1975 Legislative Session: 5th Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, MARCH 6, 1975

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

403 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings Citizens' Initiative Act (Bill 34). Mr. Bennett.

Introduction and first reading — 403

Oral Questions

Penalty for driving unlicensed auto. Mr. Chabot —

Casa Loma purchase. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 403

BCHEU charges against King George Private Hospital.

Improperly sent ICBC cheques. Mr. Morrison — 405

Budget debate (amendment)

Division on amendment — 436

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Introduction of bills

CITIZENS' INITIATIVE ACT

On a motion by Mr. Bennett, Bill 34, Citizens' Initiative

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

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

House after today.

Oral questions

PENALTY FOR DRIVING UNLICENSED AUTO

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Mr. Speaker, my question

is directed to the Minister of Transport and Communications.

Could the Minister tell me what the minimum penalty for driving

a motor vehicle without current decals is?

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

to the newspapers, it's $10; I don't know. No, I don't know what it is. I'd

have to check the statute. It's a matter of record in the statutes.

MR. CHABOT: A supplementary question. The Minister suggests

that it's $10, according to the newspapers.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I think the Hon. Member knows

that you must not ask the solution of a legal proposition or a

legal problem. This sounds more like a problem.

MR. CHABOT: I'm just trying to establish whether there is a

double standard of justice in the province, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I don't think that that would be permitted in

question period. If you want to make a speech about it, you can....

MR. CHABOT: The minimum is $25, and the A-G says it's $10.

Will the Minister take this as notice and — come back and report

to us as to what the minimum penalty under these circumstances

which the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald)....

MR. SPEAKER: It's a matter of law, which the Hon. Member

well knows.

MR. CHABOT: Will you take it as notice and give an answer tomorrow?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It's a matter of the law of the province.

It is on record in the statutes. Read the statutes.

MR. CHABOT: A supplementary question, then, to the

Attorney-General. Will the Attorney-General pay the $25 penalty

personally, or will the government pay for it?

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): You'll have to speak to me. I'm

his lawyer. (Laughter.)

MR. CHABOT: Oh, okay.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): Mr. Speaker, the

Hon. Member has raised two questions: first, should the fine

for this offence be $10 or $25? As far as I know, when the

decals are available but just not on the car, it's $10; but if

that's not the case.... If any other person in the Province of

British Columbia has paid more than $10 for that same

infraction, I want to be the first to know about it.

Interjections.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I want to be the first to know about it

because, seriously, there should be no difference whatsoever

because of rank.

Interjections.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Your second question is: who should pay

the fine? My department said: "We made a mistake on the car and

we want to pay the fine for you." I said: "No way! My wife will

pay that fine." (Laughter.)

MR. CHABOT: A short supplementary: were the decals in the

car?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: They were in the building.

(Laughter.)

CASA LOMA PURCHASE

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): To the Minister of Housing,

Mr. Speaker. Could the Minister confirm that the government

applied for the CMHC loan on the Casa Loma property 10 days

before the settlement with the lien holders on this matter?

HON. L. NICOLSON (Minister of Housing): If the Member has

some information that may be useful to me in answering this,

I'd be pleased to have it; otherwise I'll take this as

notice.

[ Page 404 ]

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, the Minister earlier took as

notice a question asking for information on negotiations

between the Casa Loma group and the government, and the dates

involved. This is simply a question which relates to that. I

wonder whether he would be willing, therefore, to give this

House information as to the dealings and negotiations between

his department and the Casa Loma group prior to the settlement

of the liens on this property.

The date for the settlement of the liens, for the Minister's

information, was November 28. The date for the application for

the CMHC mortgage, for the Minister's information, was November

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Supplementary, Mr.

Speaker, to the Minister of Housing. Can the Minister assure

the House that in the costing of the Casa Loma project no work

charged against the Casa Loma project was done on any other

premises or for any other person or company?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, I think that, as usual, all

sorts of veiled charges are being made. There's been no

confirmation of any offer ever being made brought into this

House. There have been suggestions of many things in relation

to this, and I've tried to answer as many questions as

possible.

I might take the opportunity at this time, in order to

enable you to consider the question of privilege the other day,

to ask leave to file a document. It's a letter from Mr. R.W.

Ford, manager of Central Mortgage and Housing, to Mr. G.

Chatterton, enclosing the original; also a letter to the

Department of Housing to the attention of my Associate Deputy

Minister, Mr. Chatterton, from Mr. Len Tye, manager from

Central Mortgage and Housing; and a copy of Central Mortgage

and Housing's copy of the application from Dunhill

Development.

Leave granted.

MR. PHILLIPS: Supplementary....

MR. SPEAKER: May I ask the Hon. Member...? When you ask

questions, it must deal with the competence of the department

at a time when the department had responsibility. If you're

talking about a time prior to that responsibility by

government, then surely that should be made clear in your

question.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, this is certainly within the Minister's competence.

Would the Minister be prepared to deduct from the purchase price of Casa Loma

work done on the premises of Emil Virani and Mela Virani, as is attested to

by the work orders of Coastside Construction on these premises — which I am

now prepared to give to the Minister.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That's before the government bought it,

if it happened at all.

MR. CHABOT: Did you find work that was done in

California?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I think the obvious answer,

again, is that if the Hon. Member is referring to a time after

the government has responsibility for a project, that's one

thing. If it doesn't, then his question is out of order. I

don't know which it is from your statement.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, on this very subject, by way of

explanation, we have asked for in this House and not obtained

the appraisal which evidently Dunhill did on Casa Loma before

it was purchased by the government. We're unable to obtain this

appraisal that was done. We're unable to obtain the working

drawings which were given to CMHC. I'm also wondering if the

Minister can assure the House that he would be prepared to

delete from the price.... Or was in the appraisal certain work

done on the Mahal West Health Spa and charged to the Casa Loma

project at the request of one of the principals of Casa

Loma?

Mr. Speaker, in answering the Attorney-General's question,

this work was done before the government purchased Casa Loma,

but it was probably....

MR. SPEAKER: This is quite out of order. The Hon. Member

knows that it is quite out of order to ask a question that has

nothing to do with the jurisdiction of the Minister.

Interjection.

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I made no statement against

anyone.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat]

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

same subject, yesterday the Hon. Minister tabled in this House the agreement

between Casa Loma Motel Ltd. and the Government of British Columbia. I would

like to ask the Minister

[ Page 405 ]

on what date the Crown received the written confirmation

from the municipality of Burnaby that it had approved in

principle the rezoning application, which is a condition

precedent of the effectiveness of the agreement.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Well, I would have to take the question

as notice, Mr. Speaker, as far as any date is concerned.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: A supplemental. Is the Minister

indicating that such a written approval in principle has been

received?

Well, if the Minister is taking that as notice as well, Mr.

Speaker, my last question is: will he at the same time, in

examining whether such approval in principle has been received,

indicate, if it has not, why moneys were advanced? They were

not to be advanced under the agreement until the approval had

been received.

BCHEU CHARGES AGAINST

KING GEORGE PRIVATE HOSPITAL

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): I'd like to change the subject

from bricks and mortar to people and ask the Minister of Health

a question with regard to a brief submitted by the hospital

employees' union on the subject of the King George Private

Hospital in Surrey, which includes a statement that patients

who have required immediate medical treatment have been

neglected and in some cases have died. In view of the extremely

serious nature of this charge, which has been denied, would the

Minister tell the House if an inquiry will be carried out

immediately in order that if the charge is false the people who

are, in effect, being accused in this kind of brief will have

their names cleared?

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, on my

desk I have the document referred to by the Member for Oak Bay.

There are serious charges made in that brief, and serious

charges have been raised around the King George Private

Hospital.

A little over a month ago I ordered a departmental inquiry

into the whole hospital and its delivery of health care. We've

had two or three of our departmental people investigating

thoroughly, not only looking at the place but interviewing

people around the hospital. There will be delivered to me today

the results of that inquiry. I will read it first, and then

make it public. How we will react I can't contemplate at this

time. I do hope that the work will encompass areas such as

these charges and whether or not these people can be

exonerated.

Where we go from there I'm not sure, but suffice to say we

have worked on this for five weeks, and we will have a report

in full as quickly as possible.

MR. WALLACE: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Since this is a

recurring problem, does the Minister have plans to set up a

more frequent and perhaps more intensive supervision system for

all private hospitals?

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I've discussed this whole

question in my department and I'm sure we could inspect

hospitals daily. But this is where the Member for Oak Bay and I

part company: in the long run, profit motives in the health

industry just don't pay off.

MR. WALLACE: We agree on that! I've said that many

times.

HON. MR. COCKE: In any case, this is where he becomes a

socialist, Mr. Speaker, and I congratulate him for that.

But in any event, in the long run I believe that the profit

motive has to be taken out of the delivery of health care.

MR. WALLACE: I've said that many times.

IMPROPERLY SENT ICBC CHEQUES

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): My question is addressed to

the Minister of Transport and Communications, concerning ICBC.

The Minister assures me that ICBC has no management problems.

Therefore I would like to thank him for his donation from ICBC.

I've recently received a cheque made out to one of my companies

for $254.42 from ICBC. That particular company has not been in

the automobile business — that is, in the body repair business — for five years.

We never applied for a vendor's number, but we received one.

I want to thank him for his donation, but my question is: could

he advise the House how many cheques have been sent out in

error to others like myself? I happen to have at least three in

my own file and I know of others. I would like him to advise

the House. I again thank him for his donation.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I will have to check on that, but I would

like to give you a definition as part of the answer because I

think. you will agree that's not a management problem in

itself.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, it's a mismanagement problem.

(Laughter.)

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Please send the cheque back.

MR. MORRISON: Oh, no, I think I'd like to keep it.

[ Page 406 ]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Send the cheque back. Come on, now. Send

it back and I'll take it as notice, so I can check today. If

you send me the cheque now, then I can follow it through and

determine just how that was possible.

MR. MORRISON: They know about it.

Interjections.

MR. MORRISON: Mr. Speaker, would you ask that Member to

please withdraw that statement he made?

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): (Mike not on.) The cars

have been sold, and the companies have been good enough to tell

the people to send them back and get them fixed up. I think you

would be proud of that.

MR. MORRISON: Are you accusing me? That was the inference

and I'd like that inference withdrawn.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Certainly he is. The manufacturer made

mistakes and....

MR. MORRISON: That's not what he said, Mr. Premier.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, you sold faulty cars that the

manufacturers made mistakes with.

Interjections.

HON. MR. HALL: Of course I'll withdraw, but it seems to me

there's been a great deal of publicity about motor car

companies — the Member has been a member of that industry —

that have done that. Do you class that as a management problem

as you class this one?

Orders of the day

ON THE BUDGET

On the amendment.

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

it is a pleasure to rise in this debate. Last evening I was

making comparisons between the record of the previous

government and the fine record of this government. It has been

rather an interesting debate about this amendment, which seems

to have been very poorly chosen. They were drawing comparisons,

and I'll just recap some of the arguments.

The record of that group was a 15 per cent municipal share for social assistance;

we have reduced it down to 10 per cent.

They had a phantom programme for sewage treatment plant

assistance; with us it is $5.7 million, I believe — certainly

in excess of $5 million. Theirs would have been a quarter of a

million dollars and many, many of the areas would not have

qualified for one cent of assistance this year.

In other types of assistance, their attitude was to wipe out

the City of Nelson power plant which had existed since the

first decade of this century and turn it over to B.C. Hydro —

the big, fatherly, heavy hand of Socredism.

