1972 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 29th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 1972

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 315 ]

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound.

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

would ask the Members to join with me today in welcoming Mayor Sangster

and Alderman Edwards from the Village of Pemberton.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I

would ask the House to join me in welcoming an outstanding citizen from

the Courtenay area, Mrs. Karen Sandford who is the N.D.P. candidate in

the next provincial election.

Introduction of bills.

Orders of the day.

ON THE BUDGET

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

HON. D.R.J. CAMPBELL (Minister of Municipal Affairs): Mr.

Speaker, I'm delighted to join in the welcome to a very good friend of

mine from the great constituency of Comox, and to make one or two

observations about the conduct of business in British Columbia.

Naturally because I am following the illustrious efforts yesterday by

the Leader of the Opposition, Pagliacci at his best — Little theatre at

its worst. Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: That's the trouble with these Italians, they want to horn in everywhere.

Mr. Speaker, the delightful budget by the leader of the Liberal

party — I'll have one or two comments to make about that as you might

expect. But before I do, I wish to have some direct comments concerning

the effort yesterday by the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition.

Naturally, his efforts should come first. I thought that the editor of

the Victoria Colonist, this

morning, must have had a sense of humour in placing on the front page

of the paper side by side the effort by the Leader of the Opposition

and the leader of the Liberal party. The rest of the papers, I'm sure,

will not front page it because, since I've been in this Legislature,

Mr. Speaker, we have never had a display of clowning around such as we

got from the Leader of the Opposition yesterday.

Clowning around, Mr. Speaker, in a fashion which has become

traditional with the Leader, not only in the House, but on the hustings.

I'm quite sure that if you were to examine the office of the Leader

of the Opposition, there must be at least one wardrobe there and that's

a series of costumes. Because the package that the Leader of the

Opposition brings to British Columbia is a whole series of ideas which

in effect add up to this — you catch any bus, sail down the river on

any log, put on any costume, move anti-American or pro-American in one

fell swoop, go from woeful to Waffle in one afternoon, move from the

comments about northern British Columbia in the name of the democratic

tradition, and what these people in Houston are supposed to have done

or not done about forming a municipality, running around the country

saying what an N.D.P. government really means when it says it is a New

Democratic Party — and I'll have more to say about that in reference to

my friend from Vancouver East, if I can call him my friend and I use

the term loosely.

Mr. Speaker, the Leader yesterday, as he has normally done in this

House, got up to tell the story of Houston. That the Minister of

Municipal Affairs had created this municipality without any local

decision whatsoever. That's exactly the speech that he made in Houston.

The report I have here when you were talking to the five people in the

phone booth in Houston — five, I'm giving him the Americanised version

so he can understand exactly what I'm saying. He's been south now so

he's got to have the message.

What happened there? He knows it very well, so he need not try to

kid the people of the Province of British Columbia. That council

unanimously passed the resolution which is on the minute book. I think

he looked at that minute book — and my advice is that he looked at that

minute book — and that resolution is very clear that there was a

unanimous vote of that council to form that municipality on such terms

and conditions as they themselves agreed to.

It was not a vote that was five to four or three to two, it was 100

per cent in favour of that agreement — 100 per cent. Mr. Speaker,

political life in British Columbia comes to an all-time low when a

Member goes on a fact-finding tour in the northern part of British

Columbia, looks at the minute book, knows what the story is, then comes

into this Legislature and makes a story out a phony deal.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw, withdraw.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, not only that, the Premier

made some comments in Vancouver about a Department of Finance official

coming to Vancouver. The Leader of the Opposition read into the record

again in this Legislature that he had been told by reading Hansard that the Department of Finance never had any individual out in the City of Vancouver.

AN HON. MEMBER: It wasn't Hansard , it was a letter from Mr. Benson.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Benson, who was the former Minister of

Finance — thank goodness he isn't any longer. What happened, Mr.

Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition knew full well. The person who

was here examining the books of the Province of British Columbia and

the operation of the budget in the Province of British Columbia, had

nothing to do with the Department of Finance. The Leader of the

Opposition doesn't happen to know the difference, as he indicated

yesterday about credit, he doesn't have any understanding that the Bank

of Canada is a completely separate part of the financial operation of

Canada. Once again, Mr. Speaker, he tried to indicate that the Premier

of this province was making stories up again about the finances of the

Province of British Columbia.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

[ Page 316 ]

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, I made that slip purposely

because yesterday, the Hon. Leader was up in this House talking about

contingent liability again as the N.D.P. have been doing for years and

so have the Liberal party in British Columbia. They have indicated in

no uncertain terms that they're opposed to contingent liability.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, we want to call it a debt.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, they'll have an opportunity

once again as they've had every year, pretty soon to vote on the

question of the P.G.E. and the Hydro. They'll have an opportunity, as

they've done in the past to show whether or not they're for the

expansion of this great railway and the Hydro. They'll have an

opportunity to say to the municipalities of British Columbia: "We want

to wipe out all of the guaranteed debts which the Minister of Finance

has made on behalf of small improvement districts and small

municipalities in British Columbia." They'll have the opportunity to

say whether that's their position or not.

They'll have the opportunity to indicate to the Province of British

Columbia that they cannot take a look at a ledger book and place on one

side of it those guarantees which are made on the part of the people of

the Province of British Columbia to carry out projects which are worth

while in the development of this province and never make one mention,

as they've been doing every since he's been leader and long before he

was leader, that those liabilities, which are guaranteed by the people

of the Province of British Columbia, have asset totals against them

which he never mentioned.

Mr. Speaker, if the Leader of the Opposition is suggesting that we

should abolish the Crown corporation which has done so much in terms of

developing the hydro resources of this province, is the Leader of the

Opposition going to go north as he did? Go once again into towns like

Chetwynd, towns like Fort Nelson, towns like Fort St. John, Mackenzie?

Once again meet one or two of his supporters on the street because he

can't get a meeting up there and tell them in northern British Columbia

that he's opposed to the extension of the P.G.E.? Let the record show,

Mr. Speaker, that the N.D.P. are opposed to the extension of the P.G.E.

In northern British Columbia. The leader is nodding his head.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, again the Leader

of the Opposition called to task members on this side of the House,

because they won't stand up and be counted or that somebody in front of

us is pulling the string — the Premier is pulling the string or that

the Hon. Minister of Rehabilitation (Hon. Mr. Gaglardi) is pulling the

string or holding my hand or somebody else's hand and somebody down

here can't get up in this Legislature and say what they want to say.

Mr. Speaker, that's not what he says when he's out of the country.

That's not what he says when he's in Halifax.

Mr. Speaker, what does he say when he's in Halifax when he puts on

the other costume? He's got lots of costumes in that wardrobe. This is

what he says. In that democratic party over there in Halifax, Mr.

Barrett said the place for the M.L.A.s and M.P.s of all parties to iron

out their differences is in caucus meetings.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: And that the official position of a part

of a government should be supported by its Members in the legislative

votes. He commented that there's a lot of blood on the walls of caucus.

The Leader of the Opposition told the conference that Members who

can't agree with the positions taken by the party should leave the

party.

Mr. Speaker, as long as there's a democratic Social Credit

government in this province any Member on this side of the House can

make his views known in this legislative chamber anytime.

Mr. Speaker, the chameleon goes on the road and then comes into this

Legislature. One day he stands for something, the next day his

ex-leader runs it down. He stands up here and gives the Legislature the

idea that nobody could be more pro-American than the Member for

Coquitlam. Then two days later the Member for Cowichan-Malahat, who is

a far better leader than the Member for Coquitlam, he got up and he

tried to make sure that the other side of the coin would be available

for public consumption too.

Nobody worked harder, Mr. Speaker, at the sham battle between the

B.C. Federation of Labour and Ray Haynes. One minute they're at one

another's throat then Ray Haynes goes to Vancouver-Burrard — and the

Member for Vancouver-Burrard knows this very well — and inches tippytoe

towards the nomination in Vancouver-Burrard. Then the word comes from

the chameleon who is the leader of the party "No, this will give us a

bad image in the country. Draw back, please camouflage our connection

with the labour bosses."

Whatever can be sold one day is one story. The next day is another.

Why, Mr. Speaker, did I suggest to spend some time with the Leader of

the Opposition? Because that's been Socialist tactics in the Province

of British Columbia since the beginning of time.

In favour of motherhood and against sin? No way. Sugar on the arsenic pill is a better description. Sugar on the arsenic pill.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: My friend is going to get an opportunity

in the Royal City to find out how the people of the Royal City feel

about him. We'll be there, he'd better believe it.

HON. P.A. GAGLARDI (Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement): He'll be back selling insurance before long.

HON. MR CAMPBELL: Now I want to say a few words about the comical budget by the leader of the Liberal Party yesterday.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR CAMPBELL: He wasn't clapping so loud yesterday, the

Member for Vancouver–Point Grey. He could hardly maintain the stiff

upper lip himself.

Mr. Speaker, what did we get from the leader of the Liberal Party as an excuse

for a policy for British Columbia yesterday? I'm not going to run through his

entire speech because you can simply add it up very simply. He took basic federal

government responsibilities in railways, in the operation of steamships, in

the operation of airplanes, in the field of old-age pensions and he suggested:

"Why wait for Ottawa?

[ Page 317 ]

Do it right now regardless of the B.N.A. Act, regardless of

jurisdiction, regardless of anything else." Coming from a coastal area

of British Columbia I want to make particular reference to one point

because it illustrates the poverty of the Liberal Party platform for

British Columbia.

There was no difficulty yesterday in trying to see what the Liberal

Party was trying to say to the people of the Province of British

Columbia. They were trying to say, here are all these Ottawa

responsibilities which will never get done — do them here.

And what were they? Well, let's talk about coastal ferries. The

Member for Point Grey, the Liberal leader, wants to build a ferry that

will run from Kelsey Bay up through to Bella Coola and on to the Queen

Charlottes and Prince Rupert. He didn't even know the geography of this

coast, just as his counterparts when they were going to cut out the

federal subsidy for that steamship service didn't know the geography of

the West Coast of Vancouver Island. They still felt that people could

go to certain of those communities by road if you please, as an excuse

for not carrying on with the federal subsidy.

But quite apart from that the Member left out historical ports in

this coast which have enjoyed federal subsidies since the beginning of

the federal government's activity in this area. He left out Alert Bay,

he left out Sointula, he left out Port McNeil, he left out Port Hardy.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, a simple series of excuses

for the lame duck federal government — that's all the Liberal Member's

speech was yesterday. What did he want us to do, Mr. Speaker? If you

please he wanted the provincial government on the backs of the

provincial taxpayer to spend $30 million on air fields — a clear-cut

federal responsibility. On the backs of the B.C. taxpayer.

What did he want us to do, Mr. Speaker? He wanted us to build the

ports in the Province of British Columbia because the federal

government felt that should be unloaded as well on the backs of the

provincial taxpayers.

What did he want to do, Mr. Speaker? We have a federal government

that this government has been in negotiation with for some time about

the P.G.E. and we have been trying for some time to get federal subsidy

for that line. What did he want yesterday? He wanted the provincial

government to subsidise the unit costs for making the freight rates, if

you please, on the C.N.R. which is a federal responsibility through

from Prince George to Prince Rupert. He wanted the provincial taxpayer

to pay the shot for subsidising that federal lot.

Once again the Liberal policy: "Load the taxpayer of the Province of

British Columbia, get on the backs of the taxpayers of the Province of

British Columbia." That's what his speech was all about.

What did he want to do, Mr. Speaker, in regards to income tax? And

that was a real dandy. The federal government has just passed an income

tax bill. I think that's the Liberal Party.

Where was the Member when the Premier of this province went to the

federal-provincial conferences not once but three times, and suggested

that they didn't have to make the mish-mash of an income tax bill such

as they did? The first thing to do he said, was to lower the exemptions

for the poor. To lower the exemptions for the old age pensioners.

