1971 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 29th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 1971

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 349 ]

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

On the motion of the Honourable C.M. Shelford, the following Bills

were introduced, read a first time, and Ordered to be Placed on

theOrders of the Day for second reading at the next sitting after

today:

Bill (No. 24) intituled

An Act to Amend the Fur-farm Act ;

Bill (No. 23) intituled

An Act to Amend the Trespass Act ;

Bill (No. 25) intituled

An Act to Amend the Animals Act .

The following Bills were introduced, read a first time, and Ordered

referred to the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and

Private Bills:

On the motion of Mr. Wolfe, Bill (No. 50) intituled

An Act to Incorporate the Vancouver School of Theology .

On the motion of Mr. Wolfe, Bill (No. 51) intituled

An Act Respecting Central City Mission .

On the motion of Mr. Capozzi, Bill (No. 52) intituled

An Act to Incorporate Canadian Institute of Management (British Columbia Branch) .

On the motion of Mr. Wolfe, Bill (No. 53) intituled

An Act to Amend the Vancouver Charter .

On the motion of Mr. Merilees, Bill (No. 54) intituled

An Act to Amend the Seaboard Assurance Company Act, 1953 .

BUDGET DEBATE

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources.

HON. F.X. RICHTER (Boundary-Similkameen): Mr. Speaker, it is

not without some trepidation that I rise in my place to speak this

year. Last Session I thought I had prepared a relatively good address.

I know there was no intended sabotage but I did think, Mr. Speaker,

that probably, a few words of it might have been printed in the

records, known as Hansard in this House (interruption) .

It probably wasn't too great a loss, Mr. Member. I remember it well. I

still have it in print. So I will repeat it again this year, hoping it

will get on the records of the House.

Mr. Speaker, it is again my privilege to take

part in this Budget

Debate. Before going into the more detailed points relating to the

administration of the Portfolios of which I am particularly charged, I

want to take this opportunity to speak again on behalf of the

constituency of Boundary-Similkameen, which I have the honour to

represent in this Legislature.

Since the last Session of the Legislature, a considerable number of

projects has been undertaken within the constituency, in relation to

highways, parks, rural electrification and other important projects,

all of which have enhanced the conditions within the constituency and

benefited the people generally. But I find that I must reiterate,

especially to the Department of Highways, some of the very important

projects which have, in my estimation, a high priority. I refer,

specifically, to the Penticton by-pass, the Spencer Hill west of Grand

Forks, Central Avenue in the city of Grand Forks and the Cascade

Bridge. I want, particularly, to express my appreciation to the

Department of Highways for its diligent pursuit in attempting to find

ways and means of overcoming the problems that are encountered in

obtaining access for the Penticton by-pass.

Many frustrations have been encountered and certainly have not yet

been cleared to the degree that the Department of Highways would be in

a position to give the green light to the construction of this very

important traffic artery.

I have brought to the attention of my colleague, the Minister of

Highways, several other projects to which I am sure he will give

consideration at his earliest opportunity.

I want to express my appreciation to my colleague, the Minister of

Recreation and Conservation and his department, for the establishment

and development of what is taking place at the south end of Christina

Lake. This project will not only serve the immediate community but will

have far-reaching benefits to the residents of Rossland, Trail, Grand

Forks, Greenwood and Castlegar, as well as the communities immediately

south of the international border at the port of Cascade. This project

was undertaken on a continuing development status, and I look forward

to the second stage of development being undertaken within the coming

fiscal year. I must also express my appreciation for the excellent

restocking programme of the various lakes and rivers within my

constituency, in replenishing these lakes and rivers with new fish from

the various hatcheries. A new life has come into existence for these

various waters, which are affording the local citizens and the

travelling public a great deal of sports fishing.

I have received many letters, along with oral commendations,

regarding my efforts in having the programme, which presently exists,

undertaken within my constituency by the Department of Recreation and

Conservation. Other matters which are important to the constituency

will be put forward to the various departments concerned, within the

course of the next year.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand in my place in support of a

Budget which, once again, evidences the financial stability of this

Province. The message of confidence it contains will contribute greatly

to the social and economic wellbeing of the people of British Columbia

during the coming year.

I wish now to turn my remarks to those departments whose Portfolios I have the privilege of administering.

As Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources, it is particularly

gratifying to be in a position to comprehend the tremendous

contribution these industries have made to the economic wellbeing of

the people of British Columbia during the past year. Despite extreme

economic pressures resulting from Federal monetary and fiscal policies,

notably the proposed and indefinite policies in respect to mining in

the so-called White Paper and the indirect impact of lockouts

and strikes in other areas of the economy, the mining and petroleum

industries have continued to expand and have, again, achieved record

production.

I think it would not be presumptuous to say that the one stable area

of the economy during 1970 was the mining and petroleum industry.

Estimated total production for 1970 is $497 million, an increase of

$32.5 million, or 7 per cent over 1969. This was achieved despite the

fact that lockouts and strikes in the construction industry, together

with a scarcity of mortgage money for building, contributed to a $19

million, or 34 per cent, decline in the value of structural materials

produced. Had it not been for this factor, my estimate, a year ago, of

half a billion dollar production value for the industry would probably

have been exceeded by some $20 million. Notwithstanding the general

economic conditions, 1970 will be the ninth consecutive year that a

record value of production has been set in mining.

[ Page 350 ]

Mr. Speaker, I believe it to be of paramount importance that the

people of British Columbia be given some understanding of the

beneficial impact which this great industry has upon the general

economy of British Columbia.

First, let me say that it is an elementary precept of economics

that, without population density, there is no market. Consequently, if

there is no market there can be no mining. Unfortunately, neither two

million British Columbians, nor even 25 million Canadians, constitute

the kind of market upon which an industry, such as mining, can be

based. It is for this reason that the resource development policy of

this Government related to mining is based upon the acquisition of, and

entry into, markets overseas with a production the market is prepared

to accept.

Had it not been for the success of this policy, the employment

picture in this Province would have been catastrophic. To illustrate

this point, I would indicate two examples of mines which came into

production in the past year. The first example is that of Brenda Mines

at Peachland, a metal mine which has a mill capacity of 24,000 tons per

day.

The capital expenditure to bring this mine into operation was

$62,300,000. As of the end of January, this year, it directly provided

397 steady jobs for the people of this Province. The indirect impact

will be readily seen in the following list of major supplies required

annually to keep this mine in operation.

It will require $750,000 worth of explosives; $900,000 worth of

tires; $150,000 worth of drill bits and steel; $100,000 worth of diesel

fuel; $1,100,000 worth of chemicals and reagents; $2,500,000 worth of

grinding balls, rods and liners; and $750,000 worth of transportation.

I think it would be fair to say that 80 per cent of mine supplies in

British Columbia are purchased in Canada. One could add to this the

value of housing and the multitude of additional services to

accommodate the needs of the 397 workers with jobs which did not exist

two years ago.

If this were the only new mine in operation in British Columbia, it

would not be too significant. However, one could speak of Granduc Mine

near Stewart, which, after a capital investment of over $100 million,

provided 707 direct jobs as of December, 1970, to operate the mine, and

has spent $3.4 million in providing housing for their employees. Then

there is the Pinchi Lake Mine, King Resources Mine and Churchill

Copper. All these came into production in 1970 and provided thousands

of jobs for the workers of British Columbia. This significant

contribution of jobs for workers in the mining industry of British

Columbia is only the beginning. Over the next 18 months, Gibraltar

Mines with a 30,000 ton mill capacity, Lornex at 38,000 ton, Noranda's

Babine Mines at 10,000 tons, Similkameen Copper at 15,000 tons, and

Island Copper at 33,000 tons, will all come into production and provide

several thousand more jobs. These jobs are all provided as a direct

result of the resource development policy of this Government in British

Columbia.

I might interject at this time and digress from my notes. In

relation to the Western Mine, of which we have heard in recent days,

the employment there is 282 direct jobs; wages, $2,133,000; mine

development, $1,241,000. Now, to bring this into production, the total

expenditures — the preproduction — was $9,553,000, and this is

continued on with the equipment, the Buttle Lake Road, the housing in

Campbell River, at $9,300,000; capital expenditure, since production

development, and equipment, $978,000. Including the road in the

expenditures, there have been spent $2,580,000. Now, this being the

only mine in operation in a park, I thought it would be well to give

you some indication as to what this contributes to the local economy

within the given area.

So far, I have referred only to metal mines. But that is only a part of the…

Kaiser Resources alone have made a tremendous contribution to the

work force of this Province. As of January 7, this year, there were

1,419 employed by this company in British Columbia. Of this number,

1,365 are on the payroll at Sparwood. Again, this represents

approximately a thousand direct jobs which did not exist two years ago.

This is the development which the Member for Kootenay was opposed to at

its inception. Now that this project has brought a great measure of

prosperity to the east Kootenays, the Member indulges in political

gymnastics, jumps on the bandwagon and is trying desperately to filch

some political advantage from the successful employment picture which

now exists in an area which was previously depressed. It's too late for

him to come to this House and lecture us on the need for hospitals and

schools in the area. The fact will never change that, if the Member for

Kootenay had had his way, the coal industry in the Kootenays would be

dead, and thousands more people in British Columbia would have been out

of work.

Mr. Speaker, this direct employment figure is again only a part of

the picture. There is a capital investment of $125 million at the mine,

an additional $48 million in railway facilities and a further $15

million on the island at Roberts Bank superport.

MR. L.T. NIMSICK (Kootenay): A point of order, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to ask the Honourable Minister where he has been getting his information from.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. RICHTER: Public information by way of the press.

MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Member may rise at the conclusion

of any address and correct any misinformation which may have been given

inadvertently — not now.

MR. RICHTER: I expected the interruption, Mr. Speaker, so I'm not too badly disturbed by it.

Since the Kaiser project commenced, 583 housing units…I see the

Member wants me to repeat, so I'll give him the further information by

repetition. Since the Kaiser project commenced, 583 housing units have

been built at a cost of approximately $12½ million. I am advised that

if construction in housing, hotel, stores and other accommodation at

Sparwood and Fernie are taken into account, the capital investment in

this type of construction approximates $50 million.

When we speak of the Kaiser development in the Kootenays, we are

talking of a capital investment of almost a quarter of a billion

dollars, a direct work force of 1,419 people and an indirect work force

of several thousands more. I say again, if we had listened to our

political opponents, thousands more people in British Columbia would be

out of work and jobs and depending on welfare for an existence.

The attitude of the Honourable Member for Kootenay can perhaps be

excused. He obviously did not have the foresight nor the capacity to

understand the economic impact this project would have in the area he

represents. However, what is completely inexcusable is the attitude of

[ Page 351 ]

Mr. Haynes, the secretary-treasurer of the British

Columbia Federation of Labour. In a letter dated January 8, 1971, this

man urged me, as Minister of Mines, to slow down the development of the

coal industry in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, this is the man who, on January 21 in the guise of

seeking jobs for the unemployed workers, brought to this city a group

of protesters, some of whom then proceeded to destroy public property,

attack other men, following their unlawful occupation, and attempted to

frustrate and stop the democratic process of the Government of the

people of British Columbia. Even discounting the actions of the radical

element in that affair, it is sheer hypocrisy for this man to lead a

parade of job seekers when, only two weeks previously, he had appealed

to me to slow down an industry in which one company, alone, is

providing directly almost fifteen hundred jobs in British Columbia.