Another type of assistance, and one which is being very well

received, is the Neighbourhood Improvement Programme. There are

six designated areas in this province. In Coquitlam, the

programme improves streets, children's recreational facilities

and storm sewers. There has been assistance from both the

provincial and federal governments under the Neighbourhood

Improvement Programme in Duncan, New Westminster, Powell River

and Rossland, where they have been able to upgrade certain

areas, provide a little bit of rehabilitation, and also provide

needed recreational facilities and neighbourhood facilities. In

Vancouver, and also in Victoria — in fact, in the riding of the

two Members who have just left the house there is neighbourhood

assistance.

I talked about the way in which the Department of Housing

has removed compulsory tax exemptions, the way that the

provincial government has removed housing subsidies from the

backs of the municipalities. These, and many others, are ways

in which this government is giving real assistance to

municipalities, perhaps designated.

They have asked for an increase in the per capita grant.

What does an increase in that very crude formula do? It gives

the same amount of assistance to the low assessment areas as it

does to the high assessment areas because it's sort of an

across-the-board thing.

There are certain communities in this province that do not

have the assessment base, and I wonder who they're trying to

protect by asking for that type of an increase, rather than the

designated funds such as sewage treatment plant assistance,

which reduces excessive amortization or interest costs over and

above certain mill rates. This type of directed assistance

helps those areas that have a low assessment base, a low per

capita assessment base. I might say, Mr. Speaker, that it's

been a great help in Nelson, It's been a great help in Salmo,

and it's been a great help throughout Nelson-Creston.

I think much was made of the decrease of housing starts in

this province. This is not unique in Canada, and I think that

those who read this morning's paper will note that this is a

nationwide phenomenon, that British Columbia is doing better

than most — in spite of the fact that we have the greatest

increase in

[ Page 407 ]

population, a population growth that many European countries

don't have to cope with, that no other province in Canada has

to cope with.

Sure, our housing starts were down 16.5 per cent, but how

much were they down in Ontario? They were down 25 per cent, Mr.

Speaker, 25 per cent in that Tory stronghold — the blue

machine, which has taken better advantage, I must say, of a

federal programme than that bunch ever took when they were in

office for 20 years. They are away ahead of us in social

programmes and subsidies and sharing and such into social

housing, because they've taken up those funds for over 20

years. But they're down 25 per cent.

Who leads in terms of improvement in housing starts?

Saskatchewan — up 20.3 per cent over the previous year. They

were up — Saskatchewan. Of course, they have the lowest growth

rate, but their housing starts were up, and good for them.

Newfoundland was up 1.7 per cent.

But, Mr. Speaker, if we want to compare apples and apples,

let's compare Ontario and British Columbia. They're down 25 per

cent. That is the fact.

The Hon. Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis)

brought out some figures in his speech last evening, and it's

rather interesting to note some of the things that he has said

in the past, particularly in Hansard

of February 1,

1973. He said: "One did not have to sit in the House prior to

last August to fully appreciate the fact that the former

government" — speaking of the group with which he is now

associated — "have simply grown old, inept and indifferent...." Did you

say that? He said that it was apparent to tens of thousands of British

Columbians that the former government had to be replaced at the

earliest possible date.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Yes, I said

it.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, I don't know if he's now

responsible for his actions.

AN HON. MEMBER: This is '75 now.

HON. MR. NICOLSON : I think a very important point to point

out is that he said:

I want to be fair and to congratulate the government

for moving promptly and decisively in removing some of those

barbed-wire entanglements which started out as strings attached to the

per capita grant under the previous administration. Mercifully, you

have cleared away that ever-increasing list of conditions attached to

every single dollar of the grant.

What were some of those conditions, Mr. Speaker? I don't

recall them all, but it seems to me that one of them was

earmarked dollars for the local chamber of commerce. I think

that was one of the earmarked features of the per capita

grant.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): You're wrong. You'd

better correct that.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Well, where was that one earmarked from?

Where was that tied to? There was something earmarked....

Interjections.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, that Member last night got

up and gave us hypothetical figures for projected mill

increases in various communities. Now I thought that this was a

good piece of spadework. I knew they were projections, and I

imagine that these are the most dire predictions. But let's

just examine what might happen there.

I might point out, Mr. Speaker, that I called the mayor of

Nelson and the city clerk. I tried to get such figures. They

said: "We don't have to figure out that budget. We've got that

beat. We can do that in four nights, and although there's a May

15 deadline, we don't have to worry about that until May. We'll

see what we've got at that time; we'll figure it out. Right now

our finance committee is going over this programme of grants

for the next year." That's what they're doing, and he thought

that any such material, Mr. Speaker, was questionable.

But let's just examine some of these figures, and it is

difficult, of course, to try and make projections. With what

the Hon. Member said about Mission — an increase from 44.74

mills, projected increase 50 mills:

But let's examine some of these figures, and it's difficult,

of course, to try and make projections. With what the Hon.

Member said about Mission — on increase from 44.74 mills,

projected increase 50 mills — now if that is the dire

prediction, this is the worst that can happen.

1974. There has been no increase in assessment for most

properties. Take some of the typical assessments, take property

at $2,250 and improvements of S 10,000 at 75 per cent. Work it

out at the 1974 level at 44.74 mills. That works out on

property to $100.67. These are rather hastily constructed

figures but I think they'll be pretty close. If we take 75 per

cent of the improvements, that works out at $335.55. If we

subtract the homeowner grant and the school tax rebate, taking

the minimum figure of S230, we get $206.22.

1975. We take the same figures at 50 mills, and I believe we

get $112.50 for property and $375 for improvements. That's a

total of $487.50. Take the minimum homeowner grant and school

tax rebate of $260 and that's $227.50, an increase of $21.50.

The most dire is a total increase on taxation of 5 per cent.

But let's be fair. A total net increase of what a person would

have to pay over $206.22 of the previous year is only about 10

per cent. At the rate that other things are going up, this

paints quite a different

[ Page 408 ]

picture than taking those mill rates out of context and

trying to paint such a dreary, glum picture.

But what is on the horizon? Have some vision. You should be

urging, as I have urged. And I am very pleased to report the

support that the councils in Nelson-Creston have given to the

Premier's position on the sharing of natural gas revenues. If

those people would put British Columbia first instead of their

lust for power, if they would put British Columbia first.... I

ask you, be responsible; put British Columbia first. Go talk to

your council. Go talk in Ottawa. Make a fight for what is the

right and responsible. Your responsibility as British

Columbians is to support a fair deal for the municipalities and

the Province of British Columbia.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): I am happy to take my place

and support this amendment, and I'm happy to follow the

Minister of Housing as well. I was looking through the library

and thought I might follow his lead and quote some of his

statements from Hansard . Unfortunately, he's never said

anything that made any sense in this House (laughter) or

offered any hope for the people of British Columbia.

It's significant that the Minister of Housing, in his

comments on the amendment, didn't have the nerve to talk very

much about housing, which is a disaster in this province.

Instead he talked about municipal affairs about which he knows

even less than he knows about housing. And he certainly showed

it. As soon as he became Minister of Housing, the roof fell

in.

He talks about the reduced share of welfare for the municipalities. Sure,

the percentage is reduced, but the welfare bill is up — up by hundred and hundreds

of thousands of dollars.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right.

MR. McCLELLAND: That's the kind of treatment he gives to the

municipalities.

You know, Mr. Speaker, why the municipalities won't accept

housing. They can't afford to accept it because of the way this

government is treating them. If you would make some kind of a

formula available so the municipalities would know that they

could accept that housing, they'd accept it gladly. But this

government treats them like poor relations.

I enjoyed the Member for Delta (Mr. Liden) in his comments

about revenue-sharing and the airy-fairy, pie-in-the-sky plan

that this government has for revenue-sharing. The Member for

Delta went to Delta council one night before the Premier went

down to Ottawa with his suggestion about the increased price

for natural gas. The Member for Delta wanted to know from Delta

council if they would help him out and tell him how they might

spend this extra money.

He wanted to come to Victoria and tell the Premier how Delta wanted to spend

all this extra money. You know, all this extra money.

Well, then the Premier came back from Ottawa with his tail

between his legs — there wasn't any money. An empty bag. The

Member for Delta never went back to Delta council to ask them

if they wanted to share in the losses as well.

Interjection.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Highways (Hon.

Mr. Lea) got up as well in his election speech and talked about

all kinds of things. He spread the myth again about our party

wanting to do away with Mincome and Pharmacare. What total,

utter nonsense. What nonsense! This party in the past created

some of the most innovative programmes — in social reform that

have ever been known in this country.

HON. N. LEVI (Minister of Human Resources): Name one, name

one.

MR. McCLELLAND: The Minister of Highways in that election

speech was simply trying to hide the facts, cloud the issue and

hide the fact that the NDP has never invented social reform,

but is imposing socialism on the people of this province while

flying the banner of social reform. If you don't believe that,

listen to the quote from the Second Member for

Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) when she launched her leadership

campaign as the favourite daughter, when she said: "The NDP's

basic goal should be to wrest power from the big corporations

for the people."

I'm glad you applaud that, because I know that you will

applaud the next statement as well, which says: "Improvement of

social programmes like Mincome, Unemployment Insurance, the

Canada Pension Plan, pollution cleanup, Medicare, while

important, must not be accepted as a substitute for socialism."

That's what the Second Member for Vancouver-Burrard said, so

don't spread this stupid myth about the NDP having any monopoly

on social reform or on social conscience. And please, Mr.

Speaker, I hope the Premier will get off this phony war he's

building with Ottawa, the phony war that he's attempting to

build up into an election issue. And where is he now, I wonder.

He's not in this House.

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to support this amendment because

this government has proved once and for all in this phony

budget that it's a government of broken promises: broken

promises in the field of intermediate care; broken promises in

the field of education; broken promises in the field of human

resources; broken promises in the aid to

[ Page 409 ]

municipalities, and broken promises in the one area where it

could have done something to provide jobs for the people of

this province, and that's in the area of housing. It's in that

area that it is a complete and utter disaster.

Here we are faced in British Columbia with a housing

shortage which is reaching critical proportions, a crisis

proportion, and our provincial government has no direction and

no real policies.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON (Kamloops): Nonsense!

MR. McCLELLAND: The government, instead of facing up to the

problems, is being blinded by it's ideological hang-ups. We're

buying in this province thousands and thousands of acres of

land for philosophical reasons, with no sound programme to put

houses on that land to provide shelter for the people of this

province. No programmes — and in the bargain we don't get the

jobs which would come with the provision of those houses. With

the Dunhill Development Corp., for which we paid $6 million, we

got a company which hasn't provided one new house in this

province since this government took office — not one new housing

unit, Mr. Speaker. They paid $6 million for that company — and

we thought it was going to fill some void, take the lead in

developing some innovative programmes.

Interjection.

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, that's right; that's an interesting

point, Mr. Member. The company the day before we bought it was

worth $3 million. We paid $6 million.

Interjections.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, $2 million profit and not a

house. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. McCLELLAND: All that company has done is buy up existing

projects that already have been begun, and frankly the people

of this province had hoped for something better.

[Mr. Speaker rises]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member be seated for a moment?

Your point of order?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I remind the Hon. Members that a

point of order can only be taken when it relates to something

that you have been alleged to have said — and not to get into a

dispute about somebody else's understanding of the facts.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair]

MR. McCLELLAND: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I really find it

incredible that that Minister should stand up and tell me that I've led the

people in some kind of a misunderstanding. That's an incredible statement from

an incredible Minister, Mr. Speaker.