AN HON. MEMBER: Increase them.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: Increase them, that's right. Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: And what did the Member do yesterday? He

asked us to take the income tax apart. He asked us to take the income

tax apart. And then what did they say about the old age pensioners? Big

deal. Once again the load on the backs of the taxpayers, the sole

responsibility for old age pensioners' position in the Province of

British Columbia. What's their position as the Liberal Party that has

control of the old age assistance board, has control over all old age

pensions in Canada? What did they say? Forty two cents.

No, Mr. Speaker, when the Member was talking about federal

responsibility in this province — loading the backs of the provincial

taxpayer — he never helped us when we tried to retain that federal

subsidy on those steamships to the middle coast of British Columbia.

He hasn't raised his voice about the atrocious situation on this

coast with respect to air-sea rescue which is being battled through by

a little alderman all alone pretty well, except for the voice I raised

on his behalf, right here in this House.

Mr. Speaker, not one word about the responsibility of the federal

government on jobs that they haven't got done now and should be doing.

What about the job of navigation aids on the coast when we are

concerned about the oil spills off the west coast? What about the Coast

Guard responsibility on this coast?

What about the responsibility of the federal government to establish

air-sea rescue in some of the worst waters anywhere to be found in the

world.

When it comes to the problems of the small boater, where is the idea

of having fast vessels available all of the time for these people who

find themselves in difficulty off the coastal waters of British

Columbia?

Mr. Speaker, there's plenty for the federal government to do — which

is not being done — without him making some suggestions as an apologist

for the federal government, simply a question of loading the provincial

government with jobs that Ottawa should be doing. That's all he did

yesterday.

But, Mr. Speaker, I'll leave that. The Liberal Leader said something

else which is typical of the Liberal Party's tradition in this

Legislature and has been ever since. I think it's a disgrace even to

mention the idea that it implies.

Because what was the suggestion? He was asking the people of the

Province of British Columbia to send a Liberal group to Ottawa so they

could negotiate these arrangements for the port, for the P.G.E. Mr.

Speaker, any time we have a Canada where a provincial premier, and a

provincial legislature cannot make known views on behalf of the people

of this province without the implication that we have to bend the

political knee to a Liberal machine then we haven't got a Canada at all.

Mr. Speaker, if there ever was a statement that is a disgrace to the

parliamentary process in this province that statement yesterday by the

Leader of the Liberal Party has got to be number one. Mr. Speaker, time

after time this government has not only gone with clear-cut

propositions to the federal government, but has invited the active

support of B.C. Members of Parliament whose job it is. This government

has never once rejected the help that it could receive from a properly

elected M.P. from the Province of British Columbia.

[ Page 318 ]

All we ask is that they got on with the job and do just that. And

for those Members to come in here in this Legislature and lecture this

government and suggest to the people of the Province of British

Columbia that only the Liberals know how to do something — and that's

through patronage — I want no part of that kind of an arrangement at

all. Mr. Speaker, if anybody knows anything about patronage it's the

Liberal pork-barrel politicians who are in Ottawa at the present time.

I'm going to tell the people of the Province of British Columbia that

the Liberals support "Kitten Clubs" in Prince Edward Island.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to move along to some comments about the

budget. I'm pleased to see the attention that this budget has given to

two areas in the government service. Namely, the emphasis on

desirability of keeping senior citizens in their own homes. Last year

through the department of housing 66⅔ per cent of all the money

available in Canada was used by the Province of British Columbia to

build tenants' housing for senior citizens.

Now, that's a remarkable record. In the Province of British Columbia

I believe the answer to senior citizens' housing of all kinds is to

open up a series of options for old people, or better still for those

who have retired — whether they are old in today's terms or not is a

matter of opinion. Most of them that I meet are people who still want

to have life options open to them.

The Liberal Party says that it wants and has endorsed the programme

of deferred taxation. Mr. Speaker, I want to make it clear that that

might be Liberal Party policies. It's not the policy of this government.

Once again, the Liberal Party wants to leave the old age pensioner

and those on retirement and fixed incomes the unhappy prospect that

they will have an on-going burden of debts. That's the Liberal policy.

That's what fixes a great gulf between this side of the House and that

side of the House.

We happen to be a credit party and the official Opposition in this

House and the Liberal Party are debt parties and so are the Tories and

they always were. But, Mr. Speaker, those who are retired wish a series

of options in home ownership, an opportunity for subsidised tenancy. We

subsidise more tenancy in the Province of British Columbia than

anywhere in Canada. Mr. Speaker, there are nearly 25,000 old age

pensioners in the Province of British Columbia who presently occupy

subsidised tenancy housing in the province. That's a total that's

exceeded nowhere in Canada and is accelerated very markedly in this

budget.

We indicated as well that many old age pensioners feel that the old

family home is simply too much at this time for them to handle. That it

would be better if they still wished to have the opportunity for

ownership to look at the possibility of owning a more modest and a more

modern kind of accommodation without losing the feeling of security

which came from title.

In order to accomplish this we suggested that the old age pensioners

should have as many options open to them as anyone else about where

their dollars were going to be invested or used. If they had an older

home that was becoming too much for them, first we'd help with the

home-owner grant and accelerated home-owner grant in this budget. But

we'd also suggest to them that they could use strata title, they could

get into condominium situations because of new housing proposals

brought forward by my colleague the Attorney General. They could go

into forms of cooperative apartments. They could take the old home,

take the capital from it — and we did not only suggest that they do it,

we helped them do it in the municipality of Saanich.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: They sold their homes. Now the Leader of

the Liberal party, the Hon. Member's leader, said it couldn't be done.

That was his answer.

These old people, Mr. Speaker, wanted a cooperative way, an

alternative to housing and any option should be there. What did we do?

They took $5,000 of the capital from their older home. They took a

$5,000 second mortgage from the provincial government, and then they

took a $5,000 mortgage from my friend, Mr. Andras who I must admit

cooperated very highly with this programme. I give him credit for it.

He's no longer the Minister of Housing and I'm sorry about that too. I

got to like Mr. Andras because I like anybody who is a square shooter

and says exactly what he means and does exactly what he says he'll do.

These people have now been given a pilot project which is another

option for housing open to the people of the Province of British

Columbia who happen to be retired. Mr. Speaker, the idea was born right

here and the Members know it.

There are a large number of other options which are going to be

perused in the coming year on this whole question of housing. All of

them, as far as this government is concerned, are going to be open to

old age pension groups, retired people's groups, co-op groups, who want

to use modern approaches to housing, to condominiums. We're not going

to close the door to any series of options, including the option to

live on the family farm, and I'm going to have some amendments to the Municipal Act which will permit them to do so.

Mr. Speaker, the taxation provided for in this budget is another

remarkable situation — amounts of the order of $45 million for

education, $30-odd million for health. The Leader of the Liberal Party

can't read a budget. That was obvious yesterday when he said there

wasn't any money in addition for municipalities. Amazing. There's $7

million more.

AN HON. MEMBER: How much per capita?

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: There's $7 million more for municipalities in this budget.

AN HON. MEMBER: What increase per capita?

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, I'm glad all the birds are

once again out of their trees. They don't like the Member for Comox to

stand up here because they know they always get the truth.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, this budget…. I'll wait, I've got all day.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Will the Hon. Minister please proceed with his speech?

Interjections by Hon. Members.

[ Page 319 ]

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: The Member for Cowichan Malahat will get

his chance later. Mr. Speaker, municipalities in British Columbia

because of the per capita grant and because of the percentage of

transfer payments from the provincial government which are higher there

than anywhere — they run from 40 per cent to 45 per cent of the total

gross revenue of the municipalities — because of that the

municipalities in British Columbia have created for themselves a

financial situation which is not available anywhere in Canada. When I

last spoke the municipal finance authority had not gone once again to

the market. They did go just four days after I spoke to you last and

the municipal finance authority placed on the market 7.99 per cent

bonds. Mr. Speaker, I categorically say that no finance authority on

behalf of municipalities in Canada would have even come close.

Mr. Speaker, the facts are that the municipalities through the

system of transfer payment from the province are in a position not

simply to budget on a short-term basis but to budget on a long-term

basis.

What is forgotten in the municipal finance picture in British

Columbia is simply this — along with the per capita grant, Mr. Speaker,

unlike other provinces the provincial government here as well enters

upon shared-cost programmes for services which elsewhere are normally

completely the responsibility of the municipalities.

But in this province there is a formula on top of the per capita

grant for such activities as housing for school financing which, if you

really look at municipal government in terms of local government

instead of municipal government, there is a formula which is the best

in Canada for education costs. Nowhere else is the province responsible

for raising the local capital in its entirety for schools. The formula

is unexcelled for capital anywhere else, relieving therefore the

structure of local government finance from that responsibility.

Similarly with hospitals, that's a local government participatory

situation in this province. The provincial government again relieves

the municipalities of that responsibility.

In other provinces where arterial roads and where metropolitan

transit and where metropolitan road systems are required who pays for

it? In the Province of Ontario, in the Province of Quebec, in the

Province of Manitoba, in Alberta — those road systems, Mr. Speaker, are

again the responsibility of the local authority. Here there is a

formula which takes the full cost of arterial roads and places it in

the Department of Highways, shares on secondary roads on the 60-40

formula basis.

Those formulas have to be taken into account when you're intelligently talking about municipal finance in any province.

Then, Mr. Speaker, this budget goes another step. If you really

understand the municipal financing in British Columbia you take the

transfer payment by way of per capita grants, then you look at various

other forms of it.

Now what is the formula in British Columbia for pollution abatement?

The formula, Mr. Speaker, is that the provincial government pays 75 per

cent of the cost to the local governments in excess of 2 mils.

Now, Mr. Speaker if you look at any of the pollution abatement

proposals in Canada you won't find that formula anywhere. Because in

most jurisdictions you won't find a formula at all. But, Mr. Speaker,

more than that, what is the effect of that formula? The effect of that

formula is that having levied 2 mils on the assessment base of the

municipality, with the provincial government picking up 75 per cent of

the total remainder that means that the smaller municipalities with low

tax bases can afford to go into sewerage treatment. They can afford to

go into sewerage treatment in the Province of British Columbia and they

can't do it elsewhere.

Now, Mr. Speaker, do Members think it makes any difference if you've

got a pollution problem on the door step of Victoria than if you have

one on the door step of Courtenay? Do they think that the application

of the programme should not take into account that some parts of the

province may be less able, because of their assessments, to handle the

problem of pollution on their doorstep?

But from the public health point of view, from an equity point of

view, from a responsible point of view — whether they have assets in

their own right to be able to accomplish these things or not — it is

public policy in the Province of British Columbia to help

municipalities who are unable to meet pollution abatement standards.

Mr. Speaker, if this budget doesn't speak out loud and clear that

one of the forward thrusts of this budget is pollution abatement then

those Members haven't read the budget. They simply haven't read the

budget.

Now we take a look at another growing problem in the urban world of

the 70's. This is on top of the per capita grant. What are we going to

move into now? The budget provides another formula which is not

available anywhere else. A formula which will permit a provincial

presence for the first time in the area of mass transit.

I don't like to use the word transit because some people in the

urban world think that transit either runs with a little train through

a hole in the ground 150 feet down or it's not rapid transit.

I don't want to get into the bill, Mr. Speaker, but if you read it — and I'm only talking about it on a formula basis — if you talk about it

on a formula basis you're talking about a provincial presence in the

transportation world which is going to be one of the number one

problems of the urban world of the 70's. Because people in the 70's — and I'm predicting this — are going to become less and less dependent

on the motor car. They are going to wish to limit the pollution of the

motor car in their villages and in the towns and in their cities.

Long before other jurisdictions stated it as public policy that's a

direction we wished to go, not only in the name of the environment, in

the name of pollution abatement, but in the name of equity. The

provincial government is from now on going to have a permanent position

in the emerging transportation problems of our towns or cities and is

stating loud and clear that we wish to have a new look at the

dependency of the world on the pollution creating problems connected

with the use of the motor car.

