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 15, 1972

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 495 ]

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 1972

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Attorney General.

HON. L.R. PETERSON (Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, would you

join with me in welcoming a number of students that early in the day

were seated on the floor of the chamber? Now they're in the galleries — the constituency of Vancouver–Little Mountain attending Grade 12 in the

Sir Charles Tupper Secondary School.

MR SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition.

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

is a very special day in British Columbia. It is the birthday of the

deputy Leader of the New Democratic Party, the Member from Burnaby

North. (Mrs. Dailly).

HON. MR PETERSON: Would the Honourable the Leader of the Opposition say which one?

MR. BARRETT: Twenty-fourth as I recall!

MR SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Esquimalt.

MR H.J. BRUCH (Esquimalt):

Mr. Speaker, few people in their community gain a reputation for public

concern and dedication and public involvement. However, we had across

the Malahat one such man and although he continually fought the Cameron

Report the school district up there saw fit to name a school after him

— the George Bonner Secondary School — and from that school we have

today 60 students with their principal Mr. Owen, teachers Mr. Wilson,

and Mr. Vonerhause. We have them in the gallery visiting with us, and

I'd like the House to welcome them.

Introduction of bills.

FAMILY RELATIONS ACT

HON. MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a message from His Honour the Lieutenant Governor.

MR SPEAKER: The Lieutenant-Governor transmits herewith a bill intituled the Family Relations Act , and recommends the same to the legislative assembly. Dated at Government House February 14, 1972.

House in committee on Bill No. 30 intituled the Family Relations Act .

On the recommendation of the committee, Bill No. 30 introduced, read

a first time and ordered to be placed on the orders of the day for

second reading at the next sitting after today.

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS ACT

Hon. Mr. Peterson moves introduction and first reading of a bill intituled

An Act to Amend the Chartered Accountants Act .

Motion approved. Bill No. 29 read a first time and ordered to be

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

after today.

Orders of the day.

ON THE BUDGET

MR SPEAKER: The Honourable the Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement.

HON. P.A. GAGLARDI (Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement):

Mr. Speaker, I would like to be not only brief in stature, but I'd like

to be brief in speaking today because there are many, many things that

could be discussed but I believe that most of the budget items have

been talked about. A lot of water's gone under the bridge, and time's a

wasting and there's lots of things to do and it would be nice to be

able to see the work of the House carried out with all dispatch so that

we might be able to get down to the business of giving to the people

the fruits of the budget.

There are some things that I have seen on the floor of the House

this year that have rather disappointed me. The Premier some years ago

made a statement that I thought might have been partially political

when he said the former Leader of the N.D.P. was a wild man. But I saw

some actions on the floor of the House a few days ago that lead me to

believe that the Premier's statement was really an understatement.

I don't know in any time in my life when I had seen a man so

completely possessed by temper, and completely unable to control

himself, and make some very unwarranted statements and unwarranted

attacks upon the democratic process of the affairs of this House.

I'm not suggesting for a moment that that Member's always had my

backing. I have felt that the N.D.P. made a mistake when they traded

him for the present party leader. I think there are many things that

the present N.D.P. leader will never measure up to, but I'm kind of

wavering on my opinion now after watching the actions of the former

Member the other day in the House.

One thing I believe that should be necessary on the floor of this

House is to certainly register indignation but to never lose your

temper to the degree where you can't control yourself, and I think

that's extremely important. I give out that information and that advice

without any cost.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR GAGLARDI: The Leader of the Opposition says that's

all it's worth. That's alright, maybe it might be worth a whole lot

more yet, you never know.

Now, today I'd like to deal for a few moments with the budget,

although the budget has been dealt with on many occasions and very

expertly by a number of people and there have been a lot of things said

about the budget, and every one of them I'm sure — from this side of

the House — statements in line and in keeping with the desire of the

budget.

But I want to name this budget "the People's Budget." Because after all that's what it is.

[ Page 496 ]

Really, in the final analysis, the objective is the harbinger of the

achievement. In other words if you are going to build a house or a

building, the most important thing is a foundation, and a proper base

that that building is going to aspire to any heights or reach any type

of achievement.