MR. D.F. LEWIS (Shuswap): It's true.

MR. McCLELLAND: You know, I wasn't going to mention this at

this time, but I really can't let it pass. The other day in

this chamber the Minister made a statement in reply to a

question from me with regard to Meadowbrook subdivision, which

is one of his shining examples of public housing, when he said

in this House when I asked him what he was going to do about

fixing up the defects in that development: "It's nothing to do

with me; that's between North Road and the people who live

there." That's what he said: "It's nothing to do with me." Just

because the government owns that project.... It's nothing to

do with him. It's not what he said.... You didn't have me by

the hand, through you, Mr. Speaker, when we toured Meadowbrook

in December, and we asked you what you were going to do about

those defects then. Here's what you said; Nicolson said: "The

government is prepared to see that remedial work is

undertaken." The government is prepared to see that remedial

work is undertaken.

Now why the flip-flop, Mr. Speaker? Why has that Minister

gone back on his word and now says that the people can go and

fix the stuff themselves or deal with North Road, which has got

it's money out and isn't interested in spending any more

money?

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Where are they taking

the money?

MR. McCLELLAND: The money's being taken to California. It's

not here any more. Those people will have to suffer with those

defects because of the lack of action by that Minister. And he

talks about us creating misunderstandings. What nonsense!

Interjections.

MR. McCLELLAND: Oh, your Minister is doing a good job of

creating housing in California — a fantastic job. The only real

programme we've seen by this government is its alarming buying

spree, with little or no rhyme or reason and little or no

concern

[ Page 410 ]

about the kind of deals they're getting into.

We're certainly not satisfied that the kind of projects this

government is buying will either create jobs or create new

housing. Meadowbrook is a very good example of the kind of

showcase development the government says it's involved in but

which is hardly showcase and hardly the kind of development to

lead the way for government housing in this province. If that

kind of performance from that Minister is all we can expect in

this province, we'll never solve our shelter crisis.

We see the Burke Mountain scheme which they're talking about

for housing in British Columbia and we find out now that in

Burke Mountain, as well as all of the other schemes, the

government is flying by the seat of its pants. It doesn't know

where it's going, doesn't have the programmes and doesn't have

a policy. Just buy the land, buy the land. Again, the

ideological insistence on the abolition of the private

ownership of land.

Dunhill admits that it doesn't know what is going to happen

on Burke Mountain and the Housing Minister makes the same

admission. Again, we see the government as wheeler-dealer in

Burke Mountain: secrecy, property purchases — and this by our

so-called open government.

Interjection.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Minister, the people on your side of the

House can get in on all those deals. We don't want any part of

it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. McCLELLAND: We don't want any part of it.

Interjections.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: ...name names! Name names, or

withdraw.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member didn't attribute anything

corrupt, did he?

MR. McCLELLAND: No, I didn't say a thing about corruption,

Mr. Speaker. I won't ask the Minister to withdraw what he said

about me because I accept it from the source. I wasn't making

any....

MR. SPEAKER: It's much better if we refrain from personal

allusions on both sides.

MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Allusions.

MR. McCLELLAND: In conjunction with the problems in housing

in this province, we do have the problems with regard to

financial aid to the municipalities. In so many instances, the

two go together. I think that in projects like Burke Mountain,

Meadowbrook, Essondale, Squamish — wherever the government wants

to impose large housing units on the people of those

communities without any prior consultation — then we have a

serious problem.

I know that many municipal politicians would like very much

to take this government at face value, but it's very difficult

to do that. I note from a recent issue of The Democrat —

the newspaper or whatever it is — there is a comment in here by

the mayor of Coquitlam with regard to Burke Mountain. The mayor

says, with regard to extra costs of municipal services: "The

Minister" — and he's talking about the Minister of Housing —

"has assured me that Burke Mountain will not cost persons now

residing in the municipality additional taxes."

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the mayor of Coquitlam would

really like that to happen but I don't have the same kind of

confidence in this government or the Minister of Housing. There

is no way in the world that a development the size of Burke

Mountain cannot cost extra money to the municipalities for

schools, for roads, for transportation, for police, for social

services and for so many other things. Where is the assurance

by the Minister of Housing that that development will not cost

the people in that community more money? Unless that Minister

and that government are prepared to come up with a sound

financial formula to reimburse the municipalities in actual

cash payments, then I'd say that those municipalities should

say: "We don't want any part of your development until you give

us some money." This government is not prepared to do that for

them.

Interjection.

MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, it's too expensive to do business with

this government because it won't put its cards on the table. So

far in this province we've spent millions and millions of

dollars and we still haven't any idea what the Department of

Housing is doing or what it plans to do. More shameful is that

the Department of Housing doesn't have any idea either.

The housing crisis in this province will not be solved as

long as this government is blinded by its obsession to gain

control of the 5 per cent or less of land in this province

which is not already held in the name of the Crown.

This crisis in housing never needed to happen. But

[ Page 411 ]

this government has taken over two Years — 30 months — to arrive at the conclusion that it doesn't know where it's going, but it's going full speed ahead.

MR. H. STEVES (Richmond): What did you guys do in 20

years?

MR. McCLELLAND: Unless we continue to provide incentive

programmes to encourage private ownership as well as public

housing, we'll never solve the problem we have in this

province. We know that those kinds of incentives go against the

grain of state socialism, so again we see ideology getting in

the way of good common sense.

With this kind of blind allegiance to some kind of ideology,

this government is not helping to solve the housing shortage,

but is contributing to that shortage. Nothing will ever change

until this government is out. For those reasons, Mr. Speaker, I

fully support this amendment to the budget.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, when I

listen to the emotionally charged speech....

Interjection.

HON. MR. COCKE: I wonder if the Member for Vancouver-Point

Grey resents the fact that I'm speaking in this debate.

Mr. Speaker, the problem we have here is that the Member for

Langley (Mr. McClelland) in his usual fashion tries very, very

hard to make what would be desirable and what would be good

goals for this province look bad by spouting off little words

that he's been taught to dislike ever since he was a child — little words like "socialism" and all of these things.

I hope that our side of the House refrains from indicating

some of the feelings we have towards people who are so

desperately tied to the corporate giants, whose every speech is

in protection of the large interests of the large empires, who

have no loyalty to country and don't have any loyalty to you

people — maybe a few dollars, and that's all.

Mr. Speaker, to listen to the Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr.

Nicolson) attacked, as we've been listening in the last half

hour, is just a little bit much because of the fact that that

Minister is doing something now that has never been done in

this province's history...

MRS. JORDAN: Right on!

HON. MR. COCKE: ...Liberals and Socreds

notwithstanding.

You know, we used to be the laughing stock of all of Canada. We used to be,

under the Socreds, the laughing stock of all of Canada. Why? Because the Liberals

down there used to say: "You know, that crazy government in B.C. doesn't take

advantage of any of the shared programmes in housing — virtually none." And

the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey knows that perfectly well.

It's all a big illusion that they try to create. They try to

create an illusion around a Minister of Housing who has only

had a very short time. They try to say that he's not producing.

They can't tell that to the people who are going into co-op

housing in New Westminster. They can't tell that to the people

who are going into co-op housing in other areas all over this

province. Oh, yes, they bring up some criticism around who did

this and when and how, and always these allegations that can

never be substantiated are raised. But the fact of the matter

is there is interest in housing. There's a Department of

Housing, and I think that is very important for this

province.

At the same time that Member said the welfare bill is up.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, in times of stress welfare bills go up. But

one of the reasons the Department of Human Resources changed

its name was because of the fact that there was a great deal

more in Human Resources than just welfare. Yes, a great deal

more.

Under the Socreds 9,000 people in this province — this is one

of those great innovative programmes that he was talking about

- got a supplement to their old-age pension. I can't remember

how much it was because it was so infinitesimal that it really

doesn't matter anyway.

But the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi), as part

of his portfolio and a major portion of his budget, provides

for well over 100,000 people in this province over age 60. It

was over age 65; now it's over age 60.

They talked in terms of "innovative programmes." I would

like that Member to stand in his place one day and indicate to

us where those innovative programmes were. I would sure like to

hear him, because we saw no evidence of them.

Interjection.

HON. MR. COCKE: That's right. They thought about them, and

now they are having all sorts of very grand and glorious ideas

how they will support, if they are government, the programmes

we have brought in. Isn't it interesting, Mr. Speaker? They are

all for Pharmacare — but there was no Pharmacare under the

Socreds.

AN HON. MEMBER: There was.

HON. MR. COCKE: What? Mr. Speaker, I took over that

programme. What a laugh! You know, the Minister that announced

that programme just prior to election day set up an

organization of two people who tried to pay the bills, hoping

that people would forget after the election was called that

there were

[ Page 412 ]

going to be some bills paid for those in dire need. But what

a laugh. That was an innovative programme? Oh, come on, I

happened to take over that innovative programme, so don't kid

the troops.

Mr. Speaker, that party was bankrupt in any kind of ideology

that might carry it to the people. They had their little ritual

dances now and again — their conventions. The cabinet Ministers

used to laugh about those conventions: "Let them come up with

any resolution they like — those resolutions don't mean

anything to us fellows out here on the golf course anyway."

This Minister of Housing is working and will produce for

this province, and he is producing for this province.

Yes, Mr. Speaker. They talk about broken promises. Every

time they look at our campaign literature from the last

campaign and compare it to anything they've ever done in the

past, they just....

Interjections.

HON. MR. COCKE: Oh, come on. Don't raise that. They were so

totally broke in ideas and innovation that they didn't have any

promises to break because of the fact that they didn't make a

half-decent promise all the time that they were in power.

They talk about the Premier coming back from Ottawa with an

empty bag. Now that Member from Langley (Mr. McClelland) had

better be ready to eat his words, because the only thing that

can make the Premier's promises....

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): That's like swallowing

poison.

HON. MR. COCKE: That's right. The only thing that can hurt

in any way the situation we face in this province with respect

to the sharing of natural gas revenues will be broken promises

in the east, and I'm sure that will not happen.

HON. MR. BARRETT: The Liberals wouldn't do that.

HON. MR. COCKE: They wouldn't do it, Mr. Speaker.

The fact of the matter is there is now a new idea. There is

now a new base, a new opportunity for municipalities in this

province to share in revenue. Oh, and don't you resent that?

Don't you resent the fact there is opportunity now for

municipalities to share in revenues of the province instead of

the capital grants? Those diminishing natural resources are

okay for everybody to share in.

Interjection.

HON. MR. COCKE: You say: "Where's the money?" I wonder if

he'll put his seat on the line if the money is presented and

he's proven to be so terribly wrong.

MR. McCLELLAND: If you're so sure, why don't you give them

the money now?

HON. MR. COCKE: They want us to go back to their system, and

I hope that we never do.

Interjection.

HON. MR. COCKE: His day will come.

I happen to live, for two days of the week, in a

constituency very close to that constituency where Meadowbrook

took place. I was watching The Columbian newspaper at

the time, and I watched the ritual dance that that Member for

Langley did. You know, all of those black doom-and-gloom

suggestions; all these terrible things were happening; all of

the nefarious people in the world, and so on and so forth. I am

somewhat amused because his connections with private enterprise

are a lot closer than any connections our party might have with

private enterprise. That's really what he's criticizing.

