sun

was also compared to those innocents that were on the front of

the budget. That Member, poor fellow, misunderstands this

government's direction, misunderstands this government's

feelings toward people. That's a very fine picture, because it

shows the concern over the young people who will ultimately

inherit this province. Hopefully, this government will stay in

power so there will be a province left for them to inherit.

AN HON. MEMBER: The kiss of death.

HON. MR. COCKE: The Province of British Columbia has a

responsible kind of budget in that it reflects much more

closely...nobody can tell you to the last dollar either what

expenditures or income is going to be, but they can be close.

This time for a first, it's close. I think that to describe

"the black stormclouds that are on the horizon," talking

in terms of "an incredible document"...sometime read this

document, Mr. Speaker. Sometime read the estimates. Where is

that money going, Mr. Speaker?

"Spendthrift," they call it. "Welfare," they

call it. They don't take time to break that budget down and to

learn to understand that the direction is a people direction,

and it's been long overdue.

We're charged with the responsibility for creating inflation —

double-digit, yet.

Interjection.

HON. MR. COCKE: I wasn't talking to the Member for Oak Bay

(Mr. Wallace) but I will endeavour in short order to speak to

him.

This double-digit inflation: even our federal government,

even the United States of America with all its power and

prestige haven't the ability to control inflation. That

opposition over there, who helped create a great deal of the

groundwork, along with the rest of the world that has been so

interested in serving the better interests of those large

corporate giants, they've set the stage for this inflation that

we're enjoying. We have to reflect that inflation in our

budget. We don't like it any better than the next guy, but not

to reflect it is unfortunate.

Because of our time limitations, you can pass a message to

that Member that he can get into the pool a little earlier

tonight.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

Our growth has been excellent in spite of recession — excellent. I

outlined some of the things that happened in

1960-61 a little while ago, and what the government of that

time's response was.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Let's get up to date.

This is 1975.

HON. MR. COCKE: I'll say this, Mr. Speaker. There is no way

that we could have maintained the relatively high, in spite of

recession, rate of employment if it had not been for an

aggressive government with a great feeling for people and a

responsibility towards those people.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. COCKE: I won't go through the jobs we've saved — you

know them better than I do. And, Mr. Speaker, there are

many, many jobs that have been created because of a generous

government, a government that has thought of the needs of our

old people, our elderly citizens.

Millions of dollars in Mincome that wouldn't have been there

otherwise: don't let them kid you about their old income

supplement that used to be the order of the day with 9,000

people in this province collecting it instead of well over

110,000 collecting it. That money has been made available so

that these people can look after their needs. In looking after

their needs, the corner-storekeeper is better off. He's able to

employ people and so are all the other small businesses in the

province as a result of a far-sighted government.

[ Page 337 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on!

HON. MR. COCKE: So, Mr. Speaker, once in a while a gem comes

from across the way. This gem was that Member for Victoria (Mr.

Morrison) saying that the B.C. Socreds will be and are financed

by their membership. Well, well, well, Alice in Wonderland, and

here is Wonderland. Here is that beautiful seagull flitting

around, telling everybody all sorts of funny little

anecdotes.

Mr. Speaker, this is what's going to finance them — what

financed this little document. What financed this to the tune

of $200,000? Those little $5 memberships or whatever? Oh, Mr.

Speaker, oh yes. There it is. It's too hot to handle. Those are

the little people who are going to put it all together.

Well, do you know where those little people are? I'll tell

you where those little people are. They are looking very

carefully at that old party that let them down, and they're

also looking very carefully that for once in their lives

there's now a party in this side of the House that cares about

them and their needs.

Who are the little people that I've heard of who come out in

support of that party over there? J.V. Clyne. Robert Bonner. I

hear the mining companies championing their cause. All these

little people! Oil companies from Texas. Remember Texas. Texas

has the place in the sun — the most ripped-off state in the

United States of America, and until recently that was our place

in the sun. So much for that.

I want to spend a few moments....

AN HON. MEMBER: The Socred's education fund. Who is back

into that now?

HON. MR. COCKE: Gunderson.

Interjection.

HON. MR. COCKE: You, Frank? Frank, you're too honest for

that job.

I would like to talk for a few moments about intermediate

care. I'm just as interested in it as the Member for Oak Bay

(Mr. Wallace), and naturally he's concerned. We, however, have

a bit of a hangup, and doctors are particularly hungup in the

case of any kind of care. This is no slur because I have had

all those kind of hang-ups as well as you have. But the fact of

the matter is that we think in terms of institutional care when

we think of chronic care.