This man's reasoning for his appeal to slow down this industry is

that we may need the coal for other uses. The plain fact is that the

coal reserves in the Kootenay, alone, is of such magnitude that if we

were to ship 50 million tons per year overseas, and I mention that

again, Mr. Speaker, 50 million tons per year overseas, it would take

over one thousand years to deplete the present known reserves in that

area. The latest report of the Geological Survey of Canada, dated 1970,

places the coal reserves of southeastern British Columbia at over 56

billion tons. I may add that exploration in the eastern portion of

north-central British Columbia gives indications that this area may

also become a major source of coal reserves. Present contracts for coal

approximate 12 million tons annually. I believe that there are

reasonable indications that this figure will approach 25 million tons

annually by 1975.

As the Minister responsible for the administration of some of the

major natural resources of this Province, I am gravely disturbed by the

attitude of certain groups in our society who advocate the alienation

in perpetuity of large areas of this Province for single-purpose use.

This attitude is tantamount to imposing stagnation of resource

development, through reservation, by means of the device of

legislation. It is my belief that no land should be reserved for

single-purpose use until a comprehensive study has been carried out to

ascertain the nature and value to the public of the geology, forestry

and other resource potentials of any given area. The stampede to

alienate, without thought to the advantages of multipurpose use, is

shortsighted and, in some cases, a distinct hazard to the ecology of

these areas. In addition, the public must understand that, if resource

development is to be inhibited by this principle of alienation,

potential work and wage opportunities will cease to exist.

As far as the effect of mining on land services is concerned, it is

important to note that all producing mines in this Province occupy only

one thirty-sixth of one per cent of the 366,255 square miles that make

up British Columbia. Land surface occupied by mines is substantially

less than that of any other resource industry, including agriculture

and that which is available for recreation. It is interesting to note

that of all the major resource industries, mining produces the greatest

returns to the people per square mile of land used. In a submission to

the Select Standing Committee on Mining and Railways, studying proposed

mines reclamation regulations in 1969, the British Columbia and Yukon

Chamber of Mines illustrated the potential value of land use during the

following fifty years, as being: the average value of timber land per

square mile, $1,500,000; the average value of cattle-ranching land per

square mile, $300,000; the average value of farm land per square mile,

$1 million; the average value of mining land per square mile, $115

million.

In

summary of the mining industry, it is interesting to note that

British Columbia now leads all other Provinces in Canada in mineral

exploration and new mine development. The Mineral Act

has attracted more large exploration companies and risk capital than

like legislation in any other Province, to the point where $45 million

is now being spent on the search for new mines per year. It is

anticipated that one billion dollars will be spent on new mine

development and plant construction during the next eight-year period.

This, in itself, will create a market for a wide range of goods and

services and provide jobs for thousands of British Columbians, as well

as create opportunity for the expansion and creation of secondary

industry in this Province.

Before proceeding to other matters, I would like to repeat what I have stated on several previous occasions, Mr. Speaker.

Mining is an exciting industry, primarily because the human element

is still such a decisive factor. In this, our Centennial Year, we may

well recall that the pioneers of Barkerville, the Boundary country, the

coal mines of Vancouver Island and the Kootenays, have left their

imprint on the pages of progress in our Province. Despite the

technology of our times, the intrepid prospector still has to face the

rigours of terrain and the vagaries of the elements in his quest for

the oft-times elusive "pot of gold" at the end of the rainbow. It is to

these men, with their spirit of adventure and their willingness to

endure hardship and privation, that we first owe a debt of gratitude.

Without them, the mining industry would be a figment of the

imagination, and the history of our Province would be a rather

uninteresting commentary.

Mr. Speaker, the petroleum

and natural gas industry of the Province continues its steady progress

of development and production. In the calendar year 1970, there were

1,990,000 acres involved in Crown reserve dispositions. Average price

per acre was $8.21, which is 19 cents per acre above the 1969 figure.

British Columbia is the only oil- and gas-producing Province to record

an increase in the average price per acre disposed of during 1970.

Exploration activity is continuing at an increasing pace over 1969, as

the market for gas and oil expands.

Now, of the total of 2,721 wells drilled at the end of 1970, 638 are

classed as oil wells, of which approximately 527 are producing each

month. Oil production is about 70,000 barrels per day. There are 716

gas wells, of which approximately 298 are producing each month. Gas

production is about 869 million cubic feet per day.

I wish now to centre my remarks upon my responsibilities as Minister

of Commercial Transport. Broadly speaking, this department regulates

the in-Province operation of roads, rail and pipe-line transportation.

One of the major barometers of the economy is transportation and

this was most certainly evident during the past year. The movement of

forest products was severely curtailed by work stoppages.

The tie-up of coastal tugboats and the shut-downs in the

construction industry had a depressing effect on the transportation of

building materials and industrial components. Notwithstanding this, it

is enlightening to note some of the changing characteristics of

commodities. Among these is the increased movement of mobile homes,

modular buildings, prefabricated houses and precast beams. On April 23,

1970, the regulations under the Department of Commercial Transport Act were changed to allow for a maximum width of 8 ft.

[ Page 352 ]

6 ins. for commercial vehicles. This change was

necessary to permit the line haul

section of the industry to take full

advantage of the modern method of packaging, which is in modules of two

feet. With the advent of the new regulation, a full eight feet of

interior cargo space was made available. Despite the general economic

conditions, there were 11,338 more commercial vehicles licensed in

1969-70 than there were in 1968-69.

Railways are playing an ever-increasingly important role in the

economy and industrial development of British Columbia. The Pacific

Great Eastern continues its expansion in the north and, in a report

dated January 18, 1971, the chief engineer of my department reports, as

follows: "On the extension from Fort St. John to Fort Nelson, a

distance of 250 miles, 212.5 miles of grading are completed; 115 miles

of rails and ties laid; and a further 76 miles of ballasting completed.

The extension from Fort St. James to Takla Lake has 30 miles of grading

completed; 42.5 miles of grading, 50 per cent completed; and six miles

of rails and ties laid. The actual inspections of these lines were

carried out in October and November, 1970. The rail relay programme has

reached the point where heavy rail is now continuous from North

Vancouver to Prince George, a distance of 460 miles. The 85-pound rail

made available by this programme is being utilized in the new

construction.

The Roberts Bank superport railway of the British Columbia Harbours

Board was opened for traffic on April 6, 1970, and it is reported that

the average density of traffic has been one unit-train per day, each

train averaging 87 cars with 100 tons per car. Canadian Pacific reports

an actual figure of 2,245,834 short tons hauled during the first nine

months of operation. The unique aspect of the railway to Roberts Bank

is that it utilizes six different railway facilities in a continuous

nonstop route to the port. CP Rail, CN Rail, B.C. Hydro, B.C. Harbours

Board, Burlington Northern and Kaiser Railway on the island itself,

each have access without the necessity for, and delay of, interchange.

At the present time, equipment has been installed and negotiations are

under way to bring all these facilities under one central traffic

control system.

During construction, 12 level highway crossing signals were

installed. Since then, by Order-in-Council, a further 12 are to be

installed. These have been ordered and will be installed immediately

upon delivery. Highway 499 has been overpassed, Hornby Drive has been

relocated and Highway 17 has been overpassed. Pacific Highway and King

George Highway grade separations are not yet constructed. This is due

to highway relocation, in one case, and the establishment of

foundations, in the other. The overpass at Arthur Drive is dependent

upon the ultimate location of the rail sidings and other conditions in

the municipality of Delta.

The aerial tramway industry has, again, been very active during the

past year. The Hells Gate aerial tramway is being constructed to allow

public access to the fish ladders at Hells Gate in the Fraser Canyon.

The terminal will be on the west side of the river and it will be a

rather scenic and probably interesting experience to cross the entire

canyon by way of an aerial tramway. Considerable engineering has been

studied on the Boston Bar aerial car ferry. This work has been

progressing in stages so that, by the end of 1971, it is expected that

the engineering will be completed and, in addition, a rescue car will

be provided in case of emergency.

The number of lifts installed in recreational areas exceeded that of

1969, which was considered to be a very active year for the

construction of new facilities. The total number of facilities in

operation in 1970 was 175, compared with 158 in 1969.

The continued progress of the oil and gas industry brought about a

total of approximately 145 miles of new pipe-line construction last

year. This, together with the marked increase in compressor stations,

pumping stations and gas and water injection systems, have all

contributed to the buoyant employment situation in this industry.

Mr. Speaker, may I conclude by saying, from the point of view of the

mining and transportation industries, the prospects of the 1970's are

challenging in concepts of human betterment, technological advancement

and economic expansion. Given a reasonable world economic climate and

realistic labour-management accord, I believe we can look to the future

with great confidence; however, any drastic change in world markets,

punitive tax measures or unreasonable demands from labour will upset

the delicate economic balance which presently enables us to look to a

bright future for these industries and the contingent benefits for all

the people of this Province. Mr. Speaker, I hope this will appear in

the records of the House. Again, thank you very much.

MR. L.T. NIMSICK (Kootenay): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to keep the record straight.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Kootenay.

MR. NIMSICK: I would like to deny having ever said anything that would hinder the economic development of the east Kootenays.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Cowichan-Malahat.

MR. R.M. STRACHAN (Cowichan-Malahat): Thank you very much,

Mr. Speaker, for recognizing me and allowing me to take my place in the

traditional Debate which ensues after the Minister of Finance has

delivered his words of wisdom, hope, despair or confusion or whatever

they may be, to the Legislative Assembly.

I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I'm in my usual benign,

benevolent, charitable, understanding, sympathetic mood, but I promise

you a modicum of criticism before the afternoon is finished.

I would like to start, first of all, with some of the remarks made

by the Minister who has just taken his place. He referred to the

secretary of the B.C. Federation of Labour as having written him a

letter which could only have the effect of destroying, or taking away,

or stopping jobs in the Kootenays. Now, the Minister didn't read the

letter. I am going to read the letter, addressed to Mr. Richter,

January 8. "Dear Sir: The selling off of all our coal in the 'Chamber

of Commerce' fashion is shortsighted since science is beginning to tap

other industrial and chemical uses for coal, besides its current use as

a fossil fuel. Since it is scientifically possible that coal could

become a major industrial substance in the not too distant future, we

would call on your department for a slowdown in the present coal

'bonanza' in favour of keeping reserves of coal for possible other

uses, especially the development of secondary industry in western

Canada." No doubt he wrote this letter on reading the issues of the

B.C. Gazette , which show

issue, after issue, after issue, applications by major corporations — some of them now engaged in the forest industry — for the taking up of

large leases, large coal leases, not one of them giving any indication,

and the

[ Page 353 ]

Minister having given no indication ever, that the

purpose of the grabbing of these coal leases is for anything else but

the export of that coal in its raw state, as quickly and rapidly as

possible — even by pipe-line. What Mr. Haynes was saying is that we

should take a look at that raw material and, Mr. Minister, if you don't

know by this time the basic theory of economics that the more labour

applied to a raw material, the more wealth you create, it's time you

did. What Mr. Haynes was saying to you was, "Speed up" in the

utilization of our natural resources but utilize them more fully, in

here, in this Province, get more wealth from them, create the clean

kind of jobs that we do need to get the best out of British Columbia.

It's only part of the general attack that's been made on Mr. Haynes

by Members all across the way and I'll have more to say about that

particular aspect later.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister also made some criticism of those who are

in favour of the alienation of land for a single-purpose use. He said

this was terrible. Mr. Speaker, I agree with him, most of the time, but

I ask him, "When we allocate land for strip mining, what other use can

you put that land to, when you are strip mining it?" Isn't that a

single-purpose use? You said you don't like it — alienation for a

single-purpose use. I ask you! What are you going to do with the strip

mines? What are you going to do with it while they are strip mining it?

Are you going to have a hockey game? Or build an arena? Or go hiking?

What are you going to do with it?

Mr. Speaker, I would like to turn, briefly, too, to the Minister who

spoke yesterday, the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade, and

Industry.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did he speak?