But the fact of the matter is that I talked to some of the

experts in our area, I said: "Look at those photographs, will

you, and tell me about these defects." They were people who

work with their hands — carpenters who have everyday activities

in this area. Some of them, of course, say that sure there are

defects in some buildings, but practically every one of those

photographs could have been very easily a total

misinterpretation, because I'm informed by carpenters that some

of the shoring up that goes on within buildings goes on within

every single solitary building built in this or any other

province.

MR. McCLELLAND: There are 1,800 defects.

HON. MR. COCKE: That's the kind of help that Member is

always giving to anything. Do anything — produce one house, and

he'll criticize that house. He'll tear that house down if he

gets the chance because the last thing he wants — just like the

Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) — is for anything to

happen here. That's clear. The Member for Columbia River (Mr.

Chabot) indicated very clearly that he's not very interested in

any progress happening. Oh, we have a little argument about it

and there's a matter of personal privilege and all the rest of

it, but the fact of the matter is that you people are terribly

resentful of anything happening in this province. And a lot is

happening, so you become increasingly resentful.

MR. PHILLIPS: How come you're so protective?

[ Page

413 ]

HON. MR. COCKE: I have an opportunity to stand in my place

in this House and the democratic process says that I should

speak out on behalf of the people. Certainly we're not going to

leave it to the opposition to speak on behalf of the

people.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Prescribe for them.

HON. MR. COCKE: I'll prescribe, Mr. Premier — yes, I'll

prescribe for them.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Give them a pill.

HON. MR. COCKE: All sorts of things are happening in this

province. One of the things that's happening is that the

Minister of Housing is working with groups within

municipalities. He's working with a corporation that's

assisting to provide housing in this province, and then Mr.

Dark Clouds over there says: "The secrecy in property dealings...."

HON. MR. BARRETT: Doom and gloom.

HON. MR. COCKE: What if that Minister of Housing goes out

and suggests that this land will be purchased for housing?

What's going to happen to the price of it? What's going to

happen to it? Sure, there are negotiations going on right now

throughout the province in different areas for different

reasons: hospitals, schools, housing, other sorts of building

that must be carried on. Surely it's not up to this government

to go around announcing that three years from now we will be

building here and therefore you can jack your prices up as high

as you like. That would be foolish.

On behalf of the taxpayers, the Minister is being completely

within his office to do exactly what he's doing, and he'd be

wrong otherwise.

I just want to get back and sort of reiterate my former....

We're discussing the same amendment given a second time.

Virtually the same amendment that was given to the throne

speech is here again introduced by that same party, by that

party that in 1960 and 1961, when we had a recession in this

province — as we're having now — couldn't be blamed for that

recession any more than you can blame the NDP for the present

recession. We don't call the shots in international affairs and

international finance, nor did they then.

But I remember that in 1960-61 — December — 9.8 per cent of

the people in this province were out of work; 10.9 in January.

If you want me to slap around the evidence....

MR. CHABOT: 1930?

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, that's the way it was. Yes, in 1930 we

had Conservative governments then, too.

Mr. Speaker, today, in spite of just as vicious a recession,

we're doing better.

But I would like just again to say: how did that Socred

government respond to the people out of work then? How did they

respond? "Jobless Medical Aid Cut." They cut the people on

unemployment insurance and welfare off medical aid because they

felt, I suppose, that that might drive them back to work where

there were no jobs.

AN HON. MEMBER: Or kill them.

HON. MR. COCKE: Or kill them. Now, Mr. Speaker, that's the

social orientation of that group over there who so desperately

want to claw their way back into power in this province at the

expense of all the people in this province. Heaven help us from

them! Heaven protect the people of this province from that

group of pirates!

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Mr. Speaker, I always find

the Minister of Health a very entertaining speaker. He's got a

lot of fire and brimstone when he stands up here to speak. I

rather enjoy him when he rises in his place and attempts to

defend that government over there — that government of broken

promises.

During this debate, this motion, which I stand in my place

to support, many of the back bench got up and suggested that

they had done great things for the municipalities of British

Columbia by reducing the percentage contribution towards the

overall costs of welfare in the province from 15 per cent down

to 10 per cent — great contribution.

In 1972 the estimate on welfare for British Columbia was $138 million; in 1975 it's $516 million.

MR. LEWIS: Welfare?

MR. CHABOT: That's the estimate of your.... Those are your

estimates — $516 million.

HON. MR. LEVI: For welfare?

MR. CHABOT: The municipalities.... Welfare is up

dramatically and you know it. Are you suggesting...? You had a

$103 million overrun which you couldn't even find. You had to

get the Premier of British Columbia to bail you out, to suggest

that it was a clerical error — and you know that.

Welfare will be up a minimum of 20 per cent this year.

Interjections.

[ Page 414 ]

MR. CHABOT: The municipalities are committed to contributing

in their formula of 10 per cent millions of dollars more per

year than they were under the formula of 15 per cent. That's

aid to municipalities, as they've suggested?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, Jimmy!

MR. CHABOT: Certainly not, and if they want to be honest,

they know that they're extracting millions of dollars more from

the municipalities on their formula for welfare than was

extracted in the past.

I was appalled the other day when I heard the Minister of

Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) stand in his place and

deliver the speech on the budget of the management of his

department. In the 12 years that I have been in this

Legislature that is the most pathetic speech I've ever seen

delivered by a Minister of the Crown. In 12 years never have I

seen or heard anything more pathetic than that speech.

The Minister spoke for about 15 minutes, and of those 15

minutes we got seven minutes of one-line jokes. While the

municipalities are at the door, trying to get into the

Premier's office, and the Premier's not there to answer them.

And the Minister of Municipal Affairs — all he can give the

municipalities is a bunch of one-line jokes. That's not good

enough, Mr. Speaker, in a budget that has increased by over $ 1

billion over last year. One-line jokes from the Minister of

Municipal Affairs, and hollow promises from the Premier of this

province!

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): You're the

biggest joke of all!

MR. CHABOT: Well, we've just heard from Mr. Magoo, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I don't think it's proper

parliamentary expression to draw attention to someone's visual

defects, really. If you had good vision, I suppose they

wouldn't call you Mr. Magoo.

MR. CHABOT: My vision's not that good, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, it's obviously not very good in this

expression.

MR. CHABOT: Well, Mr. Speaker, I wish the Minister wouldn't

make his snide remarks across the chamber; and I'll refrain

from doing them, myself.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm certain that you both will behave better in

the future.

MR. CHABOT: There's nothing in this budget to help the municipalities

of British Columbia, Mr. Speaker. This government doesn't realize that inflation,

which has been generated to a great extent by that government over there, is

a reality to the municipalities of this province. They're faced with inflation:

rising costs, material costs, labour costs. Where is the help? There is no help

for the municipalities if the government sees fit to present a budget of $1

billion more with nothing for municipalities but shallow and hollow promises.

We know full well what has happened to some of the promises

of that government over there. During the last election they

promised the people of British Columbia $25 car insurance —

$25-a-year car insurance. We know how hollow that promise was,

Mr. Speaker.

We know how hollow was that broken promise of the government

regarding removing school taxes from the land, where the

Minister is shifting from day to day her position as far as

educational costs are concerned in this province. She suggested

to the taxpayers of British Columbia that the mill rate will

increase dramatically in education, because we're in a time of

recession, she says, and the taxpayers will have to pay more.

And the municipalities have indicated very clearly as well,

because of the lack of help.... They're knocking on the door

of the Premier probably right now for help. Because of the lack

of consideration by this government towards the municipalities

the general mill rate will go up as well. How much more in

taxes can the people of British Columbia tolerate, while this

government increases its expenditures by $1 billion in one

year, with no assistance for the municipalities?

The municipalities want to know what kind of assistance

you're going to give them. In fact, they've written a letter to

the Premier asking for a guarantee or an assurance that $20

million will be made available to them this year so that they

can set their mill rates accordingly.

I hope that the Premier will announce today this assurance

to the municipalities, so that they won't have to tax the

people exorbitantly this year. It's not good enough to give us

the promise that there'll be aid through sharing of increased

taxation on the export of natural gas. This natural gas export,

Mr. Speaker, is on a sliding scale, and that sliding scale is

downwards. Downwards! Certainly the municipalities won't buy

this kind of a downward-sliding scale.

In 1973 we exported 267 billion cubic feet of natural gas.

In 1974 it was down to 239 billion cubic feet. We don't know

what the figure will be for 1975. But the Minister of Economic

Development (Hon. Mr. Lauk) states that natural gas production

in November was down by 7.5 per cent. How much more will the

export of natural gas be down in 1975? How much more will it be

down in 1976 — 1977? Is the government attempting to tie the

municipalities of British Columbia on the downward-sliding

scale of

[ Page 415 ]

assistance? It appears that way. I hope the Premier will

reply in the affirmative to the municipalities. Give them an

assurance, not hollow promises. Give them an assurance that $20

million will be available to them this year.

Certainly a budget of this size, over $3 billion, should be

enough money to help the municipalities this year. They are not

asking for a great fortune of the budget; they are asking for

$20 million. That isn't much out of a budget of $3.2 billion.

Certainly, I think the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett)

has a responsibility to tell them, and to tell them now, that

they have an assurance of this assistance. But it is not

reflected in this budget which we are debating. This kind of

assistance is not there. There's a promise of maybe sometime in

the future, without a specific amount being earmarked.

The Premier has labelled the budget a "job-security budget."

Well, it appears it will be a job-security budget because the

increase in taxes that he is putting on the backs of the

taxpayers of this province will force them to stay on the job.

Income taxes are increasing dramatically this year and all

other taxes are practically going up as well. Oh, there is a

fantastic increase. Personal income tax is being increased

dramatically.

Interjection.

MR. CHABOT: Certainly the percentage is the same, but the

inflation which you have helped create is going to take more

taxes out of the back pockets of the workers in this

province.

HON. MR. BARRETT: More people are working.

MR. CHABOT: The government has said in its budget address

that it is going to look after the needs of the workers; there

are going to be more jobs in British Columbia. They

specifically stated that there is going to be $70 million

earmarked for the production of jobs in British Columbia. How

many jobs will this kind of money create? Based on an average

of $700 per month per worker, they would only be able to create

enough jobs to look after one-third of the 102,000 people who

are unemployed at this time in the province for a period of 3

months. That's all.

This government has the audacity, Mr. Speaker, they suggest

that this is a job-security budget. For three months they will

be in a position to assist one-third of the 102,000 people

seeking employment in British Columbia. Do you really believe

that is a job-security budget? Certainly not. You know it, Mr.

Speaker.

It can't possibly be because it doesn't look after the needs

of the working people of this province.

This government has a responsibility to set the economic climate so that investment

can come to British Columbia — job-creating investment. They have absolutely

destroyed the kind of confidence that is necessary for people to invest in job-producing

industries in this province so that investment dollars are moving out of this

province to other areas in United States and other provinces of this country

as well. A promise of $70 million at a later date is not good enough. What we

need is action now on behalf of those 102,000 people who are unemployed.

What do we have from the Minister of Economic Development

(Hon. Mr. Lauk), that great man of vision? We look at his

budget and we find that his budget has been slashed in half.

Last year's revised estimates: $10.8 million. There has been a

reduction of $5.8 million in his budget. I thought that

department over there was going to encourage the establishment

of secondary industry in British Columbia. Mr. Speaker, I

suggest to you that that department is a do-nothing department

led by a do-nothing Minister with no vision. No wonder we do

not have any jobs in this province.