This government for years and years, has planned all of its budgets

on a proper objective, and that is to serve the people of the Province

of British Columbia. People come first, before anything else the

objective is people, and I'd like to enlarge on this particular thought

for a moment or two before I talk to you about some of the things I see

in the budget for people.

Number 1: This budget as I've stated before is 80 per cent

humanitarian. In other words 80 per cent of the budget is used for

humanitarian purposes. For the purpose of education, for the purpose of

health, for the purpose of social services and so on. And this is

extremely important. Because highways and all of the other material

concepts that are approached by the budget are falling into secondary

positions, although they are of prime importance.

But in the final analysis people are the most important entities in

this province and the objective of the entire budget, and I'll prove

that point beyond a shadow of a doubt, I'll prove that point.

Now, let's take a look at first our finance, in the Department of

Finance. Really, the basic objective of bringing a budget on the floor

of this House is to create services for people. Now, many, many people

consider that money is really wealth. But in the final analysis it's a

million miles away from proper wealth. Money is to be used as a servant

— merely to serve people. And this government is in control of its own

destiny, it holds its destiny, its financial destiny, within the palm

of its own hand, greater perhaps than any other jurisdiction in the

free world. We control our financial destiny.

I see the Member for North Vancouver (Mr. Clark) laughing a bit.

I'll defy him to name one little administration in Canada today that

can equal the possibility. He can laugh all he likes, but when it comes

to an election we'll see who is going to do the laughing.

Well, I want to tell you I'll be out on the hustings, if I get a

chance to be out on the hustings. And I'll do everything in my power to

prove the fact that this government is out to serve the people and

money is not our boss, it is our servant. And that's what it should be.

Now, everything that's motivated by this budget, you can talk all

you like, laugh all you like, I'll tell you you're one of these "fat

cats" that's making lots of money and you suggest that that alone is

riches.

But anybody bereft of the complete and the positive evaluation in

value of human beings is low on riches. He might be high on many other

things but low on riches.

Now this government, as I've already stated, uses money as a servant

for people. You can disseminate that in any way that you like but every

area of activity that this government is engaged in means that it's

trying to serve people.

The basic fundamental and philosophy of this government is to try

and establish everybody in his own home. You couldn't get anything

closer to the proper base of what human beings were created for — living in their own vineyard, under their own roof, enjoying the fruits

of the soil. And that's the closest concept that you could get to human

reality and human dignity that there is.

Give a man the ability to live within the concept and within the

reach of his own home. I don't know of any government in Canada that

does more towards establishing a home for people than this government

does. Both for the senior citizen and for all of the citizens of the

province.

The Member for North Vancouver can go ahead and laugh, but his

federal government is spending some $85 million on behalf of youth that

goes to school, students in universities and so on for a couple of

summer months. $85 million. And giving money for transcendal meditation

and growing of marijuana and so on.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh, oh!

HON. MR. GAGLARDI: Well, oh nothing! That's the fact.

AN HON. MEMBER: And boiling macaroni.

HON. MR, GAGLARDI: Sure, and boiling macaroni — as though

macaroni is not an important food. But why bring it to that low a

level, to have to teach people how to cook macaroni with the taxpayers'

money? I'm not even for that. And I'm sure the Member for Vancouver

wouldn't be interested in that either.

I'd suggest that in comparison to what the federal government does

with its tax money, this government has the highest plane of monetary

achievement on behalf of people than any government in the nation.

A lot of play has been given in regards to these budget funds, a lot

of people are trying to say this is the Premier like a Santa Claus

handing out great amounts of money, placing them in these funds. These

funds are double-purpose funds — that's recognisable. Every dollar in

those funds is utilised for humanitarian purposes, building of schools,

building of hospitals, building of other services to peoples of this

province and the interest on that money is being further used for

people that find themselves in areas of necessity and in other

privileges like in the fitness fund and in the alcoholic fund and other

funds and so on to aid on behalf of the people of this province. I

don't know of anything or any ideal that could motivate a government

that would be of a higher principle than that type of motivation.

That's the base, on behalf of the people.

Then no matter what benefits we give, no matter what services we

give, money is not in any way our god, it becomes our servant. I think

this government is one of the few governments in control of its

monetary policies and in control of its services in that regard.