MR. STRACHAN: Yes, he spoke and I listened carefully to what

he said. When he was finished, it reminded me of the story of the son

who brought home a test paper from school. The test paper was marked

zero. The angry father phoned the teacher and complained. He said, "My

son studied half the night for that exam and I don't think he deserved

a zero." "Neither do I," said the teacher, "but it's the lowest mark I

could give."

You know, I have to give the Minister a zero for that speech. I

don't think he deserves it, but it's the lowest mark I can give. And

that's in all generosity and charity and friendliness, hands across the

sea (interruption) . Yes, yes,

he said a number of other things, you know, while he was speaking. He

talked about having his civil servants prepare dossiers on Trudeau,

Marchand and Pelletier. Now, surely to goodness, in the Department of

Industrial Development, Trade, and Industry, you can make better use of

your civil servants than that.

Mr. Speaker, I want to pay tribute to the Budget Speech. That's my

opening remark. I want to pay tribute to the printer, the

photographers, the layout men, the fiction writers and the papermakers

that produced the paper. It is a magnificent production. Look at it,

beautiful!

AN HON. MEMBER: Creates jobs.

MR. STRACHAN: Creates jobs. You bet you it does. It creates jobs — and it costs money.

AN HON. MEMBER: Twenty-five jobs, right there.

MR. STRACHAN: And the people will pay tribute to this Budget

through increased taxes. I can't pay tribute to much of its content,

although I will, as I go through my remarks, pay tribute to some of it.

I want, first of all, to apologize to the Minister of Agriculture.

It was obvious, from his remarks when he followed me in the last

Debate, that he had misunderstood what I said when I made a remark

about communism. I was only referring to the headlines, where it said,

"Mr. Shelford had said we're going to…" I was making no inferences or

references to you of any kind, with regard to that; therefore, I am

apologizing. There was no intention on my part of leaving that

impression.

During the last week or so, one of the lady Ministers, I'm not sure

which, one of the lady Ministers, launched a vicious attack on me about

something I had said about somebody. I can't remember what it was but I

apologize for that, too.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs wound up the Throne Debate. You

know, Mr. Speaker, he's always wound up, that's why he makes so many

Mickey Mouse speeches. Mr. Speaker, once again, that Minister attacked

the municipalities. Last year, if you recollect, he attacked the

teachers. On other occasions he has attacked the municipalities. I

think this is deliberate. I think it's done deliberately to undermine

the faith of the people on the local level in their elected

representatives. I think it's a deliberate attempt to undermine the

faith of the people on the local level in their representatives. When

we think of what has been happening in this House, the remarks that

have been made by a number of Ministers in recent years, then it

becomes obvious — the attack after attack, based and centred on, and

directed toward, local representatives in every field of human

endeavour. The same Minister attacked the teachers last year. The

former Minister of Education attacked the teachers and attacked the

school boards. We've heard the Minister of Health attacking the

hospital boards. Yesterday, we heard the Minister of Health attacking

the medical profession. We've heard attack after attack on the trade

union movement. As a result of all these attacks, especially on the

local representatives, we find that the people are beginning to lose

faith in their local representatives and that system, with the result

that many of the by-laws that are put to the people by the local

representatives go down to defeat. This deliberate programme by that

Cabinet to spread distrust and hate among the people about their

leaders and their representatives on the local level, I think is

designed to put the Government in the position where big brother is the

one who always knows best and the one who will take you by the hand and

see you safely through. I resent these continuous attacks on these

local representatives because, without them, we haven't got the kind of

local leadership that is a very necessary part of the fulfilment of any

kind of progressive endeavour.

Mr. Speaker, still with the Minister of Municipal Affairs, when he

was speaking the other day he was referring to the Member from

Vancouver East, the Second Member from Vancouver East. He said to the

Members on this side, "If you have any appreciation whatsoever for the

parliamentary system, I ask you to persuade that Member of the

Opposition to apologize to this House." I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker,

that the people, in the time I've been in this House, who have

demonstrated that they have no appreciation for the parliamentary

system are the people who sit right there on the Treasury benches. I

doubt, Mr. Speaker, that ever in the history of this House have we had

a collection of Cabinet

[ Page 354 ]

Ministers so liberally endowed with india-rubber

consciences that can stretch to cover almost any situation. You want

him to apologize for what? I'm going to refer to the news reports of

what he said the other day. The Victoria Times , February 3.

He was talking about the sale of some land in the Okanagan.

"Williams said about 25 acres ultimately became a site for a major

shopping centre which is now under construction. This land was zoned

for rural use only until August 14, 1969, when Municipal Affairs

Minister Dan Campbell, approved a request for rezoning of the land for

commercial use, 'in spite of a busy election campaign.' He said, the

Honourable Minister approved this rezoning… (interruption) .

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. STRACHAN: …after no discussion with Kelowna City and in

spite of the fact there was no highway access, no water supply and no

sewer system. The 25 acres were then sold by MacIntosh Centre Ltd. to

Marathon Realty for a total of $870,000 or $35,000 an acre. The

shopping centre development also had to get necessary access to the

highway and, as late as October 23 last year, the city was being told

by the Highways Department that no decision on provision of access had

been made. The city had asked the Department if it weren't reasonable

to assume that access would be granted because construction is already

taking place. On the same day that the city was told by the Department

that it wouldn't be reasonable to make that assumption, the Regional

District was being told that highway access would be granted and, on

that basis, the Regional District issued a building permit." That's

what Williams said. He then reminded the Minister of Highways, in the

House, that they had promised that in the future, the rip-off artists

along B.C. highways there…he promised there would be public bidding for

major sites along the highways. "Williams said land that sells for

$35,000 an acre is assessed at $160 an acre, right next door." That's

what the Member from Vancouver East said.

Following his statement, the persons who were involved in this

particular land operation were interviewed. What did they say? They

said the increase in price to $35,000 per acre was justified because

they had assembled the land and the shopping centre's tenants,

including Simpson-Sears, and Super-Valu had paid for various essential

study. That may or may not be, that's a matter of opinion. They said

the sale agreement to Marathon resulted in devaluation of the rest of

the assembled land because they could not develop it in a similar

manner. Now, I want you to keep that phrase in mind, "they devalued the

land because they could not develop it in a similar manner" — the

adjacent land. The 48 acres was just used for growing corn. "We

acquired it to keep future development orderly over the next 15 years

or so." Keep that figure in mind also. "The principals did not mention

their development plan for the remainder of the assembled land, which

includes plans for a hotel and office building complex. When first

assembled, the landowners told Marathon it was zoned as rural. The land

was rezoned commercial by Municipal Affairs Minister Dan Campbell, on

August 14. The sale to Marathon was announced September 2." So there is

no conflict between the two stories so far.

The principals did not deal directly with the zoning change in the

interview. The principals said the subject of accesses did not concern

them, because they were granted to Marathon, in which they have no

interest. The application for access was made, and they admitted this,

while they were involved. The application for access was made while

these principals were involved. So, basically, that story agrees with

what the Member from Vancouver East said.

In the same story, it says, "Williams charged the shopping centre

would probably get its water from the city of Kelowna which, in 1965,

was forced by the Public Utilities Commission to supply water to a

townhouse development outside the city instead of extending its

boundaries, which would have meant a higher tax yield to Kelowna."

There is no argument about that, so, there's no conflict there. Yet,

between what the Member from Vancouver East said and what the

principals involved said…So, let's go back a bit. Let's go back to the Vancouver Sun

of Saturday, December 26, before the Member made his speech in the

House. What do we find? A full-page story about the situation. The

story starts off by saying: "Premier W.A.C. Bennett has been asked by

the city council here to investigate highway accesses granted to a

shopping centre development. In a letter to the Premier, as M.L.A. for

the area, the council says the present accesses approved by the

Highways Department could result in more fatalities on the main

Okanagan Highway." This is the city council in a letter to the M.L.A.

That's what the Member from Vancouver East said.

"Highway 97 runs alongside the Orchard Park Shopping Centre, now

being built by Marathon Realty on 25 acres of land bought from a group

which includes these principals. The centre is about three miles from

downtown Kelowna. It is part of a larger proposed development which the

principals, in association with other local people, plan a hotel land

convention centre, six-storey office blocks and garden apartments. Only

the first phase has gone ahead."

Kelowna council members and staff, in a series of interviews with the Sun …Now,

this is not the Member from Vancouver East speaking, this is the

Kelowna city council and their staff. What did they say? They said, "As

well as highway accesses, they are concerned about water supply and

sewage disposal at the site. Council has a policy of not supplying

water outside city boundaries, unless forced to do so by the Public

Utilities Commission, and has turned down one application by Marathon

for service. There is no sewage disposal system in the area, which

comes under the Central Okanagan Regional District. Kelowna Mayor,

Hilbert Roth, said council officials tried to meet with the Highways

Department on accesses before approval was given but were unable to do

so or get any information. Then suddenly council was given a plan by

the Regional District showing four approved accesses from the highway

to the centre. Alderman Syd Hodge of Council Safety Committee said the

city would never have approved the accesses granted by the Highways

Department." That's what the Member from Vancouver East said. "He said

he cannot understand how they could have been approved without more

thought and without the co-operation of the city." This is an alderman

of the city council.

Mr. Speaker, I know the Members across the way don't want to face up

to the principles that are involved in this whole matter of the

relationships between a city council and the various departments of

highway. They don't want to face up to what's involved and what damage

is being done to this Province by land speculation and a number of

other items, which I will come to later. But that's their choice. They

may not want to face up to it. That's their choice and they are

[ Page 355 ]

quite free to do so.

It said, "The city's request for information from the Highways

Department and for consultation on the traffic plan and accesses for

the centre have been an exercise in futility as far as the city is

concerned." This is in the letter to the Premier, to their M.L.A. The

letter added, "As the M.L.A. for the South Okanagan electoral district,

which includes the city of Kelowna, we would appreciate your

investigation of this matter and any assistance you can give to the

city of Kelowna, in an attempt to ensure proper control of all accesses

on Highway 97 for the protection and safety of the people of this

community."

AN HON. MEMBER: Boy, what a conflict for him to have to worry about.

MR. STRACHAN: The story goes on, Mr. Speaker. It validates

the statement made by the Member from Vancouver East as to what the

property cost and for what it was sold. Later on it says…it interviews

one of the principals…Now, this is an unusual thing. We have been

discussing the accesses, how they were applied for, while the

principals, mentioned by the Member from Vancouver East, were still

involved. One of the principals in this story on December 26, said, the

first he knew of a controversy over the accesses was a newspaper

article. Later he got a copy of the plan. He said, "I wouldn't agree

personally with the accesses as they are laid out. That's my own

personal feeling."

Marathon's McLernon also believes that first announcement has worked

against the company. He's talking now about the sewage disposal. "We

went for our sanitary sewage disposal system and there was just refusal

all the time. The refusal was made by Dr. D.A. Clarke, South Okanagan

Medical Officer, who has built a strong reputation as a pollution

fighter." Is that a crime in the Province of British Columbia to be a

pollution fighter and build a reputation? I don't think so. However,

Marathon's man said…and I think Marathon is a CPR subsidiary.