Mr. Speaker, on this whole question of municipal finance, the Member

for Cowichan-Malahat (Mr. Strachan) was good enough to make some out of

context comments from a report called the Plunkett report. Has he still

got a copy there? Good.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I'm going to give you some comments too and the

leader of the Liberal Party suggested that after this budget I'd have

no testimonials to read. I got more and I won't have time to read them

all this afternoon but I embarrassed myself so much last time with the

modesty of some of the comments made about the Department of Municipal

Affairs that I really can't do it again.

But this is from the British Columbia School Trustees' Association

speaking about that Plunkett report. I know the Hon. Member had this

available but he didn't choose to read it to the House. I don't think

he was trying to mislead the

[ Page 320 ]

House — I wouldn't think he was going to try and

tell the people of the Province of British Columbia something that

wasn't true — I'm going to tell the former leader he was fudging. He

was fudging.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, he never fudges.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: Here is the president of the B.C. School

Trustees' Association talking about the Plunkett report — former

president, that's right.

It's a strange thing for me to find myself in complete agreement

with the Minister of Municipal Affairs when he brands this report as

irresponsible, juvenile and completely false.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did they pay for that report?

HON. MR, CAMPBELL: No, they didn't. The Member for

Cowichan-Malahat got up and told this House and read from a report

which a responsible organisation — namely the B.C. School Trustees'

Association labeled irresponsible, juvenile and completely false. Mr.

Speaker, once again what are the facts?

Those are the facts, Mr. Speaker, and once again this is not a

testimonial from the Department of Municipal Affairs. This is the

document which the municipalities putout when they wished to tell the

whole story to Canada and to the world that British Columbia's

municipalities have not been excelled anywhere in finance.

Mr. Speaker, the Member for Cowichan-Malahat — like all members of

this Legislature — was presented with this document. The Municipal

Finance Authority of British Columbia — what do they say? It was issued

in 1971 about the end of August. "The growth and stability of British

Columbia municipalities" and then it goes on, Mr. Speaker, on page

after page to illustrate in a number of ways and I'm not going to bore

you with reading them all here because I'm sure that the former leader

of the N.D.P. has long since repented for his, misleading statements

that were part of his address on the last occasion he spoke.

Mr. Speaker, there is one other feature of the budget which I think

is outstanding and that is the portion of the budget having to do with

special funds. I happen to be responsible for the first citizens' fund

and these funds going as they do to the items mentioned by my colleague

the Minister of Agriculture, when last he spoke, are pretty well known

as to their intent by the Members of the Legislature.

The fact that the budget has directed that that principle be

extended to the beautification of our countryside insofar as unsightly

hydro lines are concerned, the fact that it has been extended as a

principle to the preservation of open space is a very important

financial breakthrough insofar as government is concerned.

Mr. Speaker, in other jurisdictions when a commitment is made by

government to one form of activity or another, the public can never be

sure that it won't be on again off again, up and down and around about,

as the economy moves along.

Other jurisdictions — and that's a fundamental difference between

Social Credit and the other political parties who operate government — they make a commitment but as far as the taxpayer is concerned, as far

as the public is concerned, there is no more assurance that will be

on-going policy, that it will be as the Manitoba Premier said here just

a little while ago, that he'll be able to eliminate property tax. He

said "I'd like to go to the moon some day too." Mr. Speaker, he wished

the moon was closer.

Interjection by Hon. Member.

HON. MR CAMPBELL: When this government sets up a perpetual

fund, there is not only an availability of capital for school

construction and hospital construction on an on-going basis, on a

planned basis, on a positive basis, there is an on-going commitment to

these programmes.

Mr. Speaker, I'm only going to speak about the fund having to do

with the first citizens because I happen to have had the responsibility

for distributing $1,700,000 from the proceeds of this fund — $1,700,000

in one year.

Mr. Speaker, there is just page after page of community projects,

engineered, thought through, initiated, by the Indian people. What, Mr.

Speaker, has been the history of commitments to the Indian people by

following a budgetary course such as they do in the federal government?

Mr. Speaker, in the last five years, the federal government has made

commitments to the Indian people in culture, in housing, in public

health, to band councils, to management, to educational seminars. And

what happens? It melts away as soon as the winter leaves Ottawa. As

soon as that sun comes out down there, there are no funds, Mr. Speaker,

there are no funds. The Indian people who have come to expect a certain

course of action, Mr. Speaker, the Indian people are honest enough in

their dealings with government not to want the moon. But they are

determined, Mr. Speaker, that when they have been told that a certain

level of financing is available for a programme and they plan on

carrying it out and they work on it and they build it up and then they

push the button to try and find the funds, to carry out the project and

the projects are not there, Mr. Speaker, that is the cruelest thing

that can be done with a minority group in this country.

For years, Mr. Speaker, that particular group have had their

expectations raised only to be dashed to the ground again because of

some budgetary ups and downs, wiggle-woggle, wiffle-waffle, that's

going on at the federal government level.

That's not good enough and, Mr. Speaker, you know full well the kind

of projects that are involved, because many of them are in your area.

It's not large sums of money that are the difference between making

life better for these people and not making it better.

Interjections by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: Well, you can have the list, this will be a public document. I'll file the whole list in the House a little later.

AN HON. MEMBER: File yourself!

HON. MR CAMPBELL: I know you'd like to file the Member for Comox. The N.D.P. have been trying to do that for five elections.

Mr. Speaker, the N.D.P. always enjoy it when the Member for Comox

speaks. They've had five cracks at the Member for Comox and they're

going to get a sixth pretty soon. Mr. Speaker, the result will be

exactly the same.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hit him again, he's still alive.

[ Page 321 ]

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: The difference between doing some of the

things which are involved with small projects like bringing

opportunities to small communities, the difference between having a set

of carving tools and not having a set of carving tools, the difference

between having a set of books for pre-school kindergarten and not

having a set of books, the difference between having some clothes so

that the young people who are up in the northern part of British

Columbia can come to Vancouver just like anyone else and have clothes

to wear.

The difference between having a decent place to have their meetings

and not having one — sometimes a very limited outlay, the difference

between being able to examine a project for its feasibility to help

themselves in community workshops and not being able to do it — Mr.

Speaker, this list is full of two and three and four and, yes, larger — 15,000 and 20,000 donations. But the point, I'm trying to make is this:

these same kind of statements have been made year after year after year

at the federal level about new programmes for Indian people. Handicraft

help and cultural help and all this sort of thing. And what happens? No

delivery, Mr. Speaker, no delivery system at all.

Mr. Speaker, I tell you that long after this government has been in

office for 100 years, the best thing that this government will have

ever done is to put these priority projects out where the public can

see them, with the on-going commitment that they don't have anything to

do with day-by-day expediency, political expediency, the ups-and downs

of finances, the ins-and-outs of one political party or another.

Mr. Speaker, that is the crowning glory of this budget. That's one of the fundamental

differences between this side and that side. We know that. The N.D.P. party

damned these perpetual funds with faint praise and then voted for them, which

the N.D.P. quite often do. The Liberal Party, Mr. Speaker, in this House, went

one step further and never forget that. The Liberal Party said: "Wipe them

out altogether, don't have any perpetual funds," go on the normal Liberal

Party of in-and-out, up-and-down, wiggle-woggle. No basic commitment. Expediency,

expediency, expediency. No programme. No programme, no programme. I tell you,

Mr. Speaker, I am proud of the fact that this government has made a basic commitment

to the Indian people of British Columbia and kept every word.

I'd like to say a few words about housing. At the present time, in

the Province of British Columbia, the urban renewal programme is

essentially confined to the greater Victoria area and the

beautification of the water front, to the Vancouver area in terms of

the only pilot project of its kind in Canada having to do with the

community effort to rehabilitate an area without the bulldozer.

That's the Strathcona project. It is the only project of its kind in

Canada. It is the first to suggest that urban renewal, as it once was

thought to be, is not a good thing for a city and I couldn't agree more

because I said it right at the beginning.

This is a project whereby the local people are going to be involved

with the renovation of their own community without taking a bunch of

bulldozers there and ripping out their traditional and family homes. I

want to credit, once again, my friend the former Minister of Housing,

Mr. Andras, for bringing this programme last year to fruition. It, I

think, is going to be a lighthouse project for Canada.

It was engineered by my friends who happen to sit for Vancouver East

— the first Member for Vancouver East, the second Member for Vancouver

East, and the Member for Vancouver Centre.

This programme will be the urban renewal programme of the future.

But there is a great raft of projects and if any of the Members want to

know where housing or urban renewal or land assembly for their own

particular communities sits, they could ask me about it in the

estimates.

I do want to say something about a specific problem of housing and I

want to offer a specific solution. I'm going to ask the question and

I'm going to give the answer.

Many people talk about land speculation and there can be no question

that there is a great deal of land speculation. There can be no

question either, if you know anything about the zoning process, that

there is a great deal of artificial scarcity about building lots,

particularly in the lower mainland. There can be no real question that

the zoning activity on the part of municipalities very substantially

confers benefits on people who do not pass it on to the person seeking

to own his own home, and that there is a way that this could be done.

The public body has conferred the zoning on a parcel. The facts are

that in the lower mainland you could increase the value of a

residential lot by as much as $9,000 and more by the simple exercise of

zoning, even if you didn't do anything with it.

From residentially-zoned land, which is currently worth perhaps

$5,000 to $6,000 an acre, by the actual action of conferring zoning,

you can increase the value of that property to $14,000 and $15,000. I'm

not going to get into the implications of that insofar as the capital

gains tax is concerned — and the big steal is on by the Liberal

government in Ottawa. Seeking to tax the capital value on that land in

which they have no investment or very little and from which the

individual is going to be expected to transfer to Ottawa, 3,000 miles

away, money which was never created there. It's unearned completely.

Let's take the situation in the lower mainland. In 1968 the value of

the land, North Delta, for a residential lot was $5,500; 1969, it was

$5,700; in 1970, it was $7,500; in 1971 it's projected to be $8,500. In

Ladner the land was worth $5,500 in 1968; 1969, $7,500; 1970, $7,500;

1971, $8,500. Tsawwassen is even more spectacular and there are as yet

no sewers there.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: If the Member would be patient I'm going to ask some questions and then I'm going to answer the question.

In 1969, there were no sewers in Tsawwassen, and it isn't completely

sewered yet. In 1969, the value of a serviced lot was $6,500, and I'm

only taking the low figure not the top figure. In 1970 it is expected

to be $13,500, in 1971, probably $14,000.

Now, Mr. Speaker, if we take this projection on to five more years,

in 1972, and I'll only use one of those places because it illustrates

the point, 1972, an individual seeking to build a family home in North

Delta, $8,250 in 1972 — and this is the low figure again — 1973,

$9,075; 1974, $11,000; 1975, $12,500; 1976, $13,750.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there in fact is a way in which this problem can

be tackled. Everybody talks about speculation, but nobody does anything

about it. Last year, there was placed in the Municipal Act a

section known as land use contract and a number of planning people in British

[ Page 322 ]

Columbia, most of whom were airy-fairy planners, I

might say, were unwilling to examine the possibility of using the tools

which the Legislature had given.

Now let's take a specific proposal and let's take what can be done

under the land use contract. This land use contract remains something

which the municipality confers on the land and it can't be removed

until the conditions are changed by the municipality. Secondly, it is

and represents itself as a restrictive covenant against the land.

Thirdly it is registerable and is deposited in the land registry

office. Now what can a municipality do under a land use contract? They

can develop the area, promote greater efficiency and quality. They can

consider the impact of the development on present and future public

costs. They can look to the betterment of the environment. They can

look to the fulfilment of community goals, which I suggest certainly

housing is one of them, and they can provide for necessary public

space. They can make that a condition for development.

In the name of lower housing costs, they can do a number of other things.

Before they confer unearned gains on people holding land for simple

speculation so that the profit simply disappears into the hands of the

developer, they can do a couple of other things, and here's a specific

example.