I have said so many times that it is absolutely imperative

that we develop a home-care programme way ahead of developing a

fully funded intermediate-care programme. But just let's look

at what we are doing now coming from virtually zilch, virtually

nothing.

The medical side alone — that is the nursing side alone of

home care — now is $6.25 million. Naturally,you want us to be prudent.

Most of the intermediate-care

payments are being made out of the Department of Human

Resources. Incidentally, every time anybody refers to that

department they talk about welfare. How would you like to

cancel $44 million out of that department's vote, because

that's precisely where it is going? It's for this kind of care:

homemakers; centres for the handicapped; senior day care; and

adult care. These are the areas of intermediate care which have

come from something like zilch to $50 million ploughed into

that area. The Member for Oak Bay uses figures which are just a

little bit lower.

We feel that the total system for intermediate care in the

province is going to be something close to $100 million to

develop the whole system. The problem is that you don't develop

all those facilities overnight.

So, Mr. Speaker, we have those concerns; we're working on

those concerns. But let's face it, we've only been a government

for two and a half years. There will be wisdom at the polls

next time to see to it that we can get the job finished,

completed and done.

MR. GARDOM: He's not as good as Capozzi was.

HON. MR. BARRETT: With a little bit of luck he'll be a judge

by then.

HON. MR. COCKE: During the last year we have been busy in

the Department of Health. One of the things that has gone on

without very much notice has been the amalgamation of the

health-care carriers — the medicare carriers. In the course of

just over a year, we will have moved 700,000 subscribers to the

unified programme. The carriers will be completely amalgamated

by July of this year. I won't stand here and tell you it's

gone without a hitch; it's very, very difficult. Remember that

the majority of the subscribers were in MSA and CU&C.

So it's been a big job, but I certainly want to take this

opportunity of congratulating those people in my department who

worked so diligently and did a fine job. Ultimately, we will

all win. We will all have this one thing going for us and that

is that we will have a reduced cost. But more than that, Mr.

Speaker, we will have a much more manageable vehicle. It can be

much closer to the people and I think that's important.

Other things occur in health from time to time. We all

remember that there was a great deal of debate over the last

number of years about what was going to happen to teaching — and I'm

talking in terms of clinical teaching — in the Province

of British Columbia. I note today that The Province came

out with an editorial. I don't know whether it was one of their

Texas editorial writers but it sure looks like one. He gives

some very fine direction. He says, for

[ Page 338 ]

example, that the Shaughnessy development came out

of the

"euphoric dreams" of the provincial government.

It's unfortunate that he should use those kinds of phrases.

It's unfortunate because of the fact that the writer hardly

remembers the neglect and he hardly remembers the fact that

B.C., from the standpoint of its referral facilities, is behind

the rest of Canada — even the Maritimes, if you can believe it.

And it was shocking. What did all the people in the province

ask? They asked that a government give some leadership. And the

kind of leadership we gave, and that this editorial writer is

asking for, was rational leadership. We established a vehicle.

We didn't feel it was right that all of the decision-making

should come from the Department of Health. We felt that there

should be a community input. We felt that there should be a

vehicle within the community.

And who do you find on that resource, on the BCMC? That's

precisely who you find — highly respected community leaders,

members from all the different hospitals that are associated

with the BCMC, their appointees. That's precisely what we find

on the BCMC. Naturally there is going to be criticism of the

medical centre. Naturally there is going to be concern. But you

know what started all that trouble in Vancouver recently with

all of the neighbours from the Shaughnessy area — some, I must

confess, a little avaricious in their motive, but others

justifiably concerned. But they looked at a conceptual plan,

not really understanding what a conceptual plan was — merely an

artist's concept of what could happen, certainly nothing to do

with what was going to happen definitively.

So, Mr. Speaker, appreciating and respecting the autonomy

that must be developed — and I'm going to talk about that in a

minute if you guys will just hold tight, fasten your seat

belts.

Interjection.

HON. MR. COCKE: Oh, no. He won't show up — he hasn't been

here for days. He drops in once in awhile.

AN HON. MEMBER: How can you tell when he's here?

HON. MR. COCKE: He couldn't find a page boy so he brought

the note in himself.

We naturally have to apply brakes to a situation like that

which was going on, but those brakes really are merely a

working together of the groups that want to get the kind of

facility that's needed for this province. The facility will

still include St. Paul's — there's major development going on at

St. Paul's Hospital. There's major development going on at the

Vancouver General, a first-class — first time,

incidentally — emergency centre for the great City of

Vancouver.

There is a need for more facilities, and that need has to be

met by the Shaughnessy site. What do we need out there? The

BCMC priorities are as follows: first, a children's facility.