No wonder unemployment is growing with the kind of policies

we see from that government in the mining field. Five thousand

miners have lost their jobs in the mines of British Columbia

because of the policies — not entirely but to a great extent —

of that government. A reduction, of course, in mineral prices

has assisted.

I want to be fair, Mr. Speaker, and I am always fair when I

comment on these matters. Yet the policies of that government

have denied the rights of workers in this province to be

employed in the mining industry. We have 15 major ore bodies in

British Columbia ready to be developed and constructed on which

would create 6,000 direct jobs in this province and 46,000

indirect jobs as well in ancillary industries.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where? Where?

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

them.

MR. CHABOT: I'll name one — Afton. What's happening? Nothing

is happening while unemployment is 102,000 in British Columbia

today.

We could be doing something in the mining field. We could

create enough jobs to look after half of the unemployed in this

province. Yet this government establishes punitive tax measures

which destroy the confidence of the investors in the mining

industry of this province. What they are in fact doing by

destroying investment confidence in this province, Mr. Speaker,

is denying the right of working people to enjoy employment in

the mining industry. That's what they're doing. And they talk

about being a government for the people. They're a government

against the people because they deny them the opportunity of

working.

[ Page 416 ]

We've heard a little bit about housing. We've heard a lot

about housing. Anyone who follows the programme of this

government in the field of housing knows full well that

Dunhill, that fiasco which they paid twice too much for, hasn't

built one home that is presently being occupied in this

province. Not one home. Every home they purchased, Mr. Speaker,

they've bought from developers, those terrible developers who

are hated by that government over there. Those developers have

made a lot of money off that government, yet Dunhill hasn't

created one housing unit that is presently occupied.

MR. McCLELLAND: No jobs either.

MR. CHABOT: No jobs either. Yet the Minister talks in his

fancy, colourful brochures with all the colour pictures and the

picture of the Minister, about housing for people. Oh, they're

doing a great programme of advertising, Mr. Speaker, but that

isn't generating many housing units in this province, not very

many. We constantly get these press releases, the housing news,

new projects being opened, new projects being bought from

developers in British Columbia. There are announcements in

various ridings. I haven't found one with an opposition Member

being mentioned, but you go from riding to riding. Here's one

that says: "The Department of Housing has purchased the Casa

Loma apartments at 6077 Kingsway, Burnaby, for senior citizens'

housing for $3.177 million." Well, that figure has been revised

after a little bit of investigation by the opposition. That has

been revised very dramatically by about 11 per cent, Mr. Member

for Kamloops (Mr. G.H. Anderson): $350,000 more, Mr. Member.

Shocking, shocking! Under the proposal call programme.

MR. PHILLIPS: With all those PR men, they can't even get

their press releases straight. With all those PR men, all those

great guys in the PR department, all their hacks, they still

can't get your releases....

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, this one was announced by the

Speaker of the Legislature. Casa Loma was announced by the

Speaker of the Legislature. Well, the least you could do, Mr.

Speaker, is ask the Department of Housing not to incriminate

you further with their press releases. Certainly they should

have announced it being opened. The announcement was on

February 13, and it was announced Thursday. But really, Mr.

Speaker, I think you should send a directive to the Department

of Housing so that when they make announcements in the future,

they don't involve the Speaker of the Legislature; they involve

only the MLA from Burnaby-Edmonds (Hon. Mr. Dowding).

We find that this is another one that has been constructed by some developers,

and I get these quite frequently. Developers are making a lot of money off this,

government over here. It makes it difficult for this government to fulfil its

pledge which it makes in these colourful brochures which they mail around the

province.

In one it says: "The goal of this government is to provide

access to adequate and reasonably priced housing." Many of

these projects, Mr. Speaker, are very costly and are beyond the

means of the working people of this province. There's one here

that I just did some quick calculations on. This one was

townhouses that were purchased under proposal call programme

from Granger Industries Development for 21 townhouses. This one

was a joint announcement. It wasn't a Member of the opposition

who was involved in the joint announcement; it was the Member

for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown), the favourite daughter whom

the Premier says he won't support in the leadership bid.

I find in the announcement of the purchase of these 21

units, seven of them are going to cost a total of $325,000,

which makes these worth approximately $50,000 apiece. I don't

really believe that a working man can possibly afford to move

into one of those townhouses. Yet they're supposed to be

reasonably priced housing for people. At $50,000 I just can't

visualize how anyone who earns a working wage in this province

can afford this type of housing. If you figure it at the

current interest rate of not less than 10 per cent, just

interest alone on that amount is $5,000 per year. When one

compares the Meadowbrook lease structure, one has to conclude

that the minimum annual lease on the land which the townhouse

sits on will be about $1,200.

So before that individual starts paying anything on the

principal, he will have paid the cost, a minimum of $6,200 per

year. That is over $500 per month. How can a working man ever

afford the kind of housing which the government says is going

to be reasonably priced? Even if the government brings in some

kind of financial structure and reduces the interest rate to 7

per cent, it is still beyond the financial ability of working

people to afford these so-called reasonably priced housing

units being bought by developers and put on stream by the

Housing department.

This budget does nothing for housing. This budget does very

little for the working people of this province.

The Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea) was talking about

what this budget does, saying that it is a resource-oriented

budget, that the tax dollars come from the resources of this

province. Let me tell you what has happened to the resource

taxes in this province in this budget. The anticipated revenue

from forestry in this budget is down $125 million. Is that a

resource-oriented budget, Mr. Speaker? Mining taxes are down by

$6 million. There is a loss from resources

[ Page 417 ]

in the forthcoming year of $131 million, and the Minister of

Highways has the audacity to suggest that this is a resource

revenue budget. Certainly it is not a resource revenue

budget.

I will tell you where the major portion to make up this

budget comes from. From people! Property taxes, $23 million.

Sales tax, $480 million. Personal income tax — the biggest item

in government — $655 million. Gasoline tax (get out of your

Cadillacs and ride Hydro, the Premier says), $179 million — approximately $50 million more anticipated by the government

in gasoline taxes. Hotel/motel taxes, $8 million. They are

going to drive people to drink, I think, Mr. Speaker, because

they are anticipating a fantastic growth in the profits from

liquor, which have reached $155 million. Cigarette taxes from

people, $23 million.

Approximately half of the budget which we are talking about,

over $1.5 billion, is from people — not from those terrible

multinational corporations, just from little people, just from

little working people in this province. They say that it is a

resource revenue budget. It is a tax-the-people budget — that's

what it is!

They seem to believe as well that bigness is goodness.

"Throw it around, we will be good guys."

HON. MR. BARRETT: You should be on a diet.

MR. CHABOT: Certainly that is not true, Mr. Speaker. And you

should be too, Mr. Premier, on a diet. You know that. Your

Minister of Highways should be on a diet as well.

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): The Minister of

Highways is going to put you on one.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, this budget does nothing to help

local government. This budget gives the minimal amount of

assistance to those people who are seeking employment in the

province. This budget indicates very clearly to me as well...

HON. MR. BARRETT: Where is your leader?

MR. CHABOT: ...that housing is in a chaos in this province!

Absolute chaos! It's being handled by a Minister who doesn't

understand his responsibilities in the field of housing.

No, Mr. Speaker, this is a very timely motion that is being put by the official

opposition. Now that I've said a few words in this chamber and have enlightened

that back bench back there which appeared to be misled by that cabinet over

there, I hope that after I have given them those facts and figures on the things

this budget has failed to do they will search their souls and search their consciences

and support what is a very timely and a very necessary amendment.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): I certainly have no hesitation in

standing in opposition to this amendment. I think that after

surveying the approach taken by the opposition, it is very

clear to see that most people in this province still don't know

who the Leader of the Opposition is.

HON. MR. BARRETT: What is his name?

MR, LEWIS: I have been trying to figure this out for some

time. Some people said it was the Member for South Okanagan

(Mr. Bennett); some said it was the Member for Langley (Mr.

McClelland). But after careful consideration by myself, I have

come to the conclusion that the leader of this party is still

big daddy and Garner Ted Armstrong. (Laughter.) I would say

that Garner Ted Armstrong has done an excellent job with that

party. He has a very fine group of protegés at that end of the

House.

They stand up and they have enough gall to condemn the

Minister of Housing, a new Minister who set up a major

programme in housing, when they had nothing whatsoever in

housing to offer this province at all.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Oh, he hasn't built a house.

MR. LEWIS: He has built a house, my friend. He had

tremendous accomplishments last year, and this year's budget is

$90 million, compared to zilch by that party — 2,000 rental

units and cooperative units, 15,000 units in the planning and

construction stage. That compares very well with 20 years of

neglect by your party.

It is amazing just to see how an opposition can work. If

they're concerned about housing....

HON. MR. BARRETT: I've never seen them work.

MR. LEWIS: No, I haven't either.

If they are concerned about unemployment in this province,

why not work with the government to try to see that better

things happen, instead of being a wrecking crew?

MR. CHABOT: That's what this amendment is about.

MR. LEWIS: They talk about municipal governments and how

they have been treated in this province. You know, they have

very, very short memories. Can you read that heading? "Bennett

Slaps Down Crying Civic Heads" Slaps them down! He said: "It is

only 92 per cent crocodile tears." Have you heard this

government talking that way? No way,

[ Page 418 ]

my friend. But I think one Member in this House is going to

start talking that way, because I can see where many municipal

leaders in this province aren't concerned either with what

happens to the people they represent.

We have a very fine Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr.

Lorimer) in this House, and the only fault I can find in that

Minister is that he is far too nice.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's right!

MR. LEWIS: I'm not that same type of a person, so I'm going

to condemn a few people. You know, we have people in this

province leading some of the municipal governments that aren't

there for the betterment of the people. They are politically

motivated.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. LEWIS: They are political opportunists. I believe that

some of them that are opportunists went to join that party; and

they deserve them.

MR. McCLELLAND: Name names!

MR. LEWIS: He says: "Name names." I'm not going to hesitate

in naming names, There was a mayor in Kelowna where the Member for South

Okanagan (Mr. Bennett) comes from. His name is Mayor Bennett.

He went on a real campaign against this government. He wasn't

working for the South Okanagan government. He wasn't working

for the South Okanagan area. He was working against this

government regardless of the cost. What happened to him? In the

last election he went down.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, oh!

MR. LEWIS: We have a mayor in Surrey, Mayor Vander Zalm. You

just tell me what interest he has in regard to the people. He's

politically motivated. He's not working for the people in that

area.

MRS. JORDAN: You are unbelievable!

MR. LEWIS: We can go up to the Prince Rupert area where we

have a fine mayor there, Mayor Lester, and his biggest problem

is that he's been so used to fighting the Socreds to try to get

something — being negative — that he just can't get over it. I

don't know if he is politically motivated, but he isn't working

for the better things in that riding.

MR. FRASER: He's going to defeat Mr. Pothole.

MR. LEWIS: I'll tell you one thing: good things are happening in that

riding despite that mayor. The MLA for that area is still seeing that good things

happen in that riding.

But you know, there is good management in this province and

there are good councils in this province, and mayors who are

concerned about the people they represent and concerned about

British Columbia. Maybe I'll read you a little bit about the

mayor from Salmon Arm. Do you know that that municipality has

the third-highest mill rate in this province, through 20 years

of neglect by that party at the far end of the House?

This is what the mayor says:

"The Sewerage Facilities Assistance Act, introduced by the

British Columbia government last week, amounts to a great big

birthday present for both the District of Salmon Arm and every

property owner individually. It will make it financially

possible for this community to proceed with the plans for high

quality sewage treatment systems and, at the same time, will

reduce costs to every taxpayer by a substantial amount."