Seventy acres of land. There are no people holding lands who should

be permitted to develop those lands without full disclosure of the book

value they currently place against the land. That should be a public

statement on the part of the developer, handled if you like in

committee of the municipality if you wish.

But that public figure could be disclosed to the municipal council,

and here's one proposition — $279,000 is the book value of a particular

piece of land in the Municipality of Delta, at the present time. The

development cost of that is $13,200 per acre, and the basic financing

that goes along with it is $1,300,000.

Mr. Speaker, I think that we've come to the time when before a

municipality confers such unearned profits on a speculation deal that

the individual who is going to own that house has a right to know that

land in a sufficient quantity is going to be available and on what

terms.

You can do it this way. The overhead for that development is in my

opinion a legitimate 5 per cent. The sales costs of that land are in my

opinion no more, nor should they be more, than a legitimate 5 per cent.

The profit on that land should be no more than a legitimate 5 per cent.

The public, that is the Crown or the municipality, certainly in terms

of profit the provincial government are entitled to 50 per cent of that

profit.

Mr. Speaker, before a municipality confers the zoning on that

individual there should be written into the land use contract a

contract that that developer will sell that property to John Doe and

Mary Smith at a fixed price for a fixed period of time and will

guarantee that the price in this case would not be in excess of $6,500

for one lot and $5,600 for another lot.

If you took out the speculative profit, if you took out the

speculative value of zoning — which I say does not belong to the person

holding the land but belongs to the person seeking to own the home, or

a large measure of it does — then you could solve the problem of much

of the housing problem in the lower mainland. Because much of the

housing programme in the lower mainland is the result of true facts,

and true facts only and that is that municipalities have 9,000 acres in

their own name, not in the name of any private speculator. They have

9,000 acres in their own name in the lower mainland right now. And they

are themselves, Mr. Speaker, if you please, speculating on that land.

Mr. Speaker, that should not contribute to artificial scarcity which

is artificially created in the lower mainland because of that factor.

The second factor is that municipalities having zoned under the

regional plan enough land in the lower mainland, I would suggest, to

look after the needs industrially and commercially from now until

probably the year 2050 or 3000 because of another planning goofup, that

municipality should be zoning land for residential property but should

be attaching to that right — a commitment on the part of the developer

— to sell the land at an agreed-to price after there is full disclosure

on the part of the developer that his book value is an indicated in

documentation straight to the municipal council.

Mr. Speaker, if the municipalities in the lower mainland would do

those two things there would not be any artificial scarcity of

residential land in the lower mainland. There would be no artificial

scarcity.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: If the Member had been listening to what I said, if he will read

section 702A of the Municipal Act which he voted on last year could be put into the Municipal Act it would prevent municipalities from not exercising that

section when it came to its commitment in terms of housing.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, the municipalities have the

right to do that right now. I'll answer the Member's question. We're

going to legislate certain commonsense situations into the Municipal Act. I'm not suggesting that that's one of them.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: Oh, I'll give you an opportunity to

interfere as much as you like with the local economy of municipalities.

Mr. Speaker, I do wish to answer some questions concerning an area

which is also important in municipal government and that's boundary

extensions. I'm going to do it very quickly because no Member in this

Legislature has ever shovelled more mud into this chamber than the

Member for Vancouver East (Mr. R.A. Williams). And I'm going to bring

some fresh air, Mr. Speaker.

The Member for Vancouver East the other day talked a lot about

democratic government and the rights of the individual in democratic

government. He also had a lot to say about the position of various

municipal people and the fact that the Department of Municipal Affairs

ignored local people and didn't take their advice. Well, Mr. Speaker,

because this has become a habit with the Member from Vancouver East I

think its time that the people of British Columbia had that gentlemen

unmasked once and for all. Because I don't want him to cut and run this

time like he did last time when he made all his statements in the

House. I hope he'll also stay this year for my estimates, because he

certainly didn't stay for estimates last year. That's one of his

favourite tactics, Mr. Speaker, to make a speech in the House

[ Page 323 ]

and then turn tail and run.

Well, Mr. Speaker, he had some statements to make about a mayor of a

municipality and that the Minister of Municipal Affairs ignored the

Mayor of that particular municipality. He knew a number of things,

again, which he was not prepared to disclose to this House — which is

par for the course too.

He knew, for example, that the boundary which was drawn in the

Municipality of Dufferin excluded the pulp mill because to have

included it in the Municipality of Dufferin would in fact have meant

that we would have created on the outskirts of Kamloops another

Tadanac, another Fraser Mills, such as the leader of that particular

party has been talking against in this Legislature for some time, as I

have. But I didn't just talk about it. I eliminated the Municipality of

Tadanac and the Municipality of Fraser Mills.

But, Mr. Speaker, what he also didn't say was that the petitions for

incorporation at Dufferin were from the people who themselves placed

the pulp mill within the boundaries of the proposed municipality at

Dufferin and I excluded that particular portion for two reasons.

The first one and I know, being a professional person, all the more

sad — and I say most of what I'm saying now more in sorrow than in

anger — the Member being a professional person should have known the

effect which would have been caused by putting that particular pulp

mill inside any municipality.

At the present time, Mr. Speaker, if you placed that pulp mill

inside Dufferin or inside the municipality of Kamloops the loss to the

area in taxation would be an assessment of $18 million — as of today,

$18,500,000. Therefore the decision was made that until such time as

the municipalities within the greater Kamloops area could come to some

functional agreement which would permit that assessment to be shared

with all of the municipalities, the mill would remain outside, so that

the tax take from that pulp mill could remain with the regional

district and be shared by all of the municipalities.

But, Mr. Speaker, that Member didn't mention that at all. He lead

the people of the Province of British Columbia to believe that Mr.

Charlie Bennett was a grey eminence behind the throne and at one time

the mayor on an interim basis. He was not appointed by the Minister of

Municipal Affairs, but at a public meeting where the residents of

Dufferin voted that he be recommended to occupy the interim mayor's

job. Mr. Speaker, that Member knew that, but he suggested that there

was some individual by the name of Mr. Charlie Bennett. It would not

have taken much professional ability to understand that Mr. Charlie

Bennett is neither a resident elector, a tenant elector, or an owner

elector in the municipality of Dufferin. And he knows that.

I will read this telegram from the Mayor:

AS MAYOR OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF DUFFERIN I WOULD LIKE TO REPLY

TO THE REMARK MADE BY BOB WILLIAMS M.L.A. FOR VANCOUVER EAST. MR. WILLIAMS CHARGES THAT THE CREATION OF DUFFERIN WAS STRICTLY

TO BENEFIT A FEW DEVELOPERS AND FAT CAT INDUSTRIES. THIS IS COMPLETE GARBAGE

AS MR. WILLIAMS MUST BE AWARE THAT THE TAXPAYERS OF THE AREA PETITIONED AGAINST

THE CITY OF KAMLOOPS BOUNDARY EXTENSION WHICH IS THEIR DEMOCRATIC RIGHT AS RESIDENTS

OF A DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY. THE MINISTER OF THE MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS IN COMPLIANCE

WITH THE MUNICIPAL ACT HONOURED THAT PETITION. THE TAXPAYERS OF THE AREA THEN

VOTED. THE POLL DREW 75.5 PER CENT OF THE PEOPLE IN THE AREA ON MARCH 27, 1971.

THERE WAS A 79 PER CENT MAJORITY IN FAVOUR OF INCORPORATION.

You can figure out the arithmetic to that. There was 75.5 per cent

of the people of the area turned out — 79 per cent of the people voted

in the majority, out of a total of approximately 900 people. Thus the

voice of the free people in a democratic country.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: I know the Hon. Member doesn't like this. That's why I'm reading it.

IT WOULD SEEM THAT MR. WILLIAMS DOES NOT BELIEVE IN OUR DEMOCRATIC

WAYS. DOES MR. WILLIAMS BELIEVE THAT 79 PER CENT OF OUR TAXPAYERS ARE DEVELOPERS?

THE ZONING IN DUFFERIN WAS DONE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE MUNICIPAL ACT AFTER PUBLIC

HEARINGS AND HAD BEEN HELD AND REFLECTS THE WISHES OF THE INHABITANTS. BOTH

KAMLOOPS AND DUFFERIN ARE ON DUAL ASSESSMENT ROLLS WITH KAMLOOPS BEING 27 MILS

AND DUFFERIN 12 MILS. IN REGARDS TO DEVELOPERS IN THE AREA, MR. WILLIAMS AS

A PLANNER MUST REALISE THAT GOOD COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT IS ESSENTIAL IN ANY

MUNICIPALITY AND I FEEL WE ARE FORTUNATE TO HAVE THESE PEOPLE IN THE AREA. MR. WILLIAMS STATES THAT THE MAYOR OF DUFFERIN….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR CAMPBELL: This, Mr. Speaker, is the most despicable

part of all. I can stand up in this Legislature and I can protect

myself, but the Mayor of Dufferin can't. And who is the Mayor of

Dufferin that this gentleman came in and threw the mud all over this

chamber at the last occasion he spoke?

MR. WILLIAMS STATED IN THE LEGISLATURE THAT THE MAYOR OF DUFFERIN

IS A LAND DEVELOPER. I WOULD LIKE TO CLARIFY THAT ERRONEOUS STATEMENT. MY PROPERTY

WAS THE FOURTH…. .

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order, order!

HON. MR CAMPBELL: No, you don't want to hear it.

MR SPEAKER: I think the Honourable Members are calling order quite properly

insofar as the Honourable the Minister is using the proper name of a Member

and should be using the constituency. I realise….

HON. MR CAMPBELL: I'm reading a telegram Mr. Speaker….

MR SPEAKER: I quite realise that, but the Minister is not

empowered to do indirectly what he could not do directly and this is

precisely what is happening. So I am asking you to refrain from naming

the Member by name, but by constituency.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: I'd be delighted to read this telegram and when the

Members of the Legislature hear where I insert the Member "the second Member

for Vancouver East" they'll understand who I'm talking about.

THE SECOND MEMBER FOR VANCOUVER EAST STATES THAT THE MAYOR OF

DUFFERIN IS A LAND DEVELOPER. I WOULD LIKE TO CLARIFY

[ Page 324 ]

THAT ERRONEOUS STATEMENT. MY PROPERTY WAS THE FOURTH SMALLHOLDING

UNDER THE VETERANS LAND ACT AFTER THIS CESSATION OF HOSTILITIES. I AM NOT A

LAND DEVELOPER HAVE NEVER BEEN ONE AND DO NOT INTEND TO BECOME ONE. THERE IS

ABSOLUTELY NO SUBSTANCE TO THE REMARKS MADE BY MR. WILLIAMS THEY ARE NOT BASED

ON FACTS BUT A FIGMENT OF HIS OWN IMAGINATION.

I'm sorry Mr. Speaker I'll read that last sentence again.

THERE IS ABSOLUTE NO SUBSTANCE TO THE REMARKS MADE BY THE SECOND

MEMBER FOR VANCOUVER EAST THEY ARE NOT BASED ON FACTS BUT A FIGMENT OF HIS OWN

IMAGINATION. SIGNED MAYOR ROY PARKER, DISTRICT OF DUFFERIN.

Mr. Speaker, there is a solution to the fragmentation surrounding

the City of Kamloops. But to come into this Legislature and smear

people who can't answer for themselves on the floor of this House is a

tactic which is not in keeping with the British parliamentary practice.

Now Mr. Speaker, the Member for Vancouver East, or rather the second

Member for Vancouver East — because quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, I don't

put the first Member for Vancouver East in the same category. I'll say

this at least for the first Member for Vancouver East. When he talks

about people — he's erroneous in his statements of course, when he

talks about the road-runners and the riff-raff artists — but at least

the Members he's talking about are in the Legislature to speak for

themselves. I'll give him that.

But, Mr. Speaker, the second Member for Vancouver East has made a

public career of smearing people in British Columbia who aren't on the

floor of this House.

The Member has a few things to say about the Gulf Islands and the

Member, of course, led the people of the Province of British Columbia

to understand that the Minister of Municipal Affairs was interfering

with the position of local government.