Mr. Speaker, if anyone here wants to stand up in this House and

say we don't need a children's facility, a teaching facility

for children, I would like him to put his representation

forward very quickly, because this province has never had a

decent children's facility. No way.

Mr. Speaker, adjacent to — and this is important — adjacent

to a children's facility must be our high-risk maternity. It

must be there. If it's not there, then what happens when that

mother delivers a child that absolutely needs to go immediately

next door into that facility? As a matter of fact, that will be

one complex; it's not going to be a number of buildings. It

will be one complex.

Then, next on the priority list will be cancer service for

the province. The cancer agency will be headquartered there,

and that's, as I say, the next priority.

So, what's going on out there is not a dense concept. It's a

concept that had input from the medical profession, and so

much. It was very much appreciated — a great deal of input. We

had input from industrialists; we had input from people in the

community; we had input from education. And, Mr. Speaker, as

far as I'm concerned, the kind of work that Jack Christiansen

is doing, and his group — completely gratuitous — is work that

this province will appreciate for years and years to come. I

congratulate them on the work they're doing.

Mr. Speaker, the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr.

L.A. Williams) talks about the university when he doesn't

recognize the fact that the great criticism that came from the

university and from their eastern colleagues when they were out

here looking at the viability for the future was on the

clinical facilities. That's precisely what's going on.

Interjection.

HON. MR. COCKE: Well, that's elementary. The medical centre

is the clinical teaching facility for the Province of B.C., for

those of you who haven't heard many, many times before.

Mr. Speaker, our instant expert — who is seldom in the House — on

hospital construction is out writing a note to Dan. He's

charging that there were not enough new beds on stream in the

past two years. Let me say to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr.

Bennett) that he had better hang his head in shame.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Send him a message; he's never around

anyway.

[ Page 339 ]

HON. MR. COCKE: Your party and its leadership put us so far

behind, and that's precisely why we are in the position where

we are now. You don't plan and build hospitals in a day, Mr.

Speaker.

Interjections.

HON. MR. COCKE: Oh, listen! We'll acknowledge that the

Socreds built many simple community hospitals.

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): What else did they

build?

HON. MR. COCKE: That's right. They were quick. But they

neglected the major costly referral hospitals, with the

possible exception of Kelowna.

Mr. Speaker, I want you to ask any of the people who live in

the urban centres of British Columbia: what do you think of the

referral hospitals in your area? How long was Trail neglected?

How long was Prince George neglected? How long was Kamloops

neglected? Victoria? Vancouver? New Westminster? And do I have

to go on, Mr. Speaker?

Interjections.

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, it takes years of planning and

work to put hospitals together. It takes years of planning and

hard work to put them together, and that's why we're suffering

now. We worked at top speed doing the necessary work that has

to go into a great number of these projects. The Burnaby

General has been given the go-ahead — $30 million. They're in

the process now of building what should have been built years

ago for probably $10 million if it had been done at the proper

time.

HON. MR. BARRETT: The Columbia River needed the money.

HON. MR. COCKE: The Royal Columbian, another neglected

project and another $30 million, and another $10 million if it

had been done a number of years ago.

There have been approvals on extended-care hospitals all

over the province. Vancouver, UBC got approvals. As a matter of

fact, the shovels are in the ground already. Queens Park,

Victoria — all these hospitals are going ahead as a result of

this government's activities over the past two and a half

years.

The medical centre, despite all its attendant problems, is

going ahead and will produce just exactly what the Member for

West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) was talking

about: clinical, and also highly needed, referral facilities

for the Province of British Columbia.

All too often when we think of solutions to life's problems,

we shunt our problems into institutional boxes. That's easy. We

think of courts, not of justice. We think of schools, not of

learning. We think of hospitals, not of health. That's how we

think. We focus on form, not health.

So as I indicated, the Socreds found buildings not without

advantage. These buildings keep in the votes while they keep

out the cold. The previous administration devoted considerable

energy to building rural hospitals while ignoring ways of

keeping people out of hospitals, other than crossing their

fingers.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): I don't know. They make

me sick.

HON. MR. COCKE: Before anyone misconstrues my comments,

however, I assure the House that I agree that these

institutions do have an extremely important place but only as

part of the system. They must become part of the system, not

the system itself. I think that's the important ingredient

we've missed. The vital part of the system in the future must

be prevention. If we are to maintain a viable health system, it

must be prevention — such as reducing the speed limit, as my

colleague did a few months ago. A Minister of Highways (Hon.

Mr. Lea) showed his concern for the life and limb of the people

of British Columbia.