Marathon's man said, "Dr. Clarke was very cold; he was really shocked

that a $34 million development was going to pour its effluent into the

ground." I remember the Premier giving a speech on what was needed in

this Province — pure land, clean air, pure soil. "Kelowna director of

operations, Lawrence, is another who is critical of the sewage scheme — a septic tank system designed to take up to 5,000 gallons of waste a

day. He calls it a $1.98 system for a multimillion dollar development

and contrasts it with the Crown Zellerbach box plant across the highway

— which comes under city jurisdiction," the same as the Member from

Vancouver East did. Insofar as the land is assessed at $160 an acre, in

an original statement I quoted to you by the principals — they were

talking about 15 years. In December, they said, "If the regional scheme

comes in in two or three years it would be just right for MacIntosh. We

are willing to wait for the region." So it's not a matter of land going

to lie fallow for 15 years. "If the region comes in in two or three

years it would be just right." So these are the indications that,

within two or three years, it is hoped that the $160 an acre assessed

land will be able to proceed.

Mr. Speaker, neither the Vancouver Sun ,

the city council of Kelowna, nor the Member from Vancouver East have

said that anything illegal has taken place. They were all expressing

concern about the way public business is run in the Province of British

Columbia. Mr. Speaker, I join them in that concern and so should every

other citizen of this Province, because the public business of this

Province being run in that way is a charade and something, which you,

Mr. Minister, should be thoroughly ashamed of. The Vancouver Sun ,

the city council of Kelowna and the Member from Vancouver East were

protesting the lack of consultation by those who make the decisions.

When the Premier was told about the statements made by the Member for

Vancouver East, he said, "Just say I laughed, just say I laughed."

The Vancouver Sun , the

Kelowna city council and the Member from Vancouver East were expressing

anger that the administration of the law in the Province of British

Columbia is not even-handed and impartial. "Just say I laughed," he

said, "just say I laughed." The Member from Vancouver East was pointing

out that large profits on land speculation are deleterious to the

future of this Province and I join him in that statement.

The city council, the Vancouver Sun

and the Member from Vancouver East were saying that politicians and

those close to them have a special responsibility in their financial

dealings, a responsibility that goes far beyond the legality of the

situation. It's not good enough to "Just say I laughed."

AN HON. MEMBER: We all laughed.

MR. STRACHAN: Perhaps you did. You are entitled to laugh.

But, you know, Mr. Speaker, I remember when I built my house, the house

that I am living in. When I got my first tax notice, the roof was on

and in construction we figure that is about one-third of the

construction. It was a pretty reasonable tax notice and I paid it. A

year later I was living in the house (interruption) .

You bet, it was union workers right through,100 per cent. I was living

in the house and I got my assessment notice. The assessment notice was

exactly the same as it had been the year before, despite the fact that

the house now had windows in, walls up, doors in, cupboards, plumbing,

heating, light, the whole works. The assessment was exactly the same. I

wrote to the assessor. I said, "I would like you to come and reassess

my house because I am now living in it and a great deal more work has

been done since the last time you saw it." He wrote to me and he said,

"Well, we will fix it up in next year's assessment." I calmly attacked

him and I said, "That's not good enough. I want it fixed up this year."

Mr. Speaker, I couldn't look my neighbours in the eye if I knew that I

was getting an assessment lower than I should be, and me, the M.L.A.

for the constituency.

You know, the Member from Vancouver Centre, when he was speaking the

other night after the Member from Vancouver East, mentioned a great man

by the name of…Bernard Baruch (interruption) .

Well, someone mentioned Bernard Baruch. Bernard Baruch was a great

American, a great entrepreneur, a great promoter, who became very, very

wealthy. He was a friend of presidents and he served his country well

in its time of need during the Second World War — no question about

that. He made a great deal of money. He tells the story, or, at least,

he did tell the story when he was alive, of how after the war he

thought he would write his autobiography. He wrote this autobiography

and, after he had written it, he reread it and he realized that, while

he had never done anything illegal in the accumulation of his vast

wealth, he knew that the average member of the public would not look

with favour on some of the procedures he had used in order to acquire

that wealth. He was a little ashamed of it, himself. He admitted it,

and that autobiography was never published. I think we have something

to learn from that. When it comes to our own personal public

situations, we have to look back on the things we have done.

[ Page 356 ]

Now, I mentioned land speculation as a hazard and as a danger to the

Province of British Columbia. Here is the Social Welfare Report, which

was given to us at the last Session. I'd like to refer you to page 37,

at the bottom of the page, he was talking about…this is a report by the

Regional Director of Vancouver Island Social Welfare…. He was talking

about the situation in Port Alberni and the moving of population from

upcoast and so on. He says, "Housing remains one of the most critical

problems within the region. Home ownership is now out of reach of many

wage earners, impossible for social allowance recipients. We require

additional subsidized housing. Possible solutions include the reduction

in interest rates on mortgages, and Provincial and municipal

governments developing fully-serviced building lots for sale to the

general public. The above suggestion would not only create more housing

for all economic levels of society, but help create necessary

employment. One other thing that stops the provision of the housing is

the high cost of land, and the high cost of land in British Columbia is

due to the unconscionable exploitation of the land by speculators."

Here is the brief that the Minister of Rehabilitation and Social

Welfare presented in Ottawa, and he talks about housing, how badly it's

needed, the impact it could have on the whole economy in the provision

of jobs. He talks about the inhibiting factors that prevent adequate

housing in British Columbia. He listed them in the order of importance.

First of all, he said, the availability and the cost of money.

Secondly, the cost of land, as the second most inhibiting factor

between us and adequate housing in British Columbia. Is it any wonder

we get angry when we hear about land speculators driving up the price

of land so that in Vancouver it now amounts to 18 to 20 per cent of the

total cost of a single dwelling.

AN HON. MEMBER: More than that.

MR. STRACHAN: "More than that," the Member says.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, sure, it is a third of the cost.

MR. STRACHAN: I want to pay tribute to the Minister from

Prince George, who is not in his place. They knew the story up there in

Prince George. One of the happiest moments of my life was being taken

around that extended area of Prince George, where the Provincial

Government, in co-operation with the city, had taken a piece of Crown

land and brought it into the city, and sold it to the city, on

condition that the land would be divided into lots by the city and the

cost of the lot would contain every cost. You go through that

subdivision, it made me proud, let me tell you, these lots were

completely serviced, underground wiring, electric and telephone,

natural gas laid in, water laid in, sewage laid in, storm drains laid

in, blacktop sidewalks, even the cost of the sign on the corner of the

street was included in the price of that lot. Do you know what they

were sold for? Between $2,500 and $3,000.

AN HON. MEMBER: In what year?

MR. STRACHAN: That was just a couple of years ago. Three

years ago. Any person could buy these lots from the city at that price.

They had to build on them within 12 months and if they didn't build on

them within 12 months, they had to be sold back to the city of Prince

George at the same price they paid. No speculation — it was a great

example to the rest of British Columbia (interruption) .

Yes, as a matter of fact, there was a trade unionist on the council. It

was Ron Tweedie who took me around, and the pride was just shining out

of his eyes and, by golly, I joined him in it. It was a great example

to the rest of the Province; one, of what you can do with housing when

you avoid the land speculators and, two, how you can bring housing to

the people at a reasonable cost.

What is most upsetting, Mr. Speaker, is the knowledge that land is

assessed at $160 per acre right next door to land that was sold for

$35,000 per acre. I don't know how many of you have ever sat in a Court

of Revision. I have and it is quite an experience. I was sitting as an

observer. Now, this is how assessment works in the Province of British

Columbia. You appeal for assessment and you haven't got a chance. Then,

you go to the Assessment Appeal Board and you sit down and listen to

the assessor. The assessor presents the case for the municipality and

the assessor explains how he arrives at assessing a certain piece of

property. He says, "This property over here, half a mile away, sold for

so much; that property over there, half a mile away, sold for so much;

that property over there, a quarter of a mile away, sold for so much;

that property over there, a mile away, sold for so much; therefore,

this property is worth so much." In this particular case, which I was

sitting in on, I'll just read you the one paragraph regarding the land.

This is from the Report of the Appeal Board. It was just last year.

"The appellant is also appealing [he was appealing two lots] the land

assessment which was, in fact, reduced from $795 to $790 in the process

of applying the provisions of

section 8a of the Assessment Equalization Act .

The fact is that the appellant bought the lot next door in 1968, for

$2,000, and he paid $1,250 for the lot on which his house is built in

1967. Having regard for the sales ratio, the Board cannot find that

there is any overassessment, so far as the land is concerned. This part

of the appeal is dismissed." The price at which land sells for, a

quarter of a mile away, a half a mile away, determines the assessment

that is placed on any particular parcel of land.

Now, what is this man thinking, today, when he picks up the

newspaper and finds that there is land in the Province, that sold for

$35,000, that's now paying $10,000 assessment on 6 acres; $5,000

assessment on 6½ acres; $6,000 assessment on 5 acres; sold for $35,000

an acre, and right next door to it, land is assessed at $160 an acre.

Where is the equity before the law? Where is the reason? What do I say

to that man when I go back to my constituency? How do I explain that?

Do I tell him that the Assessment Equalization Act

works only in some constituencies and for some people? That's what I'm

protesting. That's what the Member from Vancouver East protested.

Believe you me, there will be more protests from all over the Province

because this can't go on.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, when the Member from Vancouver East first came

to this House, he enunciated a principle. That principle was, that the

people, the Government, should get part of the benefits when they

confer privileges on certain landowners which provide an added value to

the land they own. If the Government action adds value to land, the

public is entitled to a share of that value. That was a principle the

Member enunciated and it was a principle that the Premier accepted. Victoria Colonist ,

April 7, 1968. "Premier Bennett, during the debate on the final Session

omnibus Bill said, 'The Government policy is to secure land in advance

where there will be development.'" That's what he said. That was his

promise. That was his pledge. "'The Government policy is to secure land

in advance where there will be development.'

[ Page 357 ]

'This is a victory for the Opposition, a victory

for the people of the Province,' said Robert Williams, NDP Vancouver

East, adding he hoped the Government will look into methods that will

contain continuing revenue from highway development." We now find it

wasn't a victory for the Opposition, it wasn't a victory for the

Province. We now find that the Premier broke his word, the Premier

didn't fulfil his pledge, the Premier says, "Just say I laughed, just

say I laughed." Well, I don't intend to laugh, Mr. Speaker, because I

think that when situations of this kind develop, we must look to the

principles involved and that's what I intend to do. That's what we, on

this side of the House, intend to do, no matter how much the Government

tries to muddy the water to direct attention away from the fact that

there is difference in equity, there is difference in law, there is a

difference in assessments and that the Premier broke his word.

Now, Mr. Speaker, to the Budget. The good point first.

The so-called park development, I hope, will be carried out. I

applaud it. The mention in the Budget Speech about the Lake Cowichan

Road, I applaud. The increase in the home-owner grant is necessary. The

fund for the narcotic and alcohol addiction work will help, providing

that next year we don't find they cut out the direct grants for this

purpose, which I wouldn't put beyond them. I was happy to see on page

23 of the Budget Speech, that the Federal Government had given us an

extra payment of $28 million. I was happy to see, on the same page,

that we have advanced $11 million of the monies on technical and

vocational systems. But, you know, Mr. Speaker, I wish the Province

would learn a lesson from the Federal Government and pay monies that

are due in advance of the time due. Every municipality, every hospital

board, every school board in the Province of British Columbia has, time

and time again, had to go to the bank and borrow money at the going

rates of interest because this Government was behind in its payments to

them. I suggest they learn a lesson from Ottawa and make the advance

payment so that these local municipalities don't have to go to the

banks and pay interest.