HON. MR. BARRETT: Hear, hear!

MR. LEWIS:

"Indications are that the new Act will mean that some $130

per year savings to the average property owner in Salmon Arm.

(Is that not help?) District officials are jubilant about the

announcement, not only because it makes it possible to proceed

full bore with the local plan, but because Salmon Arm officials

were, to some degree, architects of the proposal which the

Minister brought forth. There appears little doubt the

legislation was based upon and developed from suggestions made

by the local officials."

Now there is a good indication of what can happen. Those

people came down to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and

presented him with a plan that they felt could work. Now that

plan may not have triggered the actions of the Minister, but I

would say that it had a lot to do with it.

Under the terms of the new legislation the provincial

government will pay 75 per cent of the debt cost, principal and

interest, for both plants and main lines, in excess of what can

be raised by the municipalities through a three-mill tax

levy.

I'll just carry on here and miss some of this, because maybe

it covers what's in the legislation.

Interjections.

MR. LEWIS: No, no. I can read it all if you like, but I

don't want to put you to sleep. Anyway, he goes on to say here

that the average cost to the Salmon Arm homeowner then will be

about $115 per

[ Page 419 ]

year. "Without the new legislation the cost would have been

a total of $245 per unit, hooked up to that sewage line." I'd

like to read a little bit more here about some of the amazing

things that the mayor has to say about us. He says he told the

Observer;

"I'm very happy to see the government of British Columbia

giving so much great help to municipalities, especially

municipalities having low assessments. Without this help it

would have been practically impossible for them to implement

this high-standard treatment plant." Now I'll tell you one

thing: I'm sure that that mayor has never supported me

politically, but he's working for the good of that community

and the good of B.C.

You know, there are many, many more good articles that I

could read to the House here. I just don't want the opposition

to get feeling too blue.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Don't be too hard on them.

MR. LEWIS: Here's another little statement by the mayor.

"In his talks with Williams, as with other Ministers, Mayor

Budziak said he was accompanied and assisted every step of the

way by Shuswap MLA Don Lewis, who is really working hard for

the area."

That's the type of cooperation that can exist in this

province if we work together. But if we have negative municipal

leaders that are politically motivated, that are working for

their own interests — and trying to save this great province

from socialism — we're not going to get anywhere.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Hear, hear! Vander Zalm doesn't even

cooperate with his own party.

MR. LEWIS: I could go on and read many, many more articles

to you, but I think I'll photostat them and send them to you,

because some of them really heap praise upon this government

for the cooperation they've received since we've been elected.

Yesterday I had the mayor and council from Spallumcheen

municipality. You know, that's a small municipality that had

the gears put to it for many years by the past government. That

municipality is very happy with the cooperation they're

receiving from this government.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, you drove him out of the House.

MR. LEWIS: I threw out a dare to the opposition and I threw out a dare

to the press to phone the mayor of Salmon Arm, to phone the mayor of Spallumcheen,

and ask them what kind of cooperation they've received from this government

and what sort of assistance they've received from this government since being

elected. I have no hesitation in standing in this House and opposing the amendment

put forward by that negative opposition. Thank you.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): I sometimes

wonder, Mr. Speaker, if you shouldn't reconsider the orders of

the day in this House, and perhaps we should have prayers about

3:30 in the afternoon. Then some of the words of the

distinguished gentlemen who come to lead us in prayer might

have some effect.

I was interested in the speech of the Member for Shuswap. I

thought he had well researched it until he got to the point

where it was obvious that he was reading his own press

clippings; and that spoiled the effect. I was a little bit

disturbed, however, with the Member for Shuswap. I've always

had a great respect for him. He's a man of the soil, and I

thought he had always shown in this House a willingness to deal

fairly with all the issues. He seems, however, to have become a

stab-in-the-back bencher, and I think it's unfortunate to see a

man descend to that kind of criticism of municipal officials

who are elected in their municipalities.

MR. LEWIS: Oh, shame! That's a terrible thing to say.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: If the Member is critical of the

democratic process, so far as municipal government is

concerned, I wish he would say so. The debates we have had from

government Members with respect to this particular motion have

indicated clearly that they are so convinced as to the

correctness of the budget that they're not prepared to open

their eyes and see what is happening to other levels of

government in this province.

Yes, it is a wonderful budget. We've gone up by $1.1 billion

in the amount of money that the government will extract from

the people by way of taxes and other revenue sources, and which

they propose to spend. But implicit in this particular

amendment is the treatment that this government has afforded to

municipalities in this year of apparent government bounty.

There's no question that the sewage treatment assistance

legislation introduced by this government is light years ahead

of what we had in the previous administration. There's nobody

on any side of the House, in comparing the two, who would not

agree with that statement.

But in a year when we are increasing our expenditures by

something like 48 per cent, surely it is the responsibility of

the government to consider the plight of municipalities and to

give them something more than the vague promise of some

[ Page 420 ]

financial assistance if, as and when this government is

successful in concluding negotiations with the national

government with regard to the increase in the price of some of

our energy resources which we will sell outside the boundaries

of this country.

That's the issue we really should be considering, and if the

Members on all sides of this House.... If the Member for

Shuswap (Mr. Lewis) is really and truly concerned with the

future of British Columbia, as we all must be, then surely he

must see that for his own local municipality, the other

municipalities in his constituency — they need assistance in

order to meet their obligations. They assume these obligations

willingly. They do the best job they can at the local level.

They recognize that they must balance their expenditures with

the limited revenue source that they have, namely the property

tax, and they would like to feel that the provincial government

respects the role they have to play in this province and is

prepared to treat them with some kind of equity. But this

government is not, in a year, as I say, with increases in

revenues and expenditures in the neighbourhood of 48 per cent

over the budget of a year ago.

It came as a shock during the earlier debates to hear from

the Minister of Municipal Affairs on this matter. He didn't

offer any assistance to the municipalities. Instead he

threatened them. He threatened them with the limitation of the

authority they have had in connection with the zoning that

exists within their municipalities, and with their building

bylaws. Yet the Minister, I know, recognizes that the reason

municipalities have been so difficult with their zoning, the

reason they have been so difficult with their building bylaws,

is in an attempt to enhance the very limited revenue base which

they have — namely, real property taxation. That's why they've

been jealously guarding the rights of zoning and the building

restrictions that are applied in their particular

municipality.

If this government would treat these municipalities more

open-handedly, then they would be encouraging the

municipalities to withdraw from some of the rigid positions

which we have all recognized and which we recognize must be

changed if there is to be some advance in growing

municipalities. But the government is not offering them this

open-handedness, is not being fair with the municipalities in

this respect. It is a cruel hoax, in fact, that the budget

contains the reference that for the first time the

municipalities will be allowed to participate in the resource

revenues which this province receives. It's a cruel hoax

because we all recognize, and the Premier and Minister of

Finance has said in this province, that the export of our

energy resources is a diminishing source of revenue.

The government has embarked on a programme to reduce the amount of gas which

will be exported from the province, and we all must applaud that. The only increase

in price that is to occur is with respect to the exported resource. Therefore,

if we have a diminishing amount to be exported, and if the municipalities' share

is only to come from that source, then he is offering, at best, a share in a

revenue source which he himself indicates is to diminish over the years.

[Mr. Dent in the chair]

Aside from the fact that it's the wrong use of the revenue resource, it is

a cruel hoax, as I say, with respect to the municipalities.

If we're going to encourage the support of people on all

sides of this House to do what is best for British Columbia,

then the government must also undertake measures which will

encourage the municipal governments to do what is best for

British Columbia. In this budget the government is not giving

that encouragement, is not offering the municipalities the

incentives with which they can join, one with another and with

the Government of British Columbia, in improving the lot of all

of our citizens. That's what this amendment is all about.

The Member for Shuswap commented about mayors of

municipalities who are being political. What a shocking thing

for anyone to say in this particular chamber. Are there any

politicians in this chamber? Is there anyone who is not a

politician in this chamber? Does the Member for Shuswap

criticize politicians? Or does he just criticize politicians at

the municipal level who happen to disagree with his particular

philosophical position? That's not in the best interests of

British Columbia.

I want to go into another aspect of this amendment, the

subject of housing. It too is connected with this whole problem

of municipal finance and the sharing of benefits between the

province and the municipalities. Municipalities have got to

have help in order to provide the roads, the sewers, the

schools and recreation centres, police and fire services; all

the things that all of the citizens in this province would like

to have in each of their local areas. And that's connected with

housing.

Unless the provincial government is going to enable the

municipalities to provide some relief from the costs of these

various services, then the costs must be placed on the land.

The cost of the land goes up; the cost of housing goes up. The

individuals and the young citizens in our province say: "We

cannot afford to buy a lot. We cannot afford to incur the

mortgage expense to build a home even if we could acquire a

lot." There is no housing.

These two problems are intimately linked. Surely the Members

on the government side can understand this. Surely they should

be saying to their Minister of Finance and to the Members of

their cabinet: "Let's

[ Page 421 ]

do something about this in this year of apparent bounty so

far as provincial revenues are concerned."

If we turn off the ability of private individuals and those

in the private sector to beat this housing problem, then surely

the whole burden of housing is going to fall directly on the

shoulders of the Minister of Housing. Dunhill will become a

bigger and bigger corporation with larger and larger

responsibilities, and we will have to concern ourselves with

how well that corporation is able to discharge those

responsibilities.

The Hon. Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) said that

Dunhill has not built one house that is occupied in this

province. It cost the people of this province a lot of money to

buy the Dunhill Corp. a year or so ago. How much money was

it?

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Six million dollars.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: We paid $6 million of the people's money

for Dunhill Development Corp. and the company has not yet built

one house which is occupied in the Province of British

Columbia. We've lots on the planning board and so on. Lots of

developments have been purchased.

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

build duplexes.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: They have been acquiring from the private

sector existing property developments. That doesn't increase

the supply at all.

Let's take Casa Loma for example. Casa Loma was already

being built. The fact that the government has come along and

entered into a contract to buy it for $3.177 million hasn't

increased the supply of housing. The complex was still there;

it was there before.

HON. MR. LEA: Who is going to use it?

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Why didn't the government say to Casa

Loma: "Fine, you've gone ahead and built that complex. Those

units are there. We'll take $3.177 million and build another

one across the street "? Then you would double the number of

housing units there are available in that particular

community.

Interjection.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Not if you are trying to corner the

market.

The First Member for Victoria (Mr. Morrison) suggests that the government is

trying to corner the market. I hope that is all the government is trying to

do. I am desperately concerned that what is happening with the government is

that, in an attempt to improve its image — which is a political move — it is

entering into agreements in which it should not be involved. I think it is being

entrapped in agreements that it shouldn't even be approaching. I think that

the Casa Loma agreement is one such agreement.

The Hon. Minister of Housing tabled in this House yesterday

the purchase agreement which the Government of British Columbia

has entered into with Casa Loma Motel Ltd. on January 14, 1975.

It is clear from this agreement that the Government of British

Columbia has taken a mortgage from Casa Loma Motel Ltd. and has

advanced $565,000 illegally; it has spent money outside the

terms of the agreement.

The key clause in this agreement is that it is inoperative

unless and until the municipality of Burnaby confirms in

writing to the government or to Dunhill Development Corp. that

it approves in principle the rezoning of that property. The

municipality of Burnaby has not approved in principle the

rezoning; it has not confirmed such approval in writing to

Dunhill or to the government. Obviously, it could not.