Now, let's take the resources of the province, for here again is

tremendous material wealth. Now once more the resources that we develop

again are on behalf of people, every resource we have. For instance the

forestry department, trees were never created by God to be worshipped

as gods, they were to be utilised by we people. Now, surely everybody

has a high admiration for a tree, who hasn't? Everybody loves to see

the green belts and so on and they're extremely necessary. But trees

were never to be worshipped. I am a firm believer in the fact that we

were created to be in control — that is man, I'm not talking about any

single individual, I'm talking about men were created to be in control.

AN HON. MEMBER: How about women — Women's Lib?

HON. MR. GAGLARDI: I tell the Member for Cranbrook, Mr. Speaker, I know one thing that would solve that

[ Page 497 ]

squeak and that would be a can of oil. I wish the

doctor would vaccinate him with a ballpoint pen so that he would run

out of ink instead of running off at the mouth. That would be simply

"yours truly, ballpoint-pen — Member from Cranbrook."

I'm always kind. You feel that the resources of this province, my

friend, aren't important? Then you think again because the resources of

this province are one of the usages that we have in this province on

behalf of people and the forestry department brings in millions of

dollars on behalf of the taxpayer and that's distributed to every

citizen in our province.

Same as the mineral resources. I've heard such a hue and cry from so

many sources about how we mine our minerals, and how we're ruining our

ecology and how we're so detrimental to the natural state of the soil

and so on and so on.

I'd suggest again that minerals aren't to be worshipped, they're to

be utilised, not destroyed. Certainly man has been placed in control of

the ecology and also of the environment. I believe that's a sacred

trust and it should be taken care of on a proper basis.

But I don't believe that they are to be worshipped in any sense but

to be utilised on a proper basis, made to serve people and I don't care

whatever resource you want to talk about, the land instead of the

policy of the federal government in Ottawa.

Imagine if you please while people are starving to death in

Bangladesh, Vietnam, all over India, many parts of the world — half the

world goes to bed on an empty stomach — federal government policy is to

pay money for the ground not to grow.

I believe that principle is 100 per cent against proper policy. I

believe that that ground was given to us to utilise and if we can do

nothing else we should grow something on that soil and give it away if

we can't do anything else with it. And pay the taxpayer or pay the

farmer at least to grow instead of not to grow.

I'd like to know who can defend the Liberal policy today of stopping

the production from the soil. I think that's one of the most

disgraceful things I've ever heard in my life.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. GAGLARDI: Absolutely, stopping production and

throwing people out of work, the Premier reminds me. He is right, as he

is on many occasions, most occasions, all occasions. (Laughter).

Do you want me to improve on that in any way?

AN HON. MEMBER: That qualifies.

HON. MR. GAGLARDI: I see the Press laughing, what are you

laughing about? (Laughter). I tell you, God bless the Press. The other

day I picked up the newspaper and I was rather amazed at what I saw

because I noticed the Prime Minister of the nation had come across the

country in our airplane — I wish he'd give that jet to me instead of

rattlin' around the country with it — and along with that he packs

everybody that he can pack across in it and nobody says anything about

it and that's okay. He comes out here for a fund-raising deal for the

Liberal Party and that's okay if that is what he wants to do.

AN HON. MEMBER: He didn't raise any money.

HON. MR. GAGLARDI: He didn't raise any money. At the

taxpayers' expense, then he goes out and skis on our beautiful

mountains with his beautiful B.C. bride, that's okay. And he gets a

little bit of a squib on the bottom of the page of theVancouver Sun for his efforts, that's okay.

Then this fellow, Vallieres, who is a federal government protege of

some kind because he's accused of murder and rape and all kinds of

other insidious things and then he's out on parole and the federal

government gives him a job.

AN HON. MEMBER: Withdraw that!

HON. MR. GAGLARDI: Withdraw what?

AN HON. MEMBER: Murder and rape? What murder and rape?

HON. MR. GAGLARDI: If I'm saying something that is not true….

Okay, I'll withdraw. I withdraw, I withdraw. "Seditious conspiracy."

Alright, I withdraw. "Conspiring to murder and kidnap." Now I am all

straightened out, are you?