Page 23 mentions environmental control. You know, the Premier didn't

laugh when he read that part of his Speech. But I did. "The Government

of British Columbia is acting now to preserve the Province's healthful

climate and abundance of unspoiled recreational area. Legislation

enacted in 1956 established the Pollution Control Board and initiated

the procedure of developing our resources in a manner least disruptive

to our natural environment." Western Mine, Utah Mine, Cypress Bowl — that long litany of disaster. Then he says, "All motor-vehicles

manufactured since January 1, 1971, and licensed in British Columbia

are now required to meet the pollutant emission standards." Story in

the Times , February 3, two

days ago: "Compulsory pollution control devices in all new 1971 cars

sold in B.C. are going untested in Provincial car-testing stations,

Motor-vehicle Superintendent, Ray Hadfield, said today. There is still

no adequate testing equipment to install in the testing stations, but

there may be a breakthrough by summer." Hold your breath, my friends,

there might be a breakthrough by summer. "Spot checks are being made to

see if new cars have the devices intact, he said, and, obviously, smoky

exhaust fumes may result in a car failing its examination. Outside of

this there is no testing of the equipment, because there is simply no

equipment to do the job, he said." Well, what are you bragging about it

for in your Budget Speech? Window dressing — if you knew there was no

equipment to do the job. It is misrepresentation, that's all it is (interruption) . Just a minute, it's not finished yet. That's not the real reason.

HON. L.R. PETERSON (Vancouver–Little Mountain): Point of

order. The Honourable Member for Cowichan-Malahat has charged us with

wilful misrepresentation. I ask him to unconditionally withdraw.

Knowingly witnessing misrepresentation is the same thing. I ask him to

withdraw.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think the honourable Member should

withdraw. In the first place, he should not have been making the

statement that he did on the Floor. I think the decorum of the House

demands that the honourable Member should withdraw his statement.

MR. STRACHAN: I withdraw "from knowingly."

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Proceed.

MR. STRACHAN: "Answering complaints by some people that such

equipment does exist," Mr. Hadfield said, "the only accurate equipment

requires a long expensive procedure. Economically, this is most

impractical." So as long as this situation exists, that it's a long

expensive procedure, then we are not going to have any testing

equipment. Therefore, you have no right to be saying in your Budget

Speech that there's an effective situation developing because,

according to what the man in charge says, that is not the case.

Later on, in the same page, the Premier talks about the write-offs

on pollution control equipment and, of course, you know this business

of write-offs on pollution control equipment is giving all the

companies an opportunity to include in that write-off, a lot of the

normal equipment they would install anyway for safety and other

purposes.

I notice that the estimates include another $7 million for the Libby

Dam, which, in essence, is flooding forty miles into British Columbia.

This is a further result of the bungling of the whole Columbia River

Treaty. It is attached and part of the treaty, but another $7 million

right out of taxes of the people of this Province so that we can pay to

flood our own land, because of your bungling policies? Then, as the

Member says, we can't look at the books.

I notice in the reports that revenue figures from natural resources

are down from $214 million to $205 million — less and less to the Crown

for more and more of our natural resources. You look at that graph on

page 40 of the Budget Speech and it's interesting to notice what's been

happening from these two graphs here. We find that in 1959-60, income

and succession duties were 18 per cent of the total Provincial revenue.

Now they are up to 26 per cent. In 1959-60, 14 per cent of our

Provincial revenue came from the Federal Government. Now 19 per cent of

our Provincial revenue comes from the Federal Government. Big, dirty,

old Ottawa! In 1959, they were giving us 14 per cent of our total

revenue and now they are paying us 19 per cent of our total revenue.

Big, bad Ottawa. How terrible! We find that our natural resources 10

years ago were bringing us 14 per cent of our total revenue, now they

are only bringing us 12 per cent of our total revenue. Only 12 per cent

of our total revenue and I heard that Minister talking about the great

increase in mineral production and the great increase in everything

under the sun. Yet, it's producing a smaller and smaller

section of the

total Provincial resources. It's obvious that we've got the give-away

artists, right over there. Perhaps, looking at other figures involved

in the whole statement, Mr. Speaker, perhaps

[ Page 358 ]

it is also due to the fact that, in 1965, 8 per

cent of our expenditures were being ploughed back into natural

resources, but now only 6 per cent is allocated for that purpose (interruption) . Well, now, I'm just taking the figures that you have here.

You know, Mr. Speaker… (interruption) I don't know what's the matter with these people.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order.

MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, the Premier used to brag about his

ferries making a profit. Do you all remember the days when he used to

come running in, "My friends, we made a profit. Look at that, look at

that!" You look at the Public Accounts. You remember when the ferries

were moved from the toll system into the Department of Highways and, at

the time, I thought it was done simply to get the ferry employees

firmly under the thumb of the Provincial Government as civil servants.

But that was only part of it, because, when you examine the Public

Accounts, you find why they were moved into the Highways Department.

The Premier's projection at the time must have shown very clearly the

cost position into which the ferry system was moving.

In 1967-68, revenue was $1,200,000, expenditure, $1,600,000;

1968-69, revenue was $21,700,000, expenditure, $22,400,000; 1969-70,

revenue, $24,600,000, expenditure, $29,700,000; 1971-72, we are told

that revenue will be at $26,500,000, expenditure, $29,800,000. You

know, we gave the ferry authority, the toll authority, more than $100

million from taxes. I don't mind that at all because these ferries are

put of the highway system. What is concerning me is that, despite all

of the money we have spent on this part of the highway system, despite

the fact that it's now costing us $7 million roughly per year, we're

still unable to develop the transportation system adequate for the

needs of coverage between the mainland and Vancouver Island. I just

simply ask the Minister to let us know what his projections are

showing, what his plans are, because I don't want to see the thing

develop into a real chaotic situation. While I understand the reason

for the spreading and the stretching, and the pulling, and the two-way

stretch, and the cross stretch, and everything else, that goes on

within the ferries, nevertheless, I think we are heading for some real

problems there. I would simply ask them to let us know what the

projections are showing and how they are going to go about solving this

growing problem about communication between the mainland and the Island.

When the Premier talked about a modest readjustment in taxes, I

said, "Just say I laughed." Because taxes are increased. A year and a

half ago we had an election. There is an ad: "Premier Bennett pledges

no increase in taxes." Misrepresentation? Has he kept that pledge that

he gave to the voters in that election? Has he kept that pledge?

"Premier Bennett pledges no increase in taxes." (Interruption.)

What date was the paper? August 25, 1969. Actually, Mr. Speaker, there

is no need for such an increase. Actually there is no need for any

increases in taxes in British Columbia. When we look at the way the

Premier screwed the lid down tight on expenditures in every area of

Provincial endeavour, even though many of the services were desperately

needed, it's obvious that there was no shortage of money. I admit that

forest revenue was down last year, but retail sales were up last year,

gasoline sales were up, mineral sales were up. Your Budget doesn't show

it for this year, but there are some new sources of revenue promised by

the Minister of Lands and Forests — unless it's only window dressing.

The change to cubic scale for logging should bring additional revenues

to the Crown. His promise there is to be no more company-to-company

sales of timber leases because they have been using this procedure to

avoid taxes, should mean more revenue to the Crown. His promise that a

new committee set up last year was examining items charged as cost for

stumpage purposes by the companies, should mean additional revenue to

the Crown. The water charges were increased, that only means about

three or four hundred thousand dollars.

There was absolutely no need for increases because your own books

tell us that we can expect an increase in development for next year.

Look at this page. Predictions for 1971 by the Minister for Industrial

Development, Trade, and Commerce… "What Business Firms Expect in 1971."

Sales up 64 per cent, profits up 45 per cent, employment up 24 per

cent, price of goods sold up 69 per cent. That picture there indicates

that, with the other things I have mentioned, there was absolutely no

need for a tax increase in British Columbia this year. With these

figures you are showing a reduction in your expectation of corporation

income tax. Down from $73 million to $69 million and, yet, here we are

45 per cent of them saying that they expect the profits to go up, with

37 per cent no change. Just in case you might be saying that the forest

industry is in trouble and heard the Minister of Doom and Gloom over

there, the Minister of Lands and Forests, when he spoke a couple of

weeks ago, talked about a timber cutback. A moratorium! What does the

Minister of Industrial Development say in his report? "The forest

industries look for a recovery in 1971 from the overall adverse

conditions which prevailed in 1970 and profits are expected to return

to more normal levels." Now, don't you ever talk to each other over

there? Now, to back up, the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade,

and Industry put it on his report and said, "Already there are signs

that a turn around has occurred in housing starts." (Interruption.)

I'll get to money in a minute. Just you wait a minute, until we get

to that one. The Minister of Doom and Gloom… across the line where we

sell a very substantial amount of our timber, a man named Weyerhaeuser,

who is not unrelated to the lumber industry, had this to say just the

other day. He says, "The United States lumber industry is faced with a

production capacity crisis. Coupled with a too rapid recovery in

housing construction…it could lead to a sharp rise in prices." He said

that they are actually going to be short of productive capacity. And,

we are going to have a moratorium — as I say — the Minister of Doom and

Gloom. That was only a by-the-way and a back up to my statement that

there's absolutely no need for any increase in taxes and that your

projections of corporation profit returns are absolutely wrong and

misleading.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I'm not saying we won't have problems, we will

have problems which I will return to later. With your apparent

programme there was no need for a tax increase and you broke your

promise to the elector. I now hereby award the Premier the first medal

for caution over and above the call of duty. Our Provincial guarantees

are up to $2,431 million. B.C. Hydro is $1,760 million of that. Mr.

Speaker, 30 cents of every dollar we pay in our light bill is interest

on that $1,760 million of B.C. Hydro debt. Thirty cents of every dollar

we pay in our light bill. Now, listen to these sermons from over here,

about this horrible interest, this terrible debt thing, how it drags

you down and destroys you. Well, if it applies in one place, surely it

applies in the other.

Mr. Speaker, we know that for years most of the capital

[ Page 359 ]

funds available to this Government have been going

into Hydro. I listened to the Member from Alberni the other day. He

said this was great, he said it meant that Hydro didn't have to go into

the marketplace during that period of high interest rates. He indicated

that Hydro, then, must have been paying less than market interest rate

to the pension funds from which the money was coming. That's what that

indicates — the civil servants' pension fund, the teachers' pension,

the municipal pension, the Canada pension fund. Now, he said how good

it was how we didn't have to go into the marketplace with interest

rates as high as they were. The only inference is that we are paying

these pension funds less than the going interest rate. You are robbing

the teachers, the municipal employees and the Government employees.

I had intended to refer to the

article by Bob McConnell in the Province ,

the other day, regarding the parity situation. Now, that is just an

example of how this Hydro-headed monster is no longer a servant of this

Government of the people but is now the governor of everything that

happens in this Province. Your mishandling of the affairs of this

Province, especially in the financing of Hydro, has cost this Province

dearly. It has kept the development of our Province continually off

balance and that is the tragedy of your bungling. It has kept the

development of this Province continually off balance. It has left our

schools short of capital, it has left our municipalities short of

capital, it has left our hospitals short of capital and it has left our

social programme short of capital. That's what I mean when I say it has

kept this Province continually off balance. Your every move has been

twisted and warped to meet the bungled Hydro monster. That is why you

have had to undermine and attack the municipalities, the hospital

boards, the doctors, the school boards and any other group that raised

its head in protest against your action or inaction in these fields of

Provincial development. You had to destroy them in order to protect

yourself in this unbalanced situation, with your committal to, and your

bungling of, B.C. Hydro.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's why the curtain of secrecy, too.

MR. STRACHAN: Let's go to your educational policy and there

is money in there for education. You attack the school boards, you

attack the teachers, you slap on a freeze, then you take it off and you

say it wasn't a freeze. You attack the boards, you attack the teachers,

so that referendums will be defeated. Then you change the law so more

referendums are necessary. You get the public fed up with referendums

so that they will vote them down and then you won't have to divert

funds from Hydro to the school bond market. You squeeze every school

board into the same mould, you regiment them, you take away their

economy, you put them on a procrustean bed and you know what that is. A

procrustean bed, I think it was Greek mythology, where everybody had to

fit the same bed. If they were too long they chopped their feet off, if

they were too short they stretched them.