As a consequence, there is a clause in this agreement saying

that this agreement is void and of no effect whatsoever. Yet

the Government of British Columbia, through the Minister of

Housing, has paid $565,000 of the people's money. It holds a

mortgage, Mr. Speaker, which I suggest that Casa Loma Motel

Ltd. could call upon the government to remove because there are

mortgages placed on the property under terms of an agreement

which is void and of no force and effect whatsoever. As a

result of the haste in which this government has moved into

this transaction, the government is involved in an illegal

transaction, as its own agreement shows. It hasn't produced one

new housing unit in the course of this exercise.

Another thing is quite clear, Mr. Speaker. The $565,000

which has been paid by the government to Casa Loma Motel Ltd.

was used by Casa Loma Motel Ltd. to pay off a mortgage

apparently held by a company controlled by the principals of

Casa Loma and a mortgage of that other company in favour of the

Toronto-Dominion Bank. The $565,000 that the government has

paid is now beyond the reach of the government and the

government can't get it back.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): It's invested in another

mortgage.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Yes, there's another mortgage ahead of

it. The government is now in the position where, under an

illegal agreement, it has a mortgage which is illegally

registered against the property. The very best it can do, if it

can clarify this situation and have a confirming and ratifying

agreement with Casa Loma Motel Ltd., is to foreclose

[ Page 422 ]

on its mortgage. If it forecloses on its mortgage, it will

have to pay $3.177 million for this property, plus it will have

to assume all of the additional costs that may be incurred in

making certain that they get the complex completed in the way

which the agreement calls for it to be completed.

We know that the complex does not measure up to the

requirements of Central Mortgage and Housing Corp. The

electrical installation is unsafe according to Central Mortgage

and Housing Corp. requirements. The fire protection in the

building is unsafe, according to the requirements of Central

Mortgage and Housing Corp. The agreement calls for Casa Loma

Motel Ltd. to rectify those matters. Mr. Speaker, the agreement

is void. Therefore, in recouping itself from this mess, the

Government of British Columbia is going to have to pay for the

cost of bringing the complex to the standards required by CMHC,

or it won't get any money from CMHC.

Mr. Speaker, this is the kind of activity that we have had

from the Department of Housing. Dunhill has not constructed one

house occupied in this province. They may have lots of plans,

and they may have entered into all kinds of agreements, such as

Casa Loma, but this is not increasing the housing supply.

Regardless of the amount of money that may be in the budget,

there is not in this budget the incentives that are required in

order to ensure that the private sector, that the private

individuals in British Columbia will take the steps to provide

themselves with the housing they require. Part of the problem

is the inability of the municipalities to perform their role,

and part of that problem is the refusal of this government to

treat them fairly with regard to the sharing of revenue. That's

what this amendment to this motion is all about. That's what

it's all about. It's all about what is required by the people

of British Columbia, Mr. Member for Kamloops (Mr. G.H.

Anderson).

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: We know what it's all about.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: The people in your constituency. That's

what it's all about. It may be a political matter to the Member

for Kamloops, Mr. Speaker, but it is not a political matter to

me. It is a matter of what is right for the people of British

Columbia.

I can never understand why this government, with the great support that it

has had and it presently enjoys, is not prepared to be honest with the people

of British Columbia, to be honest with the municipalities and tell them what

we are able to do, and to go ahead and do it. By supporting this motion, the

Members on the government side would be saying to their Minister of Finance:

"We want you to do what is right for the people and right for the municipalities."

MR. C. S. GABELMANN (North Vancouver–Seymour): Mr. Speaker,

I hadn't intended to participate in this debate....

MR. CHABOT: However, the Premier told you to.

MR. GABELMANN: As a matter of fact, he didn't.

The reason I want to participate in the debate this

afternoon is because I think too many things are being said

this afternoon that shouldn't go unrefuted, particularly in

relation to the dealings with the municipalities that we have

had as they relate not only to our financial participation but

to our attempts to improve the housing situation in this

province.

I want to talk briefly about two things this afternoon. One

is the housing situation in my particular constituency and what

we are trying to do as a provincial government to improve it,

and secondly I want to talk about what the former government

was doing in previous years about its aid to

municipalities.

First of all, as all the Members of this House know, in

North Vancouver we have about 6,000 acres east of the Seymour

River which are available for development. The community has

planned for development in that area. The people who live there

now, only 13,000 of them, are very broad-minded about it, in my

view, and they have talked about the need for housing in that

area, even though they would be quite happy to have it sit in a

pristine state as it is now. They've agreed to participate;

they've even devised their own plan for how to organize that

area into a viable and livable community.

The provincial government, through other departments as

well, but particularly through the Department of Housing and

through Dunhill Development, has been attempting to persuade

the municipality, the District of North Vancouver, to speed up

its plans for development of that particular area. For at least

10 years now, the District of North Vancouver has been drawing

up one plan after another. We have had more plans in the

District of North Vancouver as to what to do with those

particular 6,000 acres than you can shake a stick at. It has

been over planned and underdeveloped.

What happens when Dunhill, which happens in this case to own

a small chunk of land in this area — possibly you could put 130

homes on that chunk of land — goes into the District of North

Vancouver and says: "We want to put homes on this land. Let's

get moving "? The district says: "Well, we can't. We don't have

a plan yet for that area. We'll see what happens." Finally we

get to the stage where just a few weeks ago the district was

prepared to refer it to a

[ Page 423 ]

public hearing. We're making slow progress. The people in

the community are prepared to have that kind of development,

but the municipality has held us up one time after another.

The former government, when it was talking about expanding

in areas, would not allow school boards to plan for elementary

schools prior to the fact of children actually existing in

those areas. For that reason, residents in existing areas that

might be expanded were very reluctant to have expansion because

they knew then that the elementary schools and high schools in

their areas would be overcrowded.

Our Department of Education has said to the school boards:

"You can project enrolments based on very solid data." If it's

very, very definite that the housing is going to go in, then

school boards can go ahead and make their plans. That is

helping to alleviate the problem in terms of the provincial

government's getting over the community resistance to expansion

in that particular area.

Do you know what the hang-up is now? The hang-up is

transportation because the road links, particularly between

that part of the constituency and Highway 1, the small

population now. The residents are saying: "We can't put any

more housing in here because the road links are just not

adequate." That's absolutely true. I live in the area and I

know it to be a fact.

The provincial government, through the Department of

Highways, has indicated that it's prepared to move and to

participate as it must on a 50 per cent sharing of one

particular road length that's required because of the fact of

Mount Seymour Provincial Park being in the area. So we have a

50 per cent responsibility. Do you know what the District of

North Vancouver tells us? They don't have enough money — they

don't have their 50 per cent to participate in the building of

those road links.

So what, then, do the residents of the area say? "We don't

want housing in this area until they get those road links

finished." They're right. I agree with them and I sympathize

with them, but it's the District of North Vancouver, which owns

at least 6,000 acres throughout that municipality, that is

selling lots now between $36,000 and $46,000 apiece — $36,000

to $46,000 each for lots in the District of North Vancouver.

Those are not view lots; those are working-class lots without a

view, at $36,000 to $46,000. They're saying they don't have

enough revenue from that kind of land sale to assist the

provincial government in putting in proper transit and transportation facilities in that area.

That's the problem we're having, Mr. Speaker, with the

development of housing in some areas. It's not the fault of the

Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Nicolson), it's not the fault of

Dunhill Development, it's the fault of the lack of cooperation

from some municipalities.

I wanted to make that point because I think a classic

situation exists in the North Vancouver situation. If that

continues, frankly, I'm going to have to take a position that I

don't want to have to take. That is the position that perhaps

one day the Laws Declaratory Act is going to have to be used

here and there. I suspect that the first place it's going to

have to be used is in my constituency. I know full well that I

won't be very popular for that in my constituency, but I'm

prepared to take that risk on occasion for the goal of better

housing. We may have to do it.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to move to a second area. The

Social Credit opposition in particular has been lambasting us

about our refusal to cooperate with the municipalities. I

think that other Members of our group have adequately described

to the House the number and the variety of programmes that

we are committed to and in fact have underway and which are

reducing the cost to the municipalities. I think that's pretty

clear and I don't need to reiterate that.

What I want to do this afternoon is something that's not

very characteristic for me because I have not been the

mudslinging kind of politician. I'm not the kind of politician

either like the Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis) who enjoys

getting up and flailing away at the opposition — that's not my

style. But occasionally my temper gets the better of me.

Mr. Speaker, I want to read to this House some quotes from

The Vancouver Sun , dated February 5, 1970 — that was a

time when Social Credit was in power. It's by a Sun

staff reporter.

"Union of B.C. Municipalities spokesmen refuted Wednesday

Municipal Affairs Minister Dan Campbell's charge that

municipalities should start putting their houses in order

before coming to the provincial government for help.

"Outside the House, Campbell said: 'I am suggesting that

municipalities will have a stronger case if they put their

houses in order and I am suggesting that their houses are not

in order.' "

Next, Mr. Speaker:

"'Campbell has shown previously that his best defence is

offence,' said UBCM president Hugh Curtis, mayor of

Saanich."

HON. MR. COCKE: Who is that?

MR. GABELMANN: It goes on:

"'This charge is just his annual public chastising of

municipalities in general,' said Mr. Curtis."

Just Dan Campbell's annual chastising of municipalities,

said Hugh Curtis.

"'It is unfair for Campbell to generalize so widely,' said

Curtis. 'Such a rise in cost is cause

[ Page 424 ]

for concern but there could be extenuating circumstances,

such as amalgamation or a badly understaffed

administration.'

"Curtis cited social welfare as a case where administrative

costs have risen without a municipality having any control over

them. He said the cost-sharing ratio changed in 1968, when

Campbell was welfare Minister, from 90 per cent provincial and

10 per cent municipal to 80 per cent provincial and 20 per cent

municipal."

Just to leave the press statement for a moment, Mr. Speaker,

if my memory serves me correctly, that 20 per cent foisted on

the municipalities by that government in those days was dropped

down to 15 per cent just prior to an election campaign. Compare

that kind of strategy with what we did by reducing it down to

10 per cent long before any election campaign. If that isn't

aid to the municipalities from our government, I don't know

what is.

Let me just go on a little bit further. I just want to quote

this at length because I think the House and public should be

reminded of where some Members of that official opposition do

stand — or did stand. I know that particular Member stands in

different places, in different camps, in different years, but

that is where he stands. "I know Saanich is a typical

case because I have checked with other municipalities." That

has some ringing familiarity with some comments made here

earlier this afternoon.

"' In 1966,' Curtis went on, 'our social welfare costs were

$168,000, but in 1969 our share of the costs was $640,000. The

provincial government would probably argue that per capita

grants to municipalities have increased 200 per cent, but the

welfare costs to municipalities have increased 325 per cent.'"

I'm still quoting from the Hon. Member for Saanich and the

Islands.

"'That leaves a 125 per cent cost increase in the social

welfare field alone that municipalities have to make up.'"

I thought the House should be reminded of those comments.

But so as not just to leave the impression that I am picking on

one poor individual, let me quote a little further from this

press story of February 5, 1970.

"It is all right for Campbell to sit in his ivory tower and

criticize municipalities, but I don't think the provincial

government is going out of its way to help them,' said UBCM

vice-president Henry Anderson, mayor of Richmond."

MR. LEWIS: He said that?

MR. GABELMANN: That is what was being said in 1970.