Of course, the second Member for Vancouver East was wrong as usual.

I'm going to read the letter which I received as soon as the Member had

finished speaking, practically.

This letter is from the person who happens to represent the Gulf

Islands and that Member for Vancouver East, (Mr. R.A. Williams),

suggested in this House the other day that that document which he was

holding up as the end-all and be-all of the planning process in the

Province of British Columbia, was a unanimously-endorsed document on

the part of the electorate members of the capital regional district.

Let me read you what the gentleman who represents that area had to

say. I would rather accept his word I tell the Hon. Member for

Cowichan-Malahat, (Mr. Strachan), than the word of the second Member

from Vancouver East. I know I have to accept his word because he's an

honourable man.

This letter is addressed to the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

I will start by mentioning that I am the Salt Spring Island

electoral area director who had the pleasure of conferring with you

along with Alderman E. Broom, Mr. J. McKilvrie, and Mr. C. McQuarry, of

U.B.C.M. on December 1, 1971. I appreciated the time and attention you

gave us. I am most interested in your reaction to the proposed outer

Gulf Island zoning bylaw and the publication "Gulf Island Options."

Like you, I am less than enthusiastic about the latter. In fact, I lost

a bitterly contested motion, 20 votes to 20, on the regional board to

have it referred back to the committee for change. I agree with your

point, that politicians must be responsible for charting directions

which communities will take. I hope to bring this into effect to a

greater extent in the capital regional district since I have been made

chairman of the local planning committee of the whole.

Mr. Speaker, the second Member for Vancouver East certainly does not

speak in this province for the democratic process, nor does he

represent the political viewpoint, nor does he represent the

representative viewpoint of people freely elected in a free society, in

a free election on Salt Spring Island and Dufferin — which were the

only two subjects he spoke about in his whole address to this House.

He did nothing but discredit the parliamentary process, the

democratic rights of citizens to determine their own course. As long as

I'm Minister of Municipal Affairs in this province, if people in a free

vote exercise an option which is there under the Municipal Act, they'll

have that right and I want the people of this province to know that

that is what makes the difference between a red-herring Socialist and a

democratic free government.

MR. SPEAKER: I believe the Opposition made a point of order.

MR. BARRETT: Earlier in the statements made by the Minister

of Municipal Affairs, he alluded to a reference of mine to a statement

made by the Premier and he stated to the House that I had misled the

House in my statement. I will bring to your attention…. .

AN HON. MEMBER: Point of order!

MR. SPEAKER: One moment please.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, the Member was referring to a

statement that I read and I read as follows. "Today there is no

argument" — this is the Premier speaking — "Today there is no argument

about whether the government of B.C. is debt free or not. Financial

it, the Bank of Canada knows it, they have sent a man to Vancouver to

find out."

He then referred to a statement that he said was misleading, from

the then Minister of Finance, Mr. Benson, and I read the letter from

Mr. Benson as follows: dated January 14:

Dear Mr. Mather:

Thank you for your letter of January 10 in which you ask

whether the Bank of Canada sent a special representative to British Columbia,

to study the financial methods of the B.C. government….

"The Bank of Canada" is what I asked. The Bank of

Canada is what the answer is, and the answer is simply, "it did not,"

signed by the Minister of Finance.

I ask the Minister to either withdraw his statement or that the

records show he made a false statement in terms of what I said, and I

give him a copy of this letter.

MR. SPEAKER: Just a moment, there is no apology necessary,

nor is any withdrawal necessary. No intention or imputation of motives

was done by either Member when they were on their feet.

The Honourable Member for Cowichan-Malahat.

MR R.M. STRACHAN (Cowichan-Malahat): Well, Mr. Speaker, we just had the annual snake dance by the Minister

[ Page 325 ]

of Municipal Affairs. He slithered and he slid and he coiled and he

curled and like a tarantula he struck at everything that moved.

The reason he never attacked that government is because they've lost all motivation and all movement.

We have this highest lecture about attacking people who are not here

to protect themselves. That man, in the last five years, has never made

a speech in this House, without undermining, attacking, berating,

bedeviling, barracking, every municipal official in the Province of

British Columbia who was not here to defend himself.

In that snake-oil dance, he made reference to the island and

communications. He said that only he himself, and an alderman

somewhere, had ever spoken up on behalf of the waterways of Vancouver

Island and the islands. Twice, for the second time in this session, he

specifically attacked a person who was not here to defend himself.

He didn't even give the Member from Alberni (Mr. McDiarmid) credit

for getting up and fighting for the West Coast — takes all the credit

to himself and some alderman. But he attacked the M.P. for

Comox-Albemi. That man, as usual, doesn't know what he's talking about.

Here's the record for the last two years, of the M.P. for Alberni — unmatched by that man or any other Member anywhere. Here it is.

T. Barnett, M.P. — reference to coastal safety, ship reserve, coast

guard, fishing boats and fisheries. Dozens of references. Check them in

Hansard , my friend, where they have a Hansard . Go on, go on.

One, he talked about the Amchitka blast. Two, Berkley sound; three,

clean up the mercury and fish; four, Cherry Point tanker pilotage bill;

five, drainage and port administration; six, about a sale of the

fishing fleets; seven, small boat harbours; eight, fisheries closing

lines in territorial waters; nine, oil tanker wreck claim; 10, clean-up

plans for oil spills.

The next session: One, B.C. harbours; two, coastal fishermen's

protection bill; three, deep sea fisheries bill; four, fisheries bill;

five, foreign vessels in coastal areas; six, fisheries research boat;

seven, new vessels assistance programme; eight, Pacific salmon licences

for Indians; nine, laws of the sea; 10, marinas; 11, oil tankers from

the Arctic; 12, Port Alberni harbour; 13, coastal post offices; 14,

maritime quarantine bill; 15, licence policy for salmon; 16, salt fish

corporation bill; 17, Sayward Island; 18, search and rescue operations;

19, shipping bill; 20, territorial sea and fisheries zones bill.

When the Hon. Member stood up the last time and talked about the

grants — go look at Hansard my friend, and you'll find right in there,

last December, I forget the exact date, it was before he got up and

gave that snake-oil speech about Ottawa — what he didn't tell the House

was that this provincial government knew 12 months ahead of time that

the federal government intended to change its policies.

That the government knew 12 months ahead of time. Did they raise any

protest? Did they ask any questions? Not on your life, they didn't. Did

he say that, did they say that because there was no protest, the

federal government was actually going to spend more money than they

have been?

The Member from Comox went to the proper Minister in Ottawa and

that's when they changed it and decided to give another six months

extension.

The Minister talked about a number of things. He went after the

Leader of the Opposition for his comments about Houston. The Smithers

Interior News — I would like the Minister to listen to this. The

Smithers Interior News talking about the same thing.

The disaster named D.V.F.I. If it had happened in a denser

population, it would have probably been considered good cause to demand

a ministerial resignation of two and an election.

As it stands now, a mill which should have cost no more than $30

million to construct and bring into operation, has gone to an estimate

of nearly $60 million, and still cannot produce profitably.

Then he goes on to say: "It is time to call a halt to this charade."

The Smithers paper called it a charade, with the Member as one of the

main actors. "It is time to call a halt to this charade, to Williston,

Bennett, Bathwater, Bowhouse, et cetera, et cetera. The Bulkley Valley

community has lost jobs and incomes because of the ineptness and folly

of a very small gang."

Ineptness and folly. "They're responsible and as managers they

should resign promptly and properly when their misjudgment are

disastrous." It talks about — "to provide jobs which this government

mouths constantly, as one of its major aims, P.H.A. 4 'should be broken

up to allow two or three or four other sawmills to come into being

using well-proven means of production and governed by the coast

utilisation."

You know, just a year ago the Minister of Lands, Forest and Water

Resources told us: "No more transfer of timber rights." No more

transfer of timber rights? Not on your life he hasn't. We know who that

company represents. He gets up there and he gives us lectures; ziltch

809 cross 4 — double, double-cross. "Never will we allow the transfer

of these rights in the future."

The Smithers Interior News says:

We wish to see orderly and economic growth in this valley. D.V.F.I.

was not orderly, not economic. It dwelled on the edge of the grandiose, of the

dreams of empires, of the whims and wit of a very few men, who took upon themselves

the non-accountability of divine right. This, the land of the public that is

being bandied about, the trees of the public and so on. The public has the right

to know.

They want a public inquiry as to what created that mess up there.

Then he made some reference to the earlier speech I made. Well,

there's a little paper up-island — I happen to live in a small

community myself and I pay particular attention to what the local paper

is saying. And the Parksville-Qualicum Beach Progress was talking about

the situation in Canada and how anyone who dares raise their voice on

behalf of Canada is immediately accused by the sell-out artists of

being anti-American.

Let me read to you from the Parksville-Qualicum Beach Progress, talking of this:

We wish our own way of life, our own culture, our own political

and legal system and such wishes can hardly be considered unnatural. Far less

can they be considered anti-American. So before we face any charge in this respect

and they mostly emanate from Canadians tied to the American dollar, let the

charge be correctly laid: "anti-American, not guilty." But it is considered

a crime to profess ourselves pro-Canadian and to actively oppose economic and

political occupation by the States or any other country, then we are as guilty

as Hell.

That's what it says. I'm quoting the newspaper.

We listened to the Minister across the way talk about damning the

federal government because of this oil exploration thing around the

Queen Charlottes. The federal

[ Page 326 ]

government has announced that it's cancelling the permits. Is our

provincial government going to cancel the permits that they've issued?

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you going to fight for it?

MR. STRACHAN: Is he going to fight for it? Not on your life

he isn't. The other day the Minister made some mention of the second

Member from Vancouver East and the speech he made in the House. The

Minister of Rehabilitation of the Vancouver Hotel didn't refer to what

the second Member from Vancouver East had said.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs didn't answer it. All they did was

pour out the invective and abuse and crawl along the gutter with every

twisted, mind-splitting word they could think of. There's the map, it's

very clear.

Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, that when this man became the Minister

and he proposed a rational, regional development of our municipalities

in the Province of British Columbia, it wasn't a very popular idea, let

me tell you.

It wasn't very popular but I supported him and I went into the rural

areas of my constituency and as the Minister well knows, I faced some

pretty rough meetings in my own constituency, supporting the idea of

rational, regional development and some sanity around the boundary

question of cities our cities and communities.

I stood up for the Minister and at one meeting I had to almost

physically protect his civil servants who were there, as a matter of

fact, because of the feeling that had been engendered by the people in

the rural area.

But I supported him because I believed that he was going to

honestly, straight-forwardly do a job for the people and bring some

rationale to our municipal development. There's the map, and no matter

how much invective the Minister of Rehabilitation of the Vancouver

Hotel uses, no matter how much invective the Minister who just sat down

uses there's the map. Not one of them has yet justified the reason for

the creation of such a monstrosity of a municipal boundary.

The Member gave a cool presentation of this boundary — what it means

to regional development, how it came about. He drew the outlines of the

boundary and not one of them have ever said that is not the true

boundaries of the municipality. Unless they can say that or unless they

can justify going back on everything the Minister said he was going to

do then anything else they say is absolute rubbish and merely designed

to point away from the fact that as developers, as people with

responsibility, as people with an obligation to look into the future,

they have failed completely.

It was obvious — the Member from Vancouver East said so — that what

the Member from Kamloops wants the Member from Kamloops gets, and that

made it clear throughout the province — that in this leadership race

it's obvious that the Member from Kamloops has more influence in the

cabinet than the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

That's what hurts, that's what hurts. It's all in this leadership derby that's going on over there.

Now, we know. Again look at this map. Now we know what the Minister

of Municipal Affairs meant when he pointed at that Member and said: "He

can look after his own chaos." There it is.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. STRACHAN: But for a man of the cloth to refuse to face

the truth, the fact that they are the boundaries of a municipality

contrary to everything that's reasonable and rational then spewing

invective — Mr. Speaker, we know now who needs the medical attention.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to talk about the budget, start off the

picture of the Premier. I like the picture of the Premier. It's the

same picture that was in in 1970, same picture that was in 1971, it's a

beautiful picture, you know. It's a picture of an old master, probably

drawn by an old master.