I listened to this bunch over here talk about Ottawa and its special

areas programme and how poor British Columbia has this terrible problem

with people pouring in. You apply exactly the same regimented school

formula to Vancouver Island that you apply to the rest of the Province,

despite the fact that your own social welfare report of two years ago

shows that the average school population increase in the Province of

British Columbia was 3.3 per cent. On Vancouver Island, that year, it

was 18 per cent. Your own report shows it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where did you get those figures?

MR. STRACHAN: All right, you asked for the figures, my

friend. I shall gladly find them for you. Here we are. "The school

population of Vancouver Island" — I'll read it slowly so you can catch

it. Do you want me to spell some words? If there are any words you

can't understand, I'll spell them for you — "The school population of

Vancouver Island increased by 18.5 per cent, while the school

population for all of British Columbia increased by 3.3 per cent." (Interruption.)

I am reporting from the Annual Report, Department of Social Welfare,

1969, and this is why I sympathize with the Premier when he talks about

the number of people flowing into British Columbia and the fact that

there are special situations developing. But I want the same kind of

treatment for Vancouver Island. You can't fit it into that procrustean

bed with that regimented autonomy — the undermining of the school

boards and the teachers so that referendums get defeated. What happens?

(Interruption.) I do

understand the formula. I know it takes certain things into account,

but so does the Federal formula take into account increased population.

The more people you have on social welfare, the more they pay you — 50

per cent. What are you talking about? Any time there is a better,

bigger-than-average…there are extra situations related.

Let's talk about what happens when we're in this position. I won't

go through all of these news reports. "Slash Slightly in Malaspina

Budget." "School Cuts This Year Means Savings Next Year." I won't refer

to what happened inside the classrooms. "School Boards Start Big Class

Cutting Jobs. The staff cuts will have to fall on the elementary

schools, where the boards have deliberately kept the sizes of

classrooms down in order to enable teachers to teach more effectively.

This does not mean that any teachers are expected to lose their jobs,

however. In any year, there are a number of resignations and it will

likely mean that less of the teachers leaving the district will be

replaced." Then it goes on to the hiring of less experienced teachers.

How about…is the Member from Nanaimo still here? He's still here, good.

Part of my constituency is in the Nanaimo school district and it was

one of the areas that defeated a referendum — after the school boards

had been attacked by the former Minister of Education and that Minister

over there. Colonist ,

February 3, 1971. "Filthy Rooms, Teacher Lack, Follow Referendum

Defeat." Now, I heard that Member the other night give a nice speech on

the Budget Debate on one topic, a matter of drugs, and I agree with him

100 per cent. But Mr. Speaker, I would much rather see some of that

cost he is talking about in crisis centres, police protection and all

the rest, prevented by spending money before they get that way. I

expected the Member from Nanaimo to talk about this report. Filthy

school rooms, stinking offices, small children walking along busy and

dangerous roads…By the way, Mr. Member, when are you going to get that

bridge across the Nanaimo River at Cedar fixed? You know that bridge — they were building it during the last election. We had an NDP Member,

then, and things were going great, the steel was going up. The minute

they elected a Social Credit Member, work stopped on that bridge right

away. However, it is a dangerous road. The Member knows there are

dangerous roads around there. The whole thing is due to the cut down in

the buses, part of this whole thing of defeated referendums. Now, I

could go on at

[ Page 360 ]

great lengths about that but, Mr. Speaker, when we

talk about these things, all we get is the Premier's favourite phrase,

"Just say I laughed." The Minister says, "Right." Well, I think

education is more important than the Minister seems…as I say I've got

clippings here by the dozen about the impact of education. But I know

that the Minister says, "Just say I laughed." That's all right, let him

laugh, it's his shortcoming, it's his failure. It is also his Province.

It is my Province, too, and I hate to see you make the mess of it that

you are making.

Let's look at health services. The statement made by the Minister of

Health after the last Session, when he refused to pay a percentage of

increased costs, remember he said in Prince George…the Premier told us

that these vacancies were only there because the people weren't needed.

I mention the public health nurses. Last fall, speaking at Prince

George, the Minister of Health said, "Staff shortages in health units

throughout British Columbia will continue for the time being," says

Health Minister Ralph Loffmark. "Just say I laughed," says the Premier.

That's his favourite answer, any time he is faced with a problem, "Just

say I laughed." Look at the nurses' newsletters. "No matter how you

cut," a hospital director of nursing noted, "we've got less staff to do

more work. The freeze on hiring of staff for Provincial public health

units has also aggravated the public health situation." In the

newsletter before that, the Registered Nurses' Association talked about

"…the recent budgetary restraints have resulted in levels of nursing

care that range from minimal to frankly unsafe in many hospitals and

health agencies in the Province."

AN HON. MEMBER: Who said that?

MR. STRACHAN: The registered nurses of British Columbia. Not

Ray Haynes. The registered nurses — from minimal to frankly unsafe.

"Just say I laughed."

I had intended to go at some length into the other kinds of

inflation, the high costs healthwise because of inflation and because

of poverty. Indexes and graphs have been prepared relating the increase

in the cost of living to the alcoholism index, the crime index, the

psycho-social index, the psychiatric index and the alcohol and tobacco

index. All are reflections of our present health situation and our

economy.

I have been through this taxation statistics book, which gives the

breakdown of a number of people of various income levels in the

Province of British Columbia. While it's true that many people do enjoy

a pretty high standard of living, I find it rather shocking to discover

the hundreds of thousands of people who have a very limited income. How

do these people manage to survive and raise a family with incomes of

that kind? Hundreds of thousands of them, earning less than five

thousand, less than four thousand, less than three thousand, less than

two thousand…now, admittedly, some of them may be wives working or

something like that, but it's obvious many of them are heads of

families trying to do a job. We have an unemployment situation in this

Province that is nothing short of tragic. The latest figures just out

today show that we have 788,000 employed in British Columbia and that

the unemployment rate is up, with 82,000 unemployed in British Columbia

as of January (interruption). Oh, don't give me "the seasonally adjusted up and down" nonsense. Argue…

AN HON. MEMBER: Those are people, not statistics. What's the matter with you?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order.

MR. STRACHAN: Look, Mr. Speaker, I don't care if it's 78,000,

79,000, 80,000, 50,000, 40,000 — there are too many people unemployed

in British Columbia and, here we are, sitting and arguing about "that's

not a loaded statistic", or "that's not a weighted statistic." It's

just avoiding the issue.

You know, Mr. Speaker, with the result that many of our people are

finishing up on social welfare, I know how much social welfare is

costing us in the Province of British Columbia and, here, I want to say

I appreciate the reduction from 20 per cent to 15 per cent. I would

have enjoyed it better if they had taken it back down to the 10 per

cent that it was before they put it up to the 20 per cent. I welcome a

small rate to the municipalities. But a large part of the Budget is

going for social welfare costs and you know in that last Social Credit

Convention, there was a resolution put in by Prince George. The

resolution says, "Whereas our Province is becoming a haven for all

human misfits of the North American Continent for reasons of its

climate and openhanded social assistance, and

whereas this represents a

huge injustice to the taxpayers who are paying for their keep,

therefore,

be it resolved that our Government take this type of person

off welfare forthwith."

I would ask the Members to read the Social Welfare Report for 1968.

I won't read it to you. Page 15 and you'll get an idea of the impact

that social welfare has on people. I just ask you to read that one

paragraph. Millionaire Peter Graham, the NPA candidate in Vancouver,

when he was shown slides of slum dwellings at an east end election

rally said, "I think the poor should work a little harder and get a

little better place."

We think we're doing well in this Province, but you know we have

neighbouring Provinces. We find, for instance, in B.C. in a certain

category, a 57-year-old widow, in poor health, running a two-room house

at $65.00 a month, gets $105; in Alberta, $143.00; Ontario, $121.00; in

Manitoba, $121.00. A married couple with two children, one boy aged 10

years, one girl 13 years, living in a four-room house and paying rent

of $100 per month, in B.C., $247; in Alberta, $293; Ontario, $280

Manitoba, $271. A recent publication by the B.C. Association of Social

Workers points out that the rates of assistance are 56 per cent below

the poverty line in the Province of British Columbia. "Just say I

laughed." That's what the Premier would say.

Mr. Speaker, there was a letter in the Vancouver Sun ,

written by a man who attended the opening of this Legislature, with the

unemployed. The letter was headed: "I am sick of being a poor man." He

said, "I came to this demonstration because I am poor like my father

before me was poor, and I am totally sick of being pushed to the back

of the ruling classes' middle-class minds. See me, I am dirty! See me,

I am lazy! Listen to me, I am uncouth! I do not like being poor, it is

not easy doing without. On welfare they give you enough to keep your

body together, sometimes, but there is much withering of souls."

Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of unemployment in this Province and 40

per cent of the unemployed are under 25 years of age. The Budget Speech

and the brief the Minister of Welfare presented to Ottawa, say many

things about our present economic and unemployment conditions. It

blames immigration. You know, I have a copy of the brief here and

[ Page 361 ]

there is the ad that the Federal Government was

putting in that the Minister of Welfare was complaining about. Dirty,

old Ottawa. Advertising in Britain, for people to come to Canada — "Terrible," he said, and he's giving the Federal, dirty, old, big

Ottawa Government the devil because they are advertising for people to

come to Canada at a time when we've got so many unemployed. But, then,

we discover the other day, Mr. Speaker, that this little Government

over here, who's back there complaining to Ottawa about everybody

coming to B.C. in this brief, is advertising in every newspaper back

east. And what are they saying? They are telling them what we are doing

in British Columbia create more jobs in relieving unemployment," they

say. Now, if that isn't an invitation…If you were out of work and in

Toronto or Nova Scotia, what would you do? You'd come to B.C., right?

Now, what in the devil is the sense of us complaining to Ottawa for

bringing people into Canada when we are spending public money to bring

people into B.C. Then, complain about it!

AN HON. MEMBER: Madness, madness.

MR. STRACHAN: Where is your savvy? Where is your reason?

Where is your thinking? That egotistical braggadocio that dominates

your every move allows you to take public money and advertise in this

way. It's a piece of nonsense.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's also misrepresentation.

MR. STRACHAN: I would say, if you were back in Ontario and

you were unemployed, and you saw that ad, what would you do? You would

do what I did in 1934. You'd catch the first freight with a pack on

your back (interruption) . You bet your life, I was poor once. That is why I have never forgotten where I came from and have no intentions of forgetting.

Mr. Speaker, five years ago the Premier made a Budget Speech, in

1965. I was going to read four paragraphs because it is beautiful

prose. It really is magnificent prose, even better than this last one.

But there is one sentence that says, "Our basic objectives are

sustained in expanding development throughout British Columbia through

employment of our increasing labour force and our bountiful natural

resources, to achieve a higher standard of living for our people. To

achieve these objectives, fiscal measures and indicative planning are

employed by this administration." Indicative planning…and it goes on

here to say what they have done, "…enables us to offset stringency from

external forces." In other words, indicative planning puts this

Province in a position that we are invulnerable. That's what it said.

Indicative planning is planning toward an objective. Have we reached

that objective? Twelve per cent unemployed after five years of

indicative planning?

AN HON. MEMBER: God help us.

MR. STRACHAN: God help us, indeed, if they keep on indicative

planning. Because they indicated, in that Speech five years ago, that

they were planning for the future, therefore, they must take the

responsibility for what's going on in this Province today.

What do I say to this girl from Cobble Hill; graduate from high

school; can't get into BCIT because there is no room? She says, "After

the hopes of school, the refrain becomes 'I'll do anything.' I just

want a job." Eighteen years old. What do I say to her?