AN HON. MEMBER: I thought you said Vanier not Vallieres.

HON. MR. GAGLARDI: Vallieres. I didn't say Vanier. No, don't put words in my mouth, my friend. You mouth your own words.

He got a little squib in the bottom of one of the second pages

somewhere. But who got the top of the headlines, right up there in the

masthead of the greatest newspaper in the world according to Stu Keate

of the Vancouver Sun ? "Mystery Is Solved. Gaglardi's secretary, Miss Kriese rides on B.C. airplane."

Now who is important in this country, I'd like to know? (Laughter). God bless the Press.

Now where was I before I got off on that tirade?

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. GAGLARDI: I tell you, if I never started my speech,

my friend the Liberal leader (Mr. McGeer), I would at least do 50 times

better than he did by starting his and finishing.

Now I'm suggesting to you that water, land, minerals and so on — all

are made to serve people and this government knows their value. Not

only knows their value but utilises their sources. I can hear the

Member for Cranbrook (Mr. Nimsick) and the Leader of the N.D.P. (Mr.

Barrett) try to tell us that we're not getting royalties and so on from

our minerals and from the other different resources.

I'd suggest to you that this government scrutinises with every bit

of ability it has to get everything that we can from those sources of

revenue. In the natural state of the environment and of the ecology of

the province, certainly we're concerned. We believe in anti-pollution.

The Minister of Recreation, I think he's set a pace across this nation

as far as his department is concerned on pollution control.

These are things that we don't talk about, we go out and do. When we

do talk about them, we're not bragging, we're merely speaking and

setting forth the facts. I'm suggesting that the Minister of Recreation

has certainly set the pattern there. I think that as far as the

environment is concerned we listen to Jack Davis, the national Minister

on these particular areas of activity and there is something there

that's left to be

[ Page 498 ]

desired, believe me.

AN HON. MEMBER: Mr. Clean.

HON. MR GAGLARDI: That's right, Mr. Clean. But he doesn't

sweep very clean. It seems to me that there's a different policy for

one end of the country than there is for the other. Now surely here

again man should be in control of his own environment? If we mess it up

then it's our fault. We've been given the proper base to be able to

utilise it and I pray that we do.

Now, naturally the most important resource that there is in any

nation or any province automatically is society and the people that we

serve. I think here this government again shows itself to be admirably

qualified and capably qualified to do the job and is doing the job.

Society's greatest problem, I think today, is motivating people,

trying to be able to reactivate or reinstate or rehabilitate the people

of the province. I think this is extremely important.

Now, surely poverty can never be eradicated by money? Some people

think that money is what will solve every problem. But I suggest to you

that money certainly will solve problems, money surely will alleviate

the difficulties within poverty areas where people are poor because of

circumstances beyond their control — out of jobs, out of proper

motivations, mental difficulties, or problems of any nature that

incapacitate them in any way and stop them from making their own way in

life. Government, then, of necessity must step in and do something

about it.

But I'd suggest to you that there are some things in society that

are of far greater consequence than the lack of dollars and cents that

create poverty.

Poverty in many instances is a lack of dignity or to be fastened

upon with a habit or to be filled with hatred, spite, or

vindictiveness. Many societies today destroy themselves though they be

in the midst of riches, because of the lack of being able to control

their own characteristics.

I think of Bangladesh, Vietnam, Ireland. If ever there was a

situation that proved those points that would be it. Ireland today is

the victim of a hate war of brothers and brothers. Imagine the Irish

people fighting with the Irish people. There is no greater tragedy on

the face of God's earth than people that are enslaved by their own

habits, by their own inhibitions, by hatred. The creation of all

problems is because of the poverty of people in this regard. This is a

tragedy.

Imagine if you please such a thing as is going on, as I have already

stated, in Ireland today simply because of the lack of the proper

characteristics and the proper acknowledgement of human dignity in

those particular areas. I'd say that that is the greatest area of

poverty because of the lack of those characteristics than perhaps any

place in the world,

Now some poverty can be self-inflicted or some poverty can be

circumstantial. Now surely poverty that is circumstantial and poverty

that is the product of some malaise or some problem in society is an

area where government can tackle and do something with?