AN HON. MEMBER: Retouched by one. That's right.

MR. STRACHAN: But what kind of budget is this? You know, Mr.

Speaker, I have very often in the past had some problem, when I gave a

name to a budget, in overcoming objections made by the Chair through

the name I'd applied to any particular budget.

I remember I referred to one budget as "a piece of massive deception." That was ruled out of order.

Another time I referred to it as "a stacked deck." That was ruled

out of order. So I had to go through the rest of the afternoon doing

this to indicate what I thought of the budget.

AN HON. MEMBER: Waldo knew what you meant.

MR. STRACHAN: Then there's balanced budgets and there's tight budgets and there's fuss-budgets.

I didn't want to call this a fuss budget because that appelation

really belongs to the Attorney General. You know, a fuss-budget is a

person who is anxious about trifles. Look at his record. Here he's all

upset about the night clubs of Vancouver.

He has control of the liquor board and we send inspectors all over

the country and they go in and they inspect the hotels and if the

doorways are half-an-inch too narrow then they've got to change the

door.

If the baseboards are only 1½ in. wide they've got to be 1¾ in.

wide. If there's only a quarter horse-power fan up in the wall, it's

got to be a three-eights horse-power fan.

He went over there, you see, to send an inspector into one of these

clubs — topless, bottomless, everything else you see — and what did

this inspector order the owner to do? "Take out that pin-ball machine.

Take out that pin-ball machine." Snapped his fingers, he could and

that's it.

AN HON. MEMBER: No more shuffle-board either.

MR. STRACHAN: He's supposed to be in charge but this is a

job-creating budget and this fuss-budget over here you know what he's

going to do? He's going to create jobs.

Look at the R.C.M.P. vote and you'll see it's up from about $7

million to $10 million. We're going to hire a whole lot more policemen

to police the nightclubs in Vancouver. Then we're going to create jobs

by having every policeman armed with a brand new micrometer, and all

these policemen are going to be in all these clubs to check the

diameter of the G-string. And that's the answer to the job situation.

I finally decided to call this a fudge budget, a fudge budget. The

definition of "fudge" is "a made-up story, nonsense, humbug — often

used as an expression of contempt."

I think that you know this budget is a made-up story, it's nonsense, it's humbug and it's an expression of contempt for

[ Page 327 ]

the people of British Columbia who are really in need. But if you

look through it and look at all the little dabs of colour in there,

"fudge" also means "a patch of print, as a colour print, or insertion

of late matter on a printed page." Fudge is also "a soft, sugar candy

often containing chocolate and nuts." The verb transitive of the word

"fudge" is fudging, "to patch together, fake or devise." You know, when

you look at this budget it describes it in every facet. In every facet.

Let's deal with the chocolate first. Rural power subsidy up from $2

million to $3 million. The increase in the home-owner grant to $185 and

$50 for those over 65. Roads, bridges and ferries up from $80 million

to $95 million. Construction of provincial buildings up from $12.5

million to $18 million. Education up from $398 million to $441 million.

Apprenticeship training up from $3.8 million to $5.2 million. Special

funds, the green belt $25 million, power line beautification $10

million, accelerated reforestation fund $10 million.

That's a fair amount of chocolate used there. But let's examine the

quality of some of that chocolate. Is it chocolate, or is it nuts, or

is it fake, or is it nonsense? Is it humbug, is it a device?

The increase in the home-owner grant to $185, that's not bad — $50

for those over 65, that's not bad. But the very first paragraph of this

budget speech, is a very interesting paragraph, the very first

paragraph.

This is the twentieth successive annual budget of this Social Credit

Administration and the 19th it has been my privilege to present as

Minister of Finance.

The first Social Credit budget was brought in by a man of the name

Einar Gunderson. I liked Mr. Gunderson, he used to sit over about there

somewhere and I used to sit down about there in that one year that he

sat here and I remember there was a debate going on and Mr. Gunderson

was leaning back in his chair, eyes closed. But he wasn't asleep and

someone on this side of the House was talking and he got to a place in

the speech where he said: "People in glass houses…." and Mr.

Gunderson without opening his eyes said: "Should pull down the blinds."

You know, that was prophetic because governments should live in a

glass house, but they should not pull down the blinds. This government

admits to living in a glass house, it claims to live in a glass house,

but it keeps the blinds pulled down all the time.

There are always figures missing. They talked about the increase in

the home-owner grant to those over 65. They have all the statistics

over there — the computers, everything else. Why didn't they tell us

how many people over 65 have their own homes, how many of these will

get the extra $50, how many senior citizens are renting? And you know

they didn't mention the increased assessments that are going on all the

time.

The Minister who is gone, the Minister of Municipal Affairs, talked

about debits and credits and extra $15 a credit. How about the debit?

Again on government responsibility, the increase in assessments.

On the last day of the last session His Honour closed that session with a little speech. In that speech he said:

In order to further benefit the home-owners in the province the

Assessment Equalisation Act has been amended to prevent an increase in assessment

greater than 10 per cent per year.

Well, Mr. Speaker, you'll remember that last year I told you about

Port Alberni, how because of the inequity of the assessment laws of

this province the MacMillan Bloedel Corporation with all that terribly

valuable waterfront industrial property is assessed at 10 cents per

foot on that land. The barber shop up-town is assessed at $2 per foot

and the home-owner is assessed at $2 per foot.

Any proper equity in assessment would remove from the taxes of the

average people of this province millions and millions of dollars of the

load. I've spent some time looking at assessments this last few months.

This is land only so that you can't say well somebody added something

or something was taken away. I'm referring only to land.

I looked at one folio for a piece of land — this is about .6 of an

acre. For 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969 the assessment was

all the same — $450. In 1970 that went up to $1,035. In 1971 it went up

to $1,139. In 1972 it went up to $1,235. Three years in a row an

increase in assessment, starting with 1970.

Another piece — from 1963 to 1968 the assessment was $1,800. In 1969

it went up, in 1970 it went up, in 1971 it went up and 1972 it went up.

This is residential property.

Another one. Starting in 1970, 1.25 acres, $3,200, $3,500, $3,800.

Starting in 1970 up, up, up. $3,000 an acre. These are all pretty close

to where the Harmac pulp mill is. Harmac pulp mill was built on 99.8

acres. The assessment on the Harmac property in 1963 was $78,000. In

1964 it was raised to $97,000, from 1964 until 1971 it wasn't touched.

The assessment was not increased one penny.

While the residential and the farm homes all through that district

were being raised — some of them by as much as five and six times — not

until the Premier had pushed through that Equalised Assessment Act last

year did they move at all on the assessment on the Harmac pulp mill

property. So who benefits?

You can't raise it any more than 10 per cent. That's it, that's it.

In 1972 it went up the 10 per cent. But even worse there's a part of

the Harmac property that's not included in this 99 acres. It's called

accreted land and they've never been assessed on that land that's added

by filling or by silting and build up, they've never been assessed on

that.

I'll look at some other property, Northwest Bay. I went to look at

some to see what the assessment was on the Northwest Bay property — this is where MacMillan Bloedel take all these logs down and they have

that great waterfront operation.

You know, there's no indication of any assessment of any kind on

that and when I asked why — this is waterfront property on the coast of

Vancouver Island, no assessments value showing at all on it — and I

asked why. Well it's included in the tree farm. What do they pay on a

tree farm? I cent an acre.

Because this is happening to the industrial properties, and the

industrial properties are not carrying their fair share, the senior

citizens and every other home-owner in this province is having to pay

more than their share. Now, the assessors work under the direction of

the Minister of Finance and I discover that all those improvements that

are involved in these industrial assessments each one has a folio. Very

involved things, but even as an M.L.A. I'm not allowed to look at them.

But anyway, the assessors work under the direction of the provincial

Premier. I remember last year he issued directions to them all, even

though it was illegal, and here's the commercial property in Chemainus,

a piece of commercial property 12,000 square feet which is what, just a

little less than about half an acre, a quarter of an acre?

In 1963 it was valued at $7,010. 1966 it was raised to $7,500, went down in 1970. In 1971 it went up to $7,700

[ Page 328 ]

and now it's $8,000 for a quarter of an acre.

That's commercial property in Chemainus. MacMillan Bloedel have a

piece of property, 6.4 acres. It was $12,800 in 1963, and in 1972 it's

still $12,800. I wonder how many home-owners in Chemainus have had

their assessments increased from 1963? Who sets the rules? Another

piece of MacMillan Bloedel property in Chemainus — 73 acres. In 1963

the assessment was $12,045 for three acres. It was $12,045 right up

until 1970, then it went down $5. They went down $5. Equal rights for

all and special privilege for none. It went down $5 in 1970, and in

1971 it's still the same $12,045. In 1972 it's still $12,045.

Crofton Pulp and Paper Mill have a piece of land — 2.65 acres again.

And mind you these are industrial and waterfront properties, 2.65 acres.

1963, $2,350. Same, same, same, same until 1971 and it's still the

same. Then this year it went up from $2,350 to $2,390, a $40 increase

on 2.65 acres.

Another piece of Crofton Pulp and Paper property — 12.91 acres,

assessed $2,390. The same, the same, the same, the same. 1972 still

$2,390. Another

section — Crofton Pulp and Paper Mill 16,39 acres — $1,510 is the assessed value of this 16 acres, that was in 1963.

Today's assessed value is $1,510. Where is the equity? Is it any wonder

people are complaining of having to carry an increased tax load when

the people who own this choice industrial waterfront property have the

inside edge and are left completely alone when it comes to taxes?

That's more, there's more. Let's see what else there is. Here's a

residential lot in the same period of time, in the same area — 1.36

acres. In 1963 it was assessed at $350. It stayed at that, that's a

reasonable assessment.

It stayed at that until 1969, then it went up $710. As I say I

showed you all these commercial, these industrial properties owned by

the big boys not touched. I showed you other residential properties

where they started to increase the assessments in '68. I showed you how

in Harmac they didn't touch it until they had to put a 10 per cent

limitation on it. That's residential property — $350.

In 1969 they started to put the block to this one. It went up to

$710. The next year it went up to $1,260, next year $1,280, and now its

$1,400. For this little bit of residential property there's been one,

two, three, four increases four years in a row.

Let's go up to Lake Cowichan. Again nice lake front property — 13.85

acres. Wouldn't it be nice to have 13.5 acres of frontage on Lake

Cowichan? 1963 — $1,035 and that wasn't changed until 1970 when it went

up to $4,500 then $4,900 and it is now $5,400.

Again the 40-acre industrial waterfront property in the B.C. Forest

Products mill — 40 acres of industrial waterfront property at Lake

Cowichan. In 1963 it was assessed at $29,000 and it wasn't touched one

single penny not even last year when they could have held it down to 10

per cent. But this year they raised it by 10 per cent, to $32,875.

Western Forest Industries, Honeymoon Bay — again nice industrial

waterfront property — 204 acres, $76,000 assessment. Wasn't touched

until 1971 when the 10 per cent was in.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. STRACHAN: You bet your sweet life. As I say it's one

thing for a little man and another when you happen to be good friends

with that little government over there.

AN HON. MEMBER: Sweethearts, sweethearts.

MR. STRACHAN: We know who's side they're on, when the little

man gets the assessment up year after year after year — when the

direction from this government and the big boys, they wait until the 10

per cent limitation is on, and then even then they don't even do it in

some of those properties I was speaking of.

I looked into the matter of exemptions for pollution control

equipment, I found at Harmac they're getting an exemption of something

like $600,000 or $700,000 improvements exempted. I've got others here

but I won't carry it any further except to say that I've got a letter

from my good friend the Mayor of Vancouver. And he was talking about

the impact of that 10 per cent assessment limitation.

AN HON. MEMBER: Let me have it. I like Hawaiian stamps.