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell her to write the Premier.

MR.STRACHAN: …that your indicative planning went wrong.

AN HON. MEMBER: Just say the Premier laughed.

MR. STRACHAN: Then you say, "High interest rates. Big, bad

Ottawa." You've been in power for 19 years and, instead of wasting your

time back there in Ottawa, as you have done so often, you should get

down to business and change the whole direction of this Province and

get leadership in Canada. Big, bad Ottawa, high interest rates,

ignoring completely the major forces that control, dominate and direct

every single thing that happens in this country. Poor, little Ottawa!

Let me tell you, every time the Federal Government of this country has

tried to affect the economy through its fiscal policies, the chartered

banks and major industry have defeated them — because it didn't suit

their purpose. I told you, earlier, that three times since last May the

Bank of Canada reduced the prime interest rates and the chartered banks

reduced it only once. Only once, in that period. Now, who's to blame?

Ottawa? Or the chartered banks, to whom we give such tremendous control

and power over the whole financial lifeblood of this country? (Interruption.)

You're darn right, you support that nonsense. Any time we talk about

changing the direction and the control you say, "Oh, that's socialism."

I have said, for years, that the Government must, in the future,

participate more fully in the accumulation, direction and the control

of capital. No question about it.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier once said that he was a follower of Keynes

in fiscal policy. But Keynes showed there were no automatic forces

operating that would push an economy toward full employment. He showed

it is possible for an economy to stay in a condition of

underemployment, unless dramatic measures are taken to cause a

reupsurge in activity. Keynes demonstrated that a fall in prices and

interest rates would not necessarily lead to increased employment. He

did not even believe that interest rates were the dominant factor. I

would remind you, Mr. Speaker, that, just about 40 years ago, we had

pretty low interest rates. You could borrow money for about 3 per cent

or 2½ per cent, without any trouble at all, providing you had enough

collateral to cover twice as much as you were borrowing. But those were

low interest rates.

We need a forum in a number of ways. I think, instead of talking

about the Constitution, the Federal Premier should have been back in

Ottawa determining what tax changes are required so that the business

world of Canada can settle down and know exactly what's going to

happen. I think that is one of the first things we should be doing

instead of discussing the Constitution at this time.

Consumer spending is one of the dominant factors and that is why I

get a little afraid of what's happening with regard to inflation. I was

going to cover the whole matter of the monies available in Canada. You

people, who are all the time saying, "We can't raise our own capital…"

The record is very clear from the Watkins Report, that was tabled in

the House, and Bill Fletcher's column the other day, that we are

pouring billions of dollars across the line of Canadian capital into

the United States. With the reorganization of the control of our

economy, opening, cracking those doors that are

[ Page 362 ]

closed to the Canadian investor, then we'll

dominate our own economy. Let me remind you, Mr. Speaker, that, in the

recent public opinion poll, 80 per cent of the people of Canada are now

agreeing with Tommy Douglas that we should control our own economy

right here in Canada. Eighty per cent of the people of Canada, finally,

realize that Tommy Douglas wasn't anti-American, he was pro-Canadian.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I want to refer to the fact that we still

face problems in this Province. The people of this Province, the

workers of this Province, are faced with increased gasoline prices,

increased cigarette prices — I don't mind that — increased telephone

prices, increased assessments on their homes, increased university fees

for their children, increased car insurance, increased diesel fuel for

industry, increased automobile insurance, increased bus prices…your own

report indicates that 69 per cent of the firms expect increased prices

in the next year. The U.S. economy is away on another insane course of

war, which affects the inflation in that country, which will spill over

into this country. We are facing inflation just as bad in the next 12

months to two years, as we have ever faced in the past.

I ask you, Mr. Speaker, do you expect the low-income people of this

Province to sit supine and silent? Do you expect the workers of this

Province, even though they have come through a tough year, to see the

gains they made this year eaten away by the inadequacy of the rotten

system that you support? Do you expect the old age pensioners to be

content, faced with that sort of situation?

I suggest that we are moving into, probably, one of the most crucial

periods of our time. Technological change will continue to provide jobs

for the educated and the private sector, as the private sector moves

toward more sophisticated and automated procedures. But we need change.

I had intended, Mr. Speaker, to read the highlights of the Alberta

Speech from the Throne. Let me tell you, it is a pretty enlightening

document. Had we had such a document presented in this House as the

Alberta Speech from the Throne… I'm going to read it. "…reorganization

and structural innovation of Government services." How does that strike

you? "A new Department of Environment, Energy Resources Conservation Act ,

an educational opportunity fund, industrial development incentives to

provide financial incentive to areas not covered by the Federal

requirements, new tax legislation to give all municipalities a fair

share of benefits from the resource development, health and social

development amalgamated to give an integrated approach to health

services, the age of majority reduced to 18, a new department of

cultural youth and development, an intergovernment affairs agency of

permanent liaison between the Federal and Provincial Governments,"

instead of just shouting at Ottawa, "a new market assistance for

agriculture, expanded efforts to improve economic and social conditions

for rural residents, committee on urbanization and the future, directed

to public transportation, roads and highways, a commission to study

revenue and responsibilities of Provincial and municipal governments."

— while you sit and laugh.

The times we are moving into, Mr. Speaker, will leave the lesser

skiIled in a position where it is more difficult to get a job. They

will get a job with more and more difficulty. This will create an

ever-increasing pool of the poor and underprivileged, mostly young

people. Forty per cent of the unemployed in this Province now are under

25 years of age. People who can't get in — the outsiders — and that's

the end result of 19 years of Social Credit administration. Your

nineteenth Budget — 40 per cent of the unemployed under 25 years of age

— outsiders that can't get in.

This Budget fails to discriminate between desirable growth and

maximum growth. It fails to weigh social costs and benefits. Your

indicative planning has been a failure. You've broken your promises.

After spending a painful week, mulling over this Budget, its proposals,

its meaning, I realize it would have been a great Budget 45 years ago.

Today, it is large in money — $1,300,000,000, but it is bankrupt in

ideas. It harbours no change and it leaves too many festering sores in

society. When I had finished thinking about the failures of this Budget

to meet today's needs, I bethought myself of Bertrand Russell and one

of the last things he wrote before he died — when he was talking about

what he had lived for. Towards the end of that statement he says, "And

I have tried to apprehend the Pythagorean power, by which number holds

sway above the flocks. A little of this, but not much I have achieved.

Love and knowledge, so far as they were possible, led upward toward the

Heavens. But always pity brought me back to earth. Echoes of cries of

pain reverberate in my heart. Children in famine, victims tortured by

oppressors, helpless old people they hated, burdens to their sons, and

the whole world of loneliness, poverty and pain make a mockery of what

human life should be. I long to alleviate the evil, but I cannot and,

I, too, suffer." Thank you very much.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Langley.

MR. H.B. VOGEL (Langley): Thank you, Mr. Speaker, it is a

pleasure to take my turn in debate and to speak for the constituency I

represent, the great mid-valley area of Langley, particularly, today. I

just got a little note, Mr. Speaker. In the gallery is one of my great

admirers, a grandson, 5 years old, and he is with his big brother, who

is a year older. Just opposite me here. I have asked my son and

daughter-in-law to restrain their natural enthusiasm and also to not be

embarrassed if they fall asleep, which they undoubtedly will.

Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy the thorough job of criticism that is

done by my friend from Cowichan-Malahat. He knows his business and it

is his job to be critical. It is not his job to answer questions, the

questions that he poses. He poses all of the questions that there are,

the ones that are being continuously pondered by those people who have

the responsibility of running this Province. Now, in all fairness, I am

sure my friend would agree that some of the allusions and references, a

particular phrase that was used, were really not appropriate to the

particular subject that he referred them to. When the Premier read the

Budget Speech and he talked about the gravity of the unemployment

situation, he did not laugh. He did not laugh, he was a very grave and

troubled man in that particular respect. You know that is true, Mr.

Member, because you have known him for a long time.

Now, at the risk of establishing a precedent, I am going to say a

few words about the Budget. The Premier, when he spoke, in order to

dramatize the particular problem upon which we should focus our

attention, said the four letter word and he spelled it out, J-O-B-S.

Certainly this is the matter that we should concern ourselves with. I

think it is the word that means security and happiness to all of us. It

is the word, the lack of which creates the misery which my friend

[ Page 363 ]

was speaking about. In relation to that, a little

later on, I am going to say some things that might have caused my dear

old mother to disown me. She was a fifth-generation Canadian, who came

from Ottawa incidentally.

First of all, in speaking about the Budget, Mr. Speaker, a lot of

things have been said and there have been some facetious remarks. One

wag said, "You could even save money on this Budget. All you have to do

is quit smoking and buy a compact car." Now, I think that it could be

reasonably said… (interruption).

On this next remark I expect to get a lot of applause from Saanich, the

great constituency of Saanich, because I think the smoker in this

Budget is paying for his sins. But I think that the gasoline consumer,

which includes most people here today, all of us here, is paying

appropriately for value received, value received in the thousands and

thousands of miles of wonderful highways that have been built in the

last number of years. I won't say 19 years, that just stirs them up.

Certainly, for the excellent ferries, the wonderful ferries, that my

friend did seem to be criticizing when he talked about Island

communication. I was disappointed in that. I think we have a wonderful

ferry fleet. And the bridges and at least one tunnel that the people of

the central valley use to get to the great city of Vancouver.

On the other hand, we've got to be quite realistic and responsible

in talking about this single problem that I have referred to. I wish to

be. There is one thing that I do appreciate very much, as one who

supports this Government, and that is that the Premier and Minister of

Finance has maintained the record of 19 years in office in which this

Budget has been balanced. I applaud, I personally…we talk about

financing, difficult times, and paying for it later. But, really I

would not like to be associated with deficit financing, the

difficulties that have been caused in Canada by that type of

administration, or, perhaps contributing to the problems of today. I

think that most of us here, certainly those of us on this side, do feel

a higher degree of security to know that we are anticipating that the

money will be in the till to pay for the bills that are incurred (interruption) .

Well, that is another story, my friend. The individual home-owner

gets modest help. The only thing I would say about that — the $10 extra

on the home-owner grant — there was a time when I felt the home-owner

grant had gone far enough. But, when you talk to people, who are so

concerned about their municipal tax bill, you realize that they greatly

appreciate and depend upon this share of the productive capacity and

wealth of the Province that we help to generate. The big thing, of

course, is the job proposition, and being serious about it and deadly

serious, there are two avenues in which Government has jobs to provide.

The first, of course, is the rapidly, healthfully growing Crown

corporations and this is the number one source because they are the

career jobs. These should be provided on the basis of merit I think,

rewarded on the basis of productivity, like every other type of job. I

would think that that's a responsibility of the Civil Service

Commission. I would think that very few of us here would want to be

involved in that sort of thing. We feel that we would have better

administration and healthier structures, if it were left as it is. For

that reason, I was rather surprised at the subject matter of the motion

of nonconfidence that came into the House. I was not surprised at the

motion of nonconfidence, I think that is the function… I believe the

Minister of Recreation and Conservation expressed it very well — we

anticipated this. I was surprised, really, that it was supported by the

Liberal group, because there have been times in other parliaments when

there has been an attempt to use the Crown corporation structures as a

political football and bring it into the political arena. Let it be

said that great credit should be given to prime ministers of the two

old-line, major political parties that all such attempts were sternly

resisted. The Auditor-General in Ottawa… (interruption) .