We have heard today and we heard yesterday example after

example of areas where this government has increased its aid to

municipalities starting with the 15 per cent down to 10 per

cent for welfare costs, the sewage assistance programme...the list goes on. In fact, I remember sitting in this chair

last session when the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr.

Lorimer) in fact was able to cite a dozen areas of similar

contribution to municipalities.

The kind of thing we have heard from the official opposition

in this debate is absolutely disgusting because it is so

inaccurate and so intemperate. Mr. Speaker, I think the

amendment should be defeated soundly and we should get on with

the main debate.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): I want to speak only

briefly to this, despite the mound of notes that seems to have

accumulated on this desk. I have been doing just a little bit

of investigation....

MR. LIDEN: That's a switch. You found your own speech.

MR. McGEER: Yes, perhaps it is. I usually do a lot of

investigation with regard to material.

This was perhaps not an unanticipated motion, but one that

came upon the House rather suddenly. It is very clear from the

government benches that they weren't prepared to deal with the

issues that have been raised in this debate.

I want to draw the particular attention of the House to the

Trade Practices Act and mention to you and to the Minister who

is responsible for the administration of this Act

section 2,

which says:

"For the purposes of this Act, a deceptive act or practice includes any oral, written, visual,

descriptive, or other representation, including non-disclosure,

or any conduct having the capability, tendency, or effect of

deceiving or misleading a person."

Then it gives various

subsections under

section 2 until it comes to subsection

2(r):

"The use, in any oral or written representation, of

exaggeration, innuendo, or ambiguity as to a material fact, or

failure to state a material fact, if the representation is

deceptive or misleading."

Mr. Speaker, I've got a copy here of an advertisement placed

by the Premier and Minister of Finance....

This gentleman here, (laughter) depicted on the front page

of The Vancouver Sun , giving a wink about how business

is done — would you buy a used car from this man, Mr.

Speaker?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member relate

his remarks to the amendment?

[ Page 425 ]

MR. McGEER: Well, Mr. Speaker, this document discusses the

municipality's budget. As I understood the amendment — and,

yes, I have a copy of it here — it seems to me that the

amendment deals specifically with revenue-sharing with local

government.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. McGEER: Some of the Members claim that I don't know what

the debate is in the House when I come in here, and I'm proving

that I've got it right in front of me.

We are dealing very specifically with this matter. We're

dealing with the sharing of revenue with municipalities. We're

also dealing with a document that has been placed before the

public of British Columbia with their money which contravenes

the Trade Practices Act, which is signed by the Premier and

Minister of Finance.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I know there has been a tradition of this

kind of thing in British Columbia, an unfortunate tradition. It

had been my hope that with the change of government this sort

of sleazy political manipulation with the public purse would be

abandoned for all time.

No, Mr. Speaker, it's being continued and even accelerated.

There has been a change: we have a Trade Practices Act. This

kind of thing is no longer legal in British Columbia.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member

to confine his remarks to the amendment. There are three points

to the amendment, and I don't think you are talking to

them.

MR. McGEER: I'm going to refer specifically to this

advertisement, to material facts, to state categorically that I

do not believe this advertisement would stand the test of truth

in a court of law.

MR. C. LIDEN (Delta): What has that got to do with the

amendment?

MR. McGEER: For one thing, it's got to do with my vote on

the amendment, Mr. Member, and it should have to do with

yours.

I would like for the Minister to order the director to

investigate this matter and take action if necessary, not

against the government but against the Minister who placed the

advertisement and who was clearly exceeding his public

responsibility in ordering this advertisement.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. McGEER: Failing that, it would be open to any citizen or Member

of this Legislative Assembly to start a court action.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member

....

MR. McGEER: Truth in advertising is to be a way of life in

British Columbia.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, may I read from this advertisement...?

[Deputy Speaker rises.]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have asked the Hon. Member to relate his remarks to

the amendment. In the judgment of this Chair, this has not been done so far.

Now, I'm not saying that you won't in time but I would ask the Hon. Member very

quickly to show the relationship between his remarks and the amendment before

us.

[Deputy Speaker resumes his seat.]

MR. McGEER: I hope I have prepared the ground well, Mr.

Speaker. Let me read from the advertisement about the

municipalities budget:

"In an historic revenue-sharing arrangement between the

municipalities and the province, with respect to revenue from

natural gas exports, one-third of the net revenue produced from

an export price over $1 of our natural gas (taking into

account our federal tax rebate system and other expenses) will

flow to the municipalities in British Columbia."

Now, it would be reasonable to interpret from this

advertisement that there was some kind of an agreement that

would permit us to charge over $1 for our natural gas. No such

agreement exists. Therefore, there is no revenue under this

historic revenue sharing agreement to share with the cities and

municipalities. Clearly false and deceptive.

An example is given:

"...if the new export price of natural gas is set at

$1.50 per mcf, the municipalities would receive roughly an

additional $20 annually...."

and so on. There is no guarantee from anybody that there

will be $ 1.50. Then it goes on to talk about $2. No guarantee

on that either.

What are we doing putting this kind of advertising in a

newspaper before any agreement, any firm agreement, is obtained

from those responsible for setting that price that would allow

the cities and municipalities to calculate what their budget

would be? If the cities and municipalities set their budgets on

the basis of this advertisement, they'd be breaking

[ Page 426 ]

the law, because cities and municipalities are not allowed

to set deficit budgets.

You see, Mr. Speaker, the cities and municipalities of this

province could be fooled by this false and deceptive

advertising into breaking the law, and all because of something

the Premier and Minister of Finance, I presume on his own,

encouraged by the placing of this ad.

You see how he has exceeded his authority as a Minister of

the Crown and how he is vulnerable, in a court of law, to an

action taken by the Ministers or the executive council or, as I

read the Act, any citizen of British Columbia. This Act is

going to have quite a profound influence on the kinds of things

that governments can say before an election or during an

election.

Before going on to other aspects of this infamous document

I'd like to say a word or two about what the cities and

municipalities of this province could reasonably expect if

things go well.

I just returned from Ottawa, and the common talk among

members of the Fourth Estate — they're seldom wrong — was that

the maximum British Columbia could expect in any new contract —

I understand it's corridor talk here in the Legislature coming

from the Ministers of the government themselves — is $1.35 per

mcf. Ministers have been hinting in whispers, in Victoria, the

same sorts of things that the Fourth Estate is saying openly in

Ottawa. I presume it must have some basis in fact; $1.35

tops.

What would that bring in? Well, if the figures, the numbers,

that are quoted in here are not deceptive numbers in

themselves, I calculate that it would be about $14 million a

year. But wait a minute. The year has already started. This

increase couldn't take effect before July 1 at the earliest, so

the best the cities and municipalities would get would be a

partial year. That brings it down to $ 10.5 million. And since

there are 2.5 million people in British Columbia, that works

out to $4 per capita at the most. Big deal! Historic! Historic:

that's what it said here. Four dollars per capita? It's

historic deception. Shame, shame on the government.

Oh, I see the furrowed eyebrows of the Minister of Transport

and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan). When he sat in that

seat, Mr. Speaker, how he stood up and lashed the Social Credit

government for all the phony advertisements they used to place

in the newspapers of British Columbia.

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: You may have to prove that in a court of law,

Mr. Minister. They don't look true to me. They're certainly as

frequent.

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: I must say, Mr. Speaker, since I've been drawn

into another subject, that I didn't appreciate my taxpayer's

money being spent on those ICBC ads. I just wanted it taken off

my insurance.

I tell you this: Manny Dunsky must have been reading Ron

Worley's book. (Laughter.)

Well, let's go on. I don't know that I really have to read

the whole document, Mr. Speaker. It goes on about the fair

taxes, all about the tax rebates, no general increases in

personal income or sales taxes. I read through this six times.

I was hunting for that bit about the increase in gasoline tax.

A nice big advertisement like this with all that room on the

page — not even in the little type. They couldn't squeeze in

the three or four words about the price increase on gasoline

tax.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would ask the Hon. Member to kindly return

to the amendment once again, please.

MR. McGEER: Well, you see, it says here under

section 2(1)

of the Trade Practices Act that the advertisement is

deceptive.

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: Oh, I'll be here tomorrow. With any kind of

opportunity like this, Mr. Speaker, I'd certainly be up

again.

It says here in

section 2(l): "Deceptive act or practice

includes any oral, written" — this is written — "visual, descriptive or other representation including

non-disclosure." I found in my copy of the budget that increase

in gasoline tax, but I hunted through this advertisement paid

for with my money for that important piece of information. It

was non-disclosed, contrary to what the Act I voted for in this

Legislature....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I would point out to the Hon.

Member that the point he's making is, in my judgment, not

relevant to the amendment. I would ask him to return to

consideration of the amendment. There are three points.

MR. McGEER: If I can read the amendment, it says: "It failed

to provide adequate financial provisions for revenue-sharing

with local government."

Mr. Speaker, haven't you been here during my budget debates

when I've called out for sharing of the gasoline tax with the

cities and municipalities? You hadn't remembered that, had you,

Mr. Speaker?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: You're doing fine now. Keep it up.

[ Page

427 ]

MR. McGEER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. But I just want you to

know that had the government shared real revenues, if they had

taken the gasoline tax and put that into a transit system and

shared that with the cities and municipalities, then they'd

have a bird in the hand. Then they would be able to plan their

budgets honestly. Then they wouldn't be sucked into this

sleazy, political law that depends on deceptive advertising for

success and for the day-to-day operation of government.

Mr. Speaker, the budget has been a failure. It has been a

failure in all those measures described in the amendment that's

before us now. That's why I'll be supporting the amendment.

But it's been a failure in another respect, Mr. Speaker.

It's been a failure as a moral document because it has failed

to tell the truth about the true state of expenditures in this

province. Advertisements have been sent around British

Columbia, paid for with the taxpayers' money, that are

deceptive and misleading.

The cruelest hoax of all has been played on the cities and

municipalities of this province who have been led to believe

that they may receive revenues far beyond what the facts of the

case will permit. They cannot plan their budgets on the basis

of statements made in the Premier's speech or in the

advertisement placed in the newspapers by him.

Four dollars per capita. Unless there is a major refutation

of that budget during the year, it's all that the cities and

municipalities can expect. That isn't even catch-up. By the

time the wage agreements are made public and the shock waves

begin to hit all of British Columbia, we're going to find the

cities and municipalities in the worst financial bind they've

ever been in.

To resort to this suggestion is low tactics on the part of

the government, Mr. Speaker, and I condemn them thoroughly.

MR. H. STEVES (Richmond): Well, Mr. Speaker, I've been

amazed here, as I've listened to this debate today, at the

opposition coming from those people over there — the Bennett

home wreckers, I think they should be known as.

Today the home wreckers have been saying two things: on one

side they are criticizing the government, saying that nothing's

happening in housing, and on the other hand, particularly the

Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland), they are making

inflammatory statements that are designed to mislead and to

encourage opposition to developments where they are proposed,

such as the development of Burke Mountain, and I think that is

disgraceful.

They also say that not one house has been constructed by Dunhill Developments.

That came originally, I think, from the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot)

— that Dunhill hasn't built a single house. I thought that was rather an interesting

statement for him to make as well. I wonder what that Member would say if Dunhill

was in the actual construction business competing with free enterprise in building

houses instead of contracting them out. I am wondering if he wouldn't then be

shouting "unfair competition to free enterprise."

I am very happy to hear that Member today getting up and

advocating socialism. Maybe we sho