MR. STRACHAN: And he points out, he says: "You take the 15

largest individual land investment decreases on a dollar basis

resulting on the application of this 10 per cent that they put on." And

who does it help? Well, let's see. The Burrard Building — they got a

decrease in their assessment of $78,000 because of that 10 per cent

limitation. That's an 8.3 per cent decrease. The Hotel Vancouver,

they've got a decrease of 5.9 per cent. There was a piece of industrial

property, he doesn't name it, it got a decrease of 14 per cent, the

Bentall Tower — that modest little cottage — they got a decrease of 4

per cent. Safeway a decrease of $31,000 — 4.8 per cent.

AN HON. MEMBER: Poor little things.

MR. STRACHAN: MacMillan Bloedel, they only got a 3.3 per cent

decrease. But as I say now, where does all this come from? It's all

directed by the Minister over there. As I say I've been looking into

it. I got a letter from somebody saying I'm only entitled to see the

normal portfolios that everyone else is entitled to see, just back the

last two years.

But they were very generous, they told me I could get these figures

back for 10 years. And I was down there and I'm shown a very involved

mineographed sheet with all sorts of figures on it and this is the

formula by which they increase the assessments in all the different

categories.

If they've got that kind of formula how come these other assessments

haven't been going up year after year after year? But do you know where

this formula has come from? There is something called the Boeckh

building cost modifier. But I couldn't get a copy of this other thing

you know. I could probably, if I wrote down to the States, get a copy

of this. Because that's where it's printed. The recommendations on the

formula as to how we reach our assessments comes from the United

States, with a special sheet copying B.C. this, this, this, this.

People don't even know what B.C. is, but they make the decisions

sitting over there, and it's obvious that the decisions are always

rough on the little guy and some of that nice soft candy that's fudge

for the big boys. It's a fudge budget my friends.

What's going to happen to the little guy? You know, you talk about

this $15 increase. In the Ladysmith paper: "School taxes are expected

to jump by 10 mils."

What's a $15 increase in the home-owner grant going to do to the

residence of Chemainus when they're faced with a 10 mil jump in their

school taxes?

[ Page 329 ]

I think that particular piece of chocolate has a worm in it. Then we

go to roads, bridges and ferries — capital up $80 million to $95

million. The question is will it be spent?

Let's go back to public accounts 1970/71. We appropriated $80

million that year, we spent $61 million and unexpended $18,959,000. You

know I took that definition of the budget "fudge" and I don't know

whether that's made up…so that would fit into the made-up story

part, and the nuts.

Construction of public buildings up from $12,500,000 to $18 million.

Jobs, jobs, jobs. What happened last year? Public accounts 1970/71 we

allocated $12 million. How much did we spend? $6,600,000. Jobs, jobs,

jobs, unexpended $5,301,000.

In his budget speech the Premier says on page 21, "in the Department

of Labour $1,390,000 more for apprenticeship training." And the

flippers went and they all pounded their desks, and we had mental

pictures of bright-faced eager-eyed young men going off to learn the

trades of an honest craft through the generosity of this government.

Let's look at the record, and see whether this is a fake, a device, humbug, nonsense, or nuts.

The last five years in public accounts — apprenticeship training

1970/71 appropriated $3,600,000, spent $3,100,000, unexpended $470,000,

over-expended ziltch; 69/70 appropriated $3,600,000, expended

$2,700,000, unexpended $896,000, over-expended ziltch; 68/69 — hey, hey

into the big money! $3,564,000 was appropriated. The Legislature said

this was to be for apprenticeship and industrial training for these

bright eager-eyed young men to learn an honest craft. Appropriated

$3,500,000, expended $2,500,000, unexpended $1 million.

That 67/68 was a great year for industrial apprenticeship training.

We appropriated $4,200,000 for these eager-eyed clean-cut young

Canadians going off to serve an honest apprenticeship. How much did we

spend? $2,400,000, unexpended $1,700,000. Sixty-six was a pretty good

year, that must have been an election year. We allocated $2,900,000, we

spent $2,400,000, unexpended $545,000. In these five years alone

unexpended was $4,695,000 of money for apprenticeships and industrial

training that they kept taking credit for. Is it any wonder that we

refer to these budgets as works of fiction? I could spend three hours

in here talking about how the government over-estimates. And I could

spend 10 hours here elaborating on how they underspend — what it means

to human beings.

The evidence is the more they appropriate the less they spend. Of

course, education in this budget speech is up — from $398 million to

$441 million. But it includes the home-owner grant increases. This is

suppose to be a job creating budget and the education is up, as I say.

But we go to the Victoria Colonist of February 1, and we find that

because of the attitude of this government the Victoria School Board

were put in a situation where instead of this budget creating jobs it's

going to result in that great Financial Post word the "de-hiring" of some teachers.

As a matter of fact, because of the policy of this government there

are going to be about 45 employees — mostly teachers — laid off in the

City of Victoria.

This is a job-creating budget, and that's how they create jobs, my

friends. By putting the school boards in a position they've got to lay

off 45 people — teachers, special councillors and all the rest of it.

"Jobs, jobs, jobs. We care," he says — the 108 per cent formula means

about 45 jobs less in Victoria, but of course you can always put the

teachers planting trees.

I'll come to the tree planting a little later.

Pollution control up from $1,100,000 to $2,500,000 — that's great.

But 100 new jobs, engineers, research men, biologists. Now had we had

an educational system that had been producing the research men, the

biologists, the engineers, we might have been able to fill the jobs.

But I remember once before, Mr. Speaker, when the then Attorney General

got up and said people were very concerned about the probation system

in this province — about the fact they were locking up young people

unnecessarily — and with just the same kind of fanfare announced that

"this year in the budget we've got an allowance for" — I think it was — "80 more probation officers, and we're all very happy." This was a

government that cared, my friend.

We came back the next year and they had two additional probation officers. The reason? "We couldn't find any trained personnel."

Who runs the school system in this province? Who runs the colleges and universities?

Then of course there's the special fund. There's the green belt

fund. But of course the blinds are down on that one too. We're not

exactly sure who, why, how, when or under which condition it's going to

be used.

But the one I like is this power line beautification bill, I really

like that one. Why the Premier was almost in tears when he introduced

that the other day.

MR. BARRETT: If he wasn't, the Attorney General was.

MR. STRACHAN: I was almost in tears myself. Because I was

thinking back to an amendment that was made to the Municipal Act in

this Province about the year 1908, and this amendment to the Municipal

Act of British Columbia authorised municipalities to enter into an

agreement with any utility — telephone, electricity or anything else — for the putting of the wires underground. In 1908 that amendment was

brought into the Municipal Act. On the basis of that amendment the City

of Victoria, this beautiful city, went to that great corporate citizen

the B.C. Telephone Company and made an agreement with them that the

B.C. Tel would put their lines underground.

AN HON. MEMBER: You remember, Waldo?

MR. STRACHAN: They made an agreement and as I recollect the

details, under the agreement the city had already paid the B.C. Tel the

$50,000 for some work done. But the B.C. Tel didn't like the agreement

so there were some arguments back and forth between the City Hall in

Victoria and B.C. Tel so finally they made a new agreement and they

both agreed to submit this new agreement to the legislative assembly of

British Columbia to be ratified and made the law of the Province of

British Columbia so that neither the city nor the B.C. Tel could welch

on it.

If you check the records of 1916 you'll see that piece of

legislation. But then what happened? Here they walk in, good corporate

citizens, good civic government, hand in hand in this Legislature,

asking for the authorisation for the beautification of Victoria. That

good corporate citizen, the B.C. Telephone Company sent a man down to

Ottawa, and it was introduced into the federal House — a bill to grant

a franchise to a company called the Western Telephone Company. As you

go through the articles of that particular bill, setting up the Western

Telephone Company, you find that the federal

[ Page 330 ]

bill allowed this Western Telephone Company to take over all the

assets of the B.C. Telephone Company and then it went on, in its

goodness of heart and for the beautification of Victoria, to allow the

Western Telephone Company, with the authority of the directors of the

B.C. Telephone Company, to use the name the B.C. Telephone Company.

Which meant that the B.C. Telephone Company agreement with the City

of Victoria was taken right out of the provincial jurisdiction into

federal jurisdiction and almost 60 years after that amendment to the

Municipal Act we have a bill brought for the beautification of

utilities in the Province of British Columbia. With that experience

it's no wonder that our cities have been unable ever to get the

utilities to do what they should have been doing in the first place.

Because in 1908 the government that was here then, the people who

represented it, knew that that's the way it should be done. But because

of the strength and power of certain sections of the community this

hasn't happened.

We have the accelerated reforestation fund of $10 million. This is

where we'll put some of our unemployed school teachers on to work

planting trees.

But the first question I have to ask is why do we need a special

fund? If the trees need planting they should be planted. We've said

that for years — 20 million acres of unplanted tree country in the

Province of British Columbia and all of a sudden you're going to try

and made good fellows of yourself by saying you're going to spend $10

million for the planting of trees.

Mr. Speaker, less than two years ago on September 14, 1970, the

Premier of British Columbia, the Minister of Finance went to a

federal-provincial conference and if you want to read that presentation

this is what he said.

He said:

B.C. Is presently planting 25 million trees at a cost of $3.5

million as part of a five-year programme to plant 75 million trees by 1975 with

a budget of $10 million. This goal only takes care of current needs to provide

for areas requiring reforestation and the indicated expansion and annual cut

requires an increase in the annual planting programme to 175 million trees which

will cost an estimated $18 million per year.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. STRACHAN: In other words even with this money we're not

even keeping up to present needs. The whole future of this province

depends on our ability to keep that forest industry with trees to work

on.

Not only is the government incapable of handling the allocation of

the timber so that it's handled in an economic way, not only do they

give these forest companies special privileges when it comes to

assessments and put a high tax on, but you leave unplanted areas that

should be planted: The government's own presentation to the

federal-provincial conference makes it clear that they're falling down

on the job and instead of setting up special funds every year, with

that kind of money we should be allocating the $18 million a year for

tree planting.

There was actually no reason for any young fellow last summer to be

out of a job when we had that 20 million acres and we've got the kind

of money we have.

I was going to comment on the B.C. farm produce promotion bill which

gives to the Minister of Industrial Developments $200,000 to supposedly

advertise farm produce. But knowing that Minister, I'm afraid it will

be like the last time, there will be more political propaganda than

value to the farmer.

Social assistance in this budget is only up $1.5 million. The grants

and aid of local government and homeowner subsidies up from $46 million

to $53 million. The government makes a lot of talk about that and we

heard the Minister across the way say how well off the municipalities

are. We look at this social welfare figure and homeowner grant — these

two figures are related. The figure allocated for social assistance and

the figure for home-owner grants.

I visited the office of the City of Duncan and despite what this

government says the City of Duncan are now paying 25 per cent of the

social welfare costs. This government just treats every municipality

irrespective of what it's costing per capita. An examination of the

figures shows the City of Duncan is costing $43 per capita for social

welfare costs. In Williams Lake it's $7, in Ladysmith it's $23, in

Castlegar it's $10, in North Saanich it's $65 per capita, Langley is

$42. So there's a variety of per capita costs involved in this.

Now who are these people on social welfare? There is no municipal

authority tougher with social welfare applicants than the City of

Duncan. I look at the record, I discover that June, 1971 there were 75

families on welfare, 20 single women, 21 single men, 3 transients

received a total of $16 — so it's not the long-haired hippy

draft-dodging pinko people that are putting the welfare costs up.

In Duncan three transients got $16 in June, 1971. These are people

in the community. Then we find that half of those people have been on

welfare for over 12 months. These are the people with health problems

who are just simply unable to work because of a health situation and

the rest are because of the unemployment situation.

In Duncan it's $43, the per capita grant is $30. There it is, there

it is right there — per capita grant to Duncan is $30 and the welfare

costs alone are $43 per capita. I could go into that more but I think

it indicates that….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. STRACHAN: Well, there it is. This is what the

municipalities are facing and he goes up and he goes into that

snake-dance, and there's the situation.