No, I was talking about Ottawa. Just listen. We have comptrollers. We

don't have that particular title. The Auditor-General sought to do what

you people sought to do, and without success. That was supported by the

House. This was the right and responsible thing to do. I say this, that

it is very, very wrong to take the chance that you muck up and destroy

the very necessary structures of people, who are involved in a job of

work, like every other citizen, because these are Crown corporations,

to make political capital. I'll say more than that. You talk about

revealing. I'll tell you what you reveal. If you ploughed all through

this thing, what would you find? You might easily find that somebody

had made a mistake. I would think that, perhaps there are people in

Crown corporations, doing their jobs in the normal way who might make a

little error in judgement. While you are mucking around in that way you

will destroy those structures and I would, certainly never be a part of

anything like that.

Now, there is another kind of job… (interruption) .

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order. Will the members please address the Chair.

MR. VOGEL: There is another kind of a job and, at a time like

this, I appreciate the effort of some of our departments to create jobs

in our forest industry, recreation and conservation. I think,

particularly, the emphasis should be on usefully employing university

students. They are having a tough time getting jobs to earn the money

to go back to school. These things — that is good therapy and it is

good economics. It can certainly be defended. I think that that sort of

thing is, perhaps a stop gap because, perhaps, we could open up a

greater number of opportunities when there are so many young people

looking for employment and school money. Perhaps, we would not be so

concerned if the employment role was full and a number of young people

who require jobs could be taken up in industry in the normal way.

Mr. Speaker, I am bound to say that we should recognize our

limitations and that the job-producing factors that really count are

outside the jurisdiction of this House. Now, I am not going to start

off on a tirade about the distribution of funds. We've talked about

that a lot in this House and I'm not going to talk about it. I am going

to talk about something that, to me, is much more significant and much

more fundamental. I don't know whether it will be any more popular on

this side of the House than it will be on that side of the House.

There is another good reason why we might talk about it. It does

involve Ottawa. I'm sorry. It is the only reference I will make in an

unkind way.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, give them lots.

MR. VOGEL: No, it's the only personal reference. Mr. Speaker,

we just, no matter how stark we think we have to be and how courageous

we have to be to seek solutions, we simply cannot tolerate the cynical

Trudeau attitude that the burden of controlling inflation can be placed

upon the backs of 700,000, or perhaps a million unemployed Canadians.

I think, Mr. Speaker, that we in this House, have to

[ Page 364 ]

decide, maybe not today, but certainly in the next

two, three, four or five years, if we really intend to put ourselves in

a position to discharge our responsibilities to the people of British

Columbia. I think, perhaps it will involve in the final decision all of

western Canada and certainly Alberta.

If the answer is yes, we will take that responsibility, that of

course is clear. I would say that it would be imperative in that case,

that we would seek the controls that we now lack. I suggest that the

alternative if we don't speak up, is a situation that is not only

undesirable, but an increasingly number of restless young people will

find it to be unacceptable.

In this Centennial Year, 1971, Mr. Speaker, I submit that the people

of British Columbia for very plain and obvious reasons for which we

cannot blame anybody at all, have never really been partners in

Confederation. We have been a colonial appendage since joining in 1871.

Now, it's not a moral question at all. Nobody did us wrong, it's simply

a matter of arithmetic. I certainly don't blame, in this regard,

Ontario or Quebec, because, on July 1, 1867, these two areas, which

were the original Canada of the mainland, apart from the Maritimes,

decided to bury the hatchet. They decided to get together and

confederate as Quebec and Ontario. Finally, later on, we decided to

come in. It wasn't an illogical thing at that time because we made what

could be regarded as a reasonable deal. We said, "You embark upon the

expensive and all the unknown, financial and physical perils of

building a rail line and we will become a part of the Federation you

are forming." But, when they divided control between them, it was

simply a partnership on that basis. A small group of French-speaking

people sat down across the table from a small group of people who were

western Canada was an entirely different thing…I will not say that

neither of the founding Nations had anything to do with the building of

western Canada, because you can't really say that. I would say that

there is an interesting point here, an interesting historical point, I

agreement to combine two areas — upper and lower Canada — were actually

80 per cent American. They were people of old-country origin, who had

lived south of what was the international border, and they had left in

the exodus following 1776.

AN HON. MEMBER: Draft dodgers.

MR. VOGEL: No, they were United Empire Loyalists. This was a

nucleus of these good people, who had come from many lands to the new

land, and they spread across this country. So it wouldn't be proper to

say that neither of the founding Nations really, had any

part in

forming the west. The point I'm trying to make, Mr. Speaker, is this

business of founding rights. Although the Constitution reflects the

situation that existed in 1867, it is unreasonable for us now, because

the situation has changed as far as we are concerned, to anticipate

that anything could be done in terms of numbers in representation. We

could say this, though, when we talk about our responsibility, that the

fact is that we in the west are a magnificent mixture of many people

from many lands and many nations and that none of these nationals

stand, in fact, fortunately for us, selfishly apart. We have Swedes, we

have Italians, we have Danes, we have Chinese, and all these people

present themselves, in the common way, as Canadians, and I would say

particularly my friend from Richmond, and my friend from Columbia

River, who both happen to be in the context of my remarks, of French

descent.

In my opinion, it must follow logically that all these people who

made western Canada are entitled to share equally in recognition and

benefits. I would think that we should agree that we want no favourite

Nation and we want no separate Nation. I mean by that, that it is a

many, many countries around the world.

We don't want two Nations in the west, Mr. Speaker, and I must say,

with sorrow, that I have concluded that we will never have one united

Nation in the Canadian Confederation. I am going to say this and I hope

the Premier isn't personally offended. I know that, when we have these

annual Premiers' Conferences, a great deal of preparation is done here

— and I'm not speaking for the Government, good gracious, they might

even disown me — but I'm going to say that these annual conferences

the Americans say charade and the French say charade. Is that right?

They are a ritual dance, they are a ritual dance and they will

accomplish nothing. Why? Why should we expect it? Why should we expect

it, Mr. Member, through you, Mr. Speaker. Quebec and Ontario quite

properly, because they set it up, hold the pat hand. Have you ever sat

down with a person who holds a pat hand, and they ask for a new deal?

Have you ever seen that situation? (Interruption.) A pat hand. You know, not an open-ended straight, or anything like that. Just a pat hand.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are we playing poker?

MR. VOGEL: No, we're not, not at all. There's no gamble

involved. I am predicting exactly what the outcome will be. I say that

we are going to be the victims of circumstances. As the people of

western Canada insist that we, as their representatives, continue to go

through this ritual dance, I know that those on our side who have the

responsibility will do the best they can and they will put up the most

sensible proposals. I think we should anticipate the obvious, natural

law, that the people who initiated this arrangement, did so, in their

own interest, and they will retain it, in their own interest. That

would be perfectly all right if it had happened that this country had

developed economically and sociologically, so that our interests

coincided. That easily might have happened, but it didn't. The reason

it didn't happen is this, that the economic policies, that they quite

properly initiated for the areas they represented, were designed to

protect the emerging secondary industry of Ontario. From their point of

view, it was a good idea. From their point of view, it was a darn good

idea. But what is our position? Our position is that we are a

resource-based area, right straight through to the Great Lakes — resource-based, and that is quite a different picture.

AN HON. MEMBER: What's wrong with that?

MR. VOGEL: Nothing. It's wonderful, providing you have

policies — that's what I'm going to talk about. It's the greatest thing

in the world, Mr. Member (interruption) .

Right. Exactly. This is what I'm going to tell you. It's worse than

that, my friends. I think we all recognize, or we should, those people

who give any study to the long-term economic probabilities involved in

our tremendous good fortune in the fund of raw-material industries that

we could

[ Page 365 ]

support,

based upon our resources, our future lives. First of all, in the

pattern that has been developing in the last 15 or 20 years, north and

south… If you are in industry in British Columbia, you must know that

the technology that we use comes from the south, it comes from

Washington, it comes from Oregon and it comes from California. That's

where your contacts are. When you pick up the phone, when you send a

wire, when you want to see somebody, when you want to go and visit

somebody to get some information, my friends, that's where you go.

Unfortunately, this has resulted in the fact that there is less and

less interchange between the east and the west. Now, this isn't a

matter for invective. It's not a matter for making charges or anything

of that kind. It's just a fact of life. It's just a fact of life. The

fact is that unity is not forged with flags. You can change a flag.

It's not forged with words in the Constitution, by the rights of man,

or anything of the kind. It's forged by the mutuality of economic

interests, that's what it's forged by (interruption) .

Just like you, my friend, you look after the people who hire you in

your business. That is what you do. You phone them up, you send them

Christmas cards, you're nice to them, you look after the people who

hire you. That's your right, however outrageous they may be. That's

only common sense. If there isn't any mutuality of interests, there is

not going to be any long-term partnership. It happens that,

economically and sociologically, we have a divided country and we have,

in fact, two countries, in my view.

What would you do about it? We have grown apart. I hope I'm not

belabouring the point. I'd like to say what I have in mind, Mr.

Speaker. I think that western Canada should be a separate, loosely

federated Canadian West. Completely autonomous in all the matters that

are now under Federal jurisdiction. I think that proposition should be

proposed and submitted to all courageous and intelligent western

Canadians for their thoughtful consideration. I think that we would

have to come to the conclusion that that is where the jobs are — in the

economic structure that would be developed in that way. One of the key

things that should be really carefully considered in this House, and I

know that there are people over there who have some idea of what I am

trying to say. I might not be saying it very well. What is the

fundamental thing that is wrong with the entire developing, emerging

picture, as far as our development of raw-material resources is

concerned? The fundamental picture is that right from the very

beginning to an increasing degree it has been a foreign sell-out.

Certainly, it has been a foreign sell-out. Your only problem is that

you don't know why.

The reason is there has never been the type, concurrently, in

western Canada, the type of financial institutions that would support

the increasing requirements to retain ownership of those resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh. Oh.

MR. VOGEL: Now, wait a minute. You don't know. You never looked. You can't see it from Cranbrook. You live in a valley (interruption) .

Now, listen, just a minute. This matter has received some very, very

serious study in the neighbouring country in United States. The reason

for that is that they have the privilege, in the various States, of

chartering banks under State jurisdiction. As a result of that

privilege, they have different legal structures and acts to permit this

and control it and they vary widely. If you want to go down and take a

look at it, they vary widely. I would like somebody, such as the First

Member from Vancouver East, he would understand it. They vary widely (interruption) .

Yes, and in a manner in which they can expand. There are two

fundamental types: there is the branch system which we've got, and

there is the unit system. Now, one of the most interesting things I was

able to come across is a study and I think it was made…I thought I had

a note on it, I don't seem to have…It was a study that was made in the

State of Florida and it said that they had looked at the State. It was

made by a legislative subcommittee, interestingly enough (interruption) .

Right, they used this one. It was a legislative subcommittee — a

different structure and that was their function. They spent a couple of

years on it and it is the most interesting thing. They said that the

unit system was superior; the branch system had three outstanding

characteristics, invariably, by comparison. One was that it charged

higher interest than average loan rates. Number two was that it paid

lower average rates on both time and savings deposits. The third was

that it made the smallest percentage of small business loans.

I want to say by way of reference, and if anybody is interested and

they really want to know, they can go down and they can meet people and

they can find out…California, a long time ago, I don't know whether

they blundered into it, or if somebody were smart, they had the unit

system. I want to give you one outstanding example of what happened and

I think it inspired the Premier when he was talking about the Bank of

British Columbia. You really can't do it under our laws but it was a

nice try. They had the unit system 66 years ago. An Italian named P.A.

Giannini founded a bank in an old, what had formerly been, a saloon. It

was the Bank of Italy. It was in the San Francisco area. It was in a

old saloon. I don't know whether he operated the saloon before that. If

he did it wa