I think what today we should be trying to do is to be proper gauges of this in society and then try and do something about it.

Now our objectives — the objective of the Department of

Rehabilitation — has been in all sincerity to endeavour to raise a

higher standard in the minds and in the hearts of the people of the

Province of British Columbia in such programmes.

Our objective is also to remotivate, to create initiative, to build

dignity and to create responsibility in individuals — which adds up to

one very important word, and that's freedom. I don't think anything

adds to the freedom of an individual greater than for him to be capable

of handling himself in every situation and being a master of his own

destiny. That's freedom, and we're fighting for the freedom of the

people in this society of today by instilling those characteristics if

we possibly can.

I believe that that is an admirable objective and that's why this

department is called the Department of Rehabilitation. For every single

activity of the department into create dignity in the human being and

place him in a position that he's able to stand up and look everybody

in the eye and say that he's his own man winging his own way doing his

own job and in this task we certainly have used up a lot of energy.

Now the modus operandi — that's fine, you go ahead and laugh Mister

and while you're laughing we're working. I'll tell you what it means in

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR GAGLARDI: Say that again…? "How to commit a crime."

I'll tell you how to commit a crime as if some of the people had better

examples to follow than a Member such as yourself sitting in the House

chewing gum and rattling around selling insurance policies, you might

be able to help some people from crime. I'm just teasing you, just

teasing you.

AN HON. MEMBER: Call yourself a Minister?

HON. MR GAGLARDI: Now, that's right. I am a Minister, proud of it….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR GAGLARDI: I tell you we've got the best policies that

there are in this nation, my friend and you're going to find it out all

too soon. You can do all the talking that you like and rattle around

and speak all you wish but it's all empty talk because you've never

produced as even the type of professional individual you claim to be.

You've never produced one new idea in all the years I have been here.

Go peddle your stuff to somebody else, don't peddle it to me. That's

right. I tell you, you're getting somewhere Mister when you start using

those kind of words.

AN HON. MEMBER: There's hope for him yet.

HON. MR. GAGLARDI: There is hope for him yet, that's right. Next he'll be joining the Salvation Army beating a drum.

Now certainly humanity needs to be motivated. That is those that

will find themselves in area of inactivity for any period of time, they

need someone to use a little self-starter and help them out to a

degree. I'm not going to say too much more except to state some of

these policies.

For instance, we have what we call work-activity projects. We have

the Provincial Alliance of Businessmen within the Department of

Rehabilitation and I want to proudly say this department has been

responsible for finding over 30,000 new jobs between January 1, 1971 to

December 31, 1971 — over 30,000 new jobs. I believe that's a record

that certainly is commendable and I'd say that fully 80 per cent of

those jobs

[ Page 499 ]

are full-time occupations. We've been able to find

somewhere in the neighbourhood of 114 jobs every day on an average from

two offices alone in the lower mainland — one in Burnaby and one in

Vancouver.

Incidentally the Member for Burnaby (Mrs. Dailly) the lady Member,

I've heard her on the air on a number of occasions on some of those

programmes, hot lines in the City of Vancouver running down the

Provincial Alliance of Businessmen. And then her own council in Burnaby

stated that this programme, our programme, is one of the most

worthwhile and effective programmes there is in the whole of the

country. In spite of the fact, the lady Member has done everything she

can to run down the programmes.

The Leader of the Opposition got up on the floor of this House so

many times, said that this department was nothing but a political

department, and only to hire my friends and so on and so on. Eat your

words there Mr. Leader, because that's what you're doing. Talk about

your former leader eating crow? Why man you're eating chicken, and

chickadees and words and everything else. That's right.

AN HON. MEMBER: Chickadees? (Laughter).

HON. MR GAGLARDI: We have an on-the-job training programme

and this programme is so effective incidentally I tried to get it to

work with the federal government. The federal government let us down.

So we were allowed to go ahead on our own which we did. And this

programme caught on so well that the federal government has now copied

our particular programme.

After all, that's what we are — leaders. And that's what we should be, and that's what we're doing.

We have to date a number of people on-the-job training, and doing an

outstanding job. We have many activity centres, we have an extension

for opportunities, where we give $50 a month to those engaged in

certain activities. We have 3,647 mothers on that particular programme,

and then we have another programme that falls also in line allowing

them to make $100 a month without deduction.