Oh, the former Minister of Highways (Mr. Gaglardi), how he

used to fly. What was his name? Flying Frill. Oh, no, Flying

Phil. Oh, yes, Mr. Speaker. What a change of attitude has

occurred in this place in two and a half years.

Interjections.

HON. MR. COCKE: In health care we have added the preventive

aspect. As I said earlier in the session, we have added to

public health with nurses well grounded in prevention. Public

health inspectors.

The Leader of the Opposition seems to think they should all

go.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Where is he? Where is he? Where is he?

HON. MR. COCKE: As long as we're the government, they will

not go; they will stay on to provide the needs and the care

this province needs.

HON. MR. BARRETT: An empty chair. He doesn't even give us

the courtesy of turning his back on us. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. COCKE: I'd like to just talk in terms of Action

B.C. for a second. More prevention; a

[ Page 340 ]

recognition of the need for prevention in this

province.

Just to give you an idea of what a little bit of work and a

strongly motivated group of people can do.

Right now, we're working on our PNE project this coming

year. Last year, 9,000 people took a fitness test in the PNE.

Not that that remade them, not that that remoulded them, but it

gave them just a little bit of a move toward more consciousness

about their own health concerns and about their own health

care. Our problem has been that as a society we have decided to

let the doctors do it, let the nurses do it, let somebody else

do it, taking no responsibility ourselves for our own health

care. I believe that preventive work, such as Action B.C. has

been doing around this province, is great work.

As I said, we had action in the B.C. building last year, and

there will be again this year. Right now, there's a Penticton

project going on. I hope they get the same kind of results in

Penticton: getting people involved in walking if they used to

sit; getting them involved in running if they used to walk;

getting people involved in physical activity and interested in

nutrition and these kinds of things.

I note the Member for Boundary-Similkameen (Mr. Richter)

nodding his head. I'm very pleased that he's noted this because

it is an important project. These projects get people closer to

their own needs.

Let me tell you about something else that Action B.C.

promoted. We call it the Prince George project. In cooperation

with the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) and the

school board in Prince George, they put together a fine

programme. And do you know what's happening in those schools,

the two schools particularly where this programme occurred?

They get one hour per day of physical activity. It didn't cost

them anything more than one dedicated teacher who went up and

taught the other teachers how to deliver a physical education

programme to their classes.

Mr. Speaker, what happened to the kids? Every one of them

was checked three times: at the beginning, in the middle and at

the end of the programme — that is, at the end of the first

year. What happened to the kids? First, having taken that much

time out of their school day, their school grades went up,

believe it or not. The second thing that occurred was that

their health improved. They weren't so fat. They were able to

exert themselves to a far greater extent.

Generally speaking, Mr. Speaker, this is the kind of thing

that we've been looking for. This is the kind of thing that's

going on as a result of people whose preoccupation is with

prevention. That has to keep going, rolling like a

snowball.

Often the most tragic deaths are caused by accidents. Accidents are

the major cause of death between the ages of 15 and 44. This fact was a

major impetus behind the creation, last year, of the Emergency Health

Services Commission. The Emergency Health Services Commission was born

because of that particular need in our society. Now, before we use the

traditional perspective — when I say "emergency" don't just think of

ambulances, although we are proud of the services the ambulances give —

we should broaden our perspective, broaden our scope in the area of

accident prevention. There are more days lost in this province from

industrial accidents than are lost in industrial disputes, and that was

true even when the Socreds were in power and there were lots of

industrial disputes.

Mr. Speaker, that's precisely where it's at, so we'd better

begin to become safety conscious. We're looking at ways and

means of imparting safety consciousness.

One, I feel is an understanding of elementary first aid — just an

understanding of elementary first aid. And, Mr.

Speaker, you as a Member of this House can find out yourself

and give some leadership at the same time.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Right on!

HON. MR. COCKE: St. John's Ambulance has developed a

multi-media programme that lasts only eight hours. In this

short period of time not only is first aid practised but a new

awareness towards safety is imparted. In some of the

experiments that have been going on recently, when this course

has been taught to everyone in a plant, the accident rate has

dropped as much as 30 per cent. So I think that it makes one

far more accident-aware.

The Premier just suggested we need a first-aid course in

this House, and that's precisely what you're going to have. If

I receive enough notes from the Members of this House, a course

will be made available as soon as it can be arranged. Eight

hours — you can do it in two four-hour periods or whatever.

Let's give a little leadership in the community.

HON. MR. BARRETT: It's too late to help the Member for

Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis).

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, save a life. Save the Member

for Saanich.

HON. MR. BARRETT: He's got no place to go.

MR. PHILLIPS: All you can do is put on Band-aids.

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, later i