More than 25 per cent of the social welfare costs are borne by the

City of Duncan and they sure don't waste any money. In 1969 the City of

Duncan's per capita welfare costs were one of the highest in the

province. In 1970 they were increased by a further 42 per cent and

that's the way they are going up and these, the Minister says, are the

best treated municipalities in the province.

Then we come to the Provincial Alliance of Businessmen. That

$500,000 vote and I'm not going to refer to the vote, Mr. Speaker but

I'm going to make a comparison about how the same thing is treated in

different ways.

In this year's budget there is something called the B.C. Automobile

Insurance Board being set up. If you'll look at your estimates you'll

find it's only a nominal sum — $15,396 — but that vote is spelled out,

where the $15,000 is going.

It says "Salaries administrative officer, class 2 — $10,356. Clerk steno, class 2 — $5,050."

The total vote for B.C. Automobile Insurance Vote is $15,000 but

it's spelled out who is going to be hired, what class they are and how

much they are going to get paid. And in every other new vote in this

budget that's the way it's handled and that's the way it should be

handled.

[ Page 331 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Who signs the cheques?

MR. STRACHAN: The Provincial Alliance of Businessmen signs

the cheques. No lay out, no demonstration, no listing of how many

clerks, stenographers, administrator officers or anything else. A

straight blank cheque for $500,000 as a personal slush fund for the

Minister of Social Welfare and the Vancouver Hotel.

Why does that Minister get this special privilege? That's what I

want to know? Why does that Minister get this special privilege? That

he is given a blank vote of $500,000 when every other Minister must

list in every new vote who's going to be hired and how much they're

going to get.

What has that Minister got on this government? That's what I want to

know. That he can get that kind of special privilege and no other

Minister has that right. Who is running things over there?

This budget talks about home ownership. This government claims to

have bleeding hearts for the municipalities. It claims it provides

jobs. But you know — oh, I'm glad to see the Minister of Municipal

snake-dancing is back. Because there's a vote in there — housing and

urban renewal. Again this brings up a great mental picture of people in

slums finding themselves in garden apartments — all those dirty,

dangerous back-alleys cleaned up, no more garbage cans, no more dirty

ragged kids running around the back alleys. Housing and urban renewal,

jobs, jobs, jobs.

What does the record show? Again, let's go to public accounts:

1970-71 we allocated $5 million. How much did we spend? — $2.3 million.

Unexpended, $2.6 million.

1969, 1970 we allocated $5 million, expended $3 million, unexpended

$1.7 million. 1968, allocated $5 million — just guess how much was

expended. Oh no, $1.5 million. Unexpended $3,486,000. How about this? — urban renewal housing, 1967, the vote was only $2.5 million. We spent

$1.3 million. But when you add up those figures, Mr. Speaker, you find

that in those four years we allocated $17.5 million, we spent $8.4

million and we didn't spend $9 million that was supposed to be for

urban and housing in the Province of British Columbia.

Now, what would you call that? When they talk about urban renewal

and housing. Would you call it nonsense, a made-up story, humbug, or

patched together?

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. STRACHAN: That's right, that's right, thanks for your

help, my friends. Then we go on to the B.C. Ferries income. This year

the ferries' income is $30 million, expenditures $34 million. You know,

you go back over the years and despite the fact that we've paid all of

the capital out of the taxes of the people of this province, in this

last five years there was accumulated deficit of $17 million in the

operation of the B.C. Ferries and they get out there and they try to

tell people they're making a profit. An accumulated deficit of $17

million!

This year alone we're budgeting for a loss of $4 million on it. Even

though we paid all the capital costs the Premier says "No bill of

theirs ever ran a business." Well it's easy enough to run a business if

you get the taxpayer to put up all the capital. So you have no

amortisation costs and then you're going to taxpayers again for another

$4 million to keep it going. Anybody can run a business that way.

Anybody. But then he's got the colossal gall to try and leave the

impression that it's making money, it's making a profit.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. STRACHAN: George Orwood is right. Then on top of that he

increases the rates to the farmers of the province. Sure, last

November, and here's a list of what the farmers are paying. I

understand the books. I understand too well for the Minister — that's

why he's wriggling.

However, let's go to B.C. Hydro and see what happens. This is where

we're talking about this borrowing. We heard all this guff about not

borrowing. I'm sorry the Member from Nanaimo (Mr. Ney) is not in his

seat again. Oh, gee, he missed that vote last night too didn't he?

You know, on September 14 last year the Member was giving a speech. The headline says "You Have to Borrow to be Successful."

It is almost financially impossible today to be fiscally successful

without borrowing, Nanaimo M.L.A. Frank Ney told the Association of

Credit Bureaus of B.C. here Monday.

It's impossible to be financially or fiscally successful unless you

borrow….he told the luncheon. I don't know whether borrowing means

debt or not, but you know we look at the B.C. Hydro and before we go

onto that I want to remind the Premier that this is a publicly-owned

corporation and for him to be squandering the consumer's money the way

he was advertising those bonds when he knew darn well every single one

of them was sold, was a terrible waste of public money, especially when

you look up the accounts of B.C. Hydro and who has to pay it.

Let's have a look. You look at the public accounts of B.C. Hydro and

they talk about not borrowing and no debts. You know, it's just one of

the funniest things I've heard in a long, long time.

Gross revenue for B.C. Hydro $276 million, interest on debts $104

million. Total income, gross revenue $276 million, interest on debts

$104 million — less interest charged to construction, $16 million. So

that really only leaves $88 million, except that interest charged to

construction means that you've borrowed the money, you have to pay

interest on it, but instead of taking it out of your gross revenue, you

borrow some more money to pay that interest. That's what that means.

AN HON. MEMBER: Social Credit finance!

MR. STRACHAN: In actual facts according to their own records

the electrical consumers of this province are now paying about 34 cents

of every consumer $1 on interest charges for B.C. Hydro. That's what

that means.

Then you say, "Oh no, that's a contingent liability, it doesn't mean

a thing, you don't have to pay, it's not going to cost anybody

anything." What garbage, what garbage! Let's look at the P.G.E., the

sheet we got the other day. Operating revenues $38 million. Interest on

funded and non-funded debts $10 million — more than 25 per cent of the

total revenue. Remember, who can run a business this way?

In 1954 I think it was, we brought a bill into this House and wiped

out $94 millions of the debt we owned the taxpayers of this province.

We just passed a bill and said "you don't owe it anymore." That's

called self-liquidating debt. Then when it started up an accumulated

deficit, the accumulated deficit got up to about $5 or $6 million a few

years ago, the Premier says, "Well we'll have to get that flypaper into

the taxpayers' pocket again." And we took $25 million out of the

taxpayers' pockets and gave it to the

[ Page 332 ]

P.G.E. We gave another $35 million last year, we're going to give them some more this year.

That's the way to run a business, that's the way to be a successful

businessman. Anytime you are short of cash just go to the taxpayer.

Wipe out the debt with a stroke of the pen and a nod from His Honour

when he is in the chair at the end of the session.

Then they give us this holier-than-thou talk about debt being such a

terrible thing. School debt, every year the Minister of Education has

to stand up and tell me that $25 million of the money that is supposed

to go to operate the schools actually goes to pay the government's

section of the school debt.

Hospitals, the Hospitals' Regional Board….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. STRACHAN: It's time you started listening, my friend. Now

this is a funny thing. The government says these are self liquidating

debts, these contingent liabilities are self-liquidating.

AN HON. MEMBER: They get bigger every year.

MR. STRACHAN: They brag about how this government pays 50 per

cent or 60 per cent of all the hospital construction in the province.

It doesn't come out of your pockets it comes out of the taxpayers'

pocket but it is not debt my friends, it's not debt.

How do the hospital boards and regions then pay that debt? How is it

done? Because the government has to pay 60 per cent of it — they've got

no debt but they have to pay their 60 per cent. I'll tell you how it is

done.

Every once in awhile the Minister of Finance sits in his little

office and he puts on his glasses and he takes out his fountain pen and

he writes out a little cheque — "Province of British Columbia, so many

dollars" — and he sends it to the Regional Hospital Board.

This is the government's payment on the hospital debt of the

province. But then what happens to it once the hospital board gets it?

They take this little cheque which the Premier has sent them out of the

goodness of his heart and they endorse it and they deposit it in the

bank.

Then they pick up their pen and they sit down and they write a

little cheque and they send a cheque for the same amount back to the

Premier as a payment from the hospital districts. That's exactly how

it's done….

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, but it's not.

MR. STRACHAN: Self-liquidating, no debts, what a garbage can of gobbledegook they peddle the people of this province.

And know, Mr. Speaker, I had intended to refer to what Major Douglas

said about contingent liabilities and all the rest of it. I won't take

the time of the House.

I just want to refer you to the whole tenure of this budget speech.

This was the greatest, this was the most magnificent and this was

marvellous and everything was upper and bigger and more — tears

streaming down their cheeks, thump, thump, thump, and away we go.

For 20 years these people across the way have tried to lead the

people of this province to believe that before 1952 there was nothing

in this province. It was an aching void, light had not yet been laid on

us. Well, you know, I would like to read to you a budget speech of

1952. No pictures, just a straightforward presentation of what was

said, no waste of public money.

AN HON. MEMBER: Those were in the humble years.

MR. STRACHAN: This was what it said:

This time is not a matter of specific or local boom. The growth

during the past decade has been general continuous and uniformly sound.

It had its birth in a burst of productive energy and wise financing, a

productive energy that continued notwithstanding currency exchange

problems and trade and payment restrictions. It has been achieved

because of planned development of natural resources such as

agriculture, oil, base metals, water power, and forest products. It has

been achieved because of the application of new skills upon the

co-ordination of scientific and practical overall measures that placed

Canada

and notice the difference

on a level with the highly productive

countries in the world.

There is a relationship there between this province and the rest of the country. Another section:

If we bear in mind all of this then we have no alternative but to

conclude that the industrial prospects for British Columbia are

brighter and hold more promise than of any other economic region in

Canada.

AN HON. MEMBER: Sounds like Bennett.

MR. STRACHAN: Almost the same language. There was a Province

of British Columbia before this government came to power. I'll go back

even further. I'm going to read you some brief excerpts from the budget

speech of 1912 because believe it or not there was a British Columbia

in 1912.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. STRACHAN: This budget speech says — I haven't spoken as long as that individual did, and I'm making sense which he didn't:

The increase of the revenue tax marks the growth of the population,

the heavy surplus tells the tale of further capital coming into the country

to seek investments for the growth in timber licences, royalties and taxes on

coal.

There were royalties in those days.

and in fishing and canning licences presents a picture of the rapid exploitation

of the country and of the growth of industrial enterprise.

The second point which may be urged is this:

That the acknowledged prosperity of the province, its improved

credit and its large balance may interfere with its just demands which we are

making to the Dominion Government for better terms.

But what I'd really like to read to Hon. Members is from this

document. I'd like to read this document to you — some brief excerpts.

"The increase of population in British Columbia since 1939 is reported

by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics as follows: 1939 — 792,000" and so

on and so on. "This increase is unequalled in any Canadian province

since the tide of western settlements subsided in the early twenties."

And it goes on to talk again about British

[ Page 333 ]

Columbia. It says: "the percentage increase in British Columbia

since 1939 is thus shown to have been twice the increase for Canada as

a whole and to have exceeded by a wide margin the increase in any other

province."

That's almost word for word with the Premier's speech. Another

quote: "The increase in population has been associated with a marked

expansion of production of both primary and secondary industries. The

Dominion Bureau of Statistics shows that the net value of production in

British Columbia has increased as follows; 1940 — $36 million, 1951 — $1,125 million" — an increase of 400 per cent between 1940 and 1951 in

production. Forestry production from 1940 to 1951 up 500 per cent and

the figures and the things are all here. Mining production up 225 per

cent from '40 to '51. Agriculture up 300 per cent — how