We have the disabled person allowance recipients that we've helped

out in the exactly same manner in allowing them $100 without

deductions. We have vocational training programmes as well. Pay

allowances continued when not eligible for other help from Manpower and

from other areas. We have a number of people — 450 have completed that

course and 240 right now are still in training.

We have a job assistance programmes where we give tools and working

clothes and transportation to social assistance cases and recipients to

be able to get full employment.

We have increased incentive by increasing earnings, of up to $100

and then we have a creative job-search programme that we brought to

this province. And here again the federal government noticed this

programme, and took over in this area as well.

Now, I've got enough material here to talk for another two hours, if

I wanted to. But I think that I've had enough. And what I'd like to do….

AN HON. MEMBER: We've had enough, too.

HON. MR. GAGLARDI: Oh yes, you've always had enough. Why

doesn't the Member from Merritt associate with part of the environment

that he's used to — go up and tighten a couple of nuts on his Mercedes

or something. Help yourself.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

HON. MR. GAGLARDI: Many other things that I could say about

the Department of Rehabilitation will come up in my estimates and at

that particular time I'll be talking about them, and I would like to

give other Members in this House — because the sheet is full — a chance

to speak. I've had my say for today, thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Burnaby-Willingdon.

MR. J.G. LORIMER (Burnaby-Willingdon): Thank you, Mr.

Speaker. Today being February 15 is of course the 100th anniversary of

the first meeting of the first session of the first parliament of the

Province of British Columbia. It met 100 years ago today. And because

of this historical occasion I would like to spend just a few minutes in

reminding some of us what did take place,100 years ago in this Assembly.

As you know the first session met in the bird cages which were

located approximately where we are right now. Of course they were

subsequently moved. But prior to that time the governor of the province

was in fairly strong control of the government and he had

representatives from all of the province on his council, but many of

them were appointed, some by the company — the Hudson Bay Company — and

others were otherwise appointed. And in the spring of 1871 Helmcken,

Carol and Trutch arranged for the terms of confederation and came back

and Trutch was appointed to be Lieutenant-Governor. It was his job to

create this colonial government of appointees into a responsible

democratic government, which was something unknown to most of the

people in this area at that time.

In those days of course there were no party politics, party politics

didn't come into the picture until McBride's dates in 1905 or '06. And

as a result of the meetings of the Legislature were "non partisan," and

of course that's where politics is the most vicious, and some of the

meetings were something like a meeting of the women's auxiliary.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. LORIMER: Just the auxiliary. Anyway to get the road on

the show, Lieutenant-Governor Trutch appointed McCreight as an interim

premier and they got together to set up the meetings and have an

election. In that period it's interesting to note that the

Lieutenant-Governor sat in with the cabinet when they were having their

cabinet meetings — something that would be frowned upon today. The

election was called, the writs were issued in September of 1971,

returnable in November and there were….

Interjections by an Hon. Member.

MR. LORIMER: Do you want the exact date? 1871, sorry…. Well

you should be able to understand it then. Returnable on November 20.

Now there were 12 constituencies in the province in those days. There

were six on the island and six on the mainland, and they had dual

representation. There were 25 Members in the first Legislature.

But one of the interesting features about the first election in this

province was the fact that the elections were not held on the same day

in the different constituencies. The returns had to be in by November

15, but the election date changed depending on what particular riding

you were involved in.

[ Page 500 ]

The first election certainly had certain interesting aspects. On the

first parliament when three of the elected Members came to Victoria

they found that the election writs had not been returned and they were

unable to take their seats, and it was some days later before they

could take their place.

Then there was confusion as to the dates that the sitting should be

held. Originally it was set for January 7, and then subsequently it was

changed to January 25, and then again changed to February and so we had

difficulty in getting our first meeting of the Legislature set down.

The opening day was a little different 100 years ago than it is now.

On opening day the Lieutenant-Governor came to the House, he was

accompanied by Chief Justice Begbie. The Members were sworn in and Dr.

James Trimball of Victoria City was appointed as Mr. Speaker. And then

they went home.

The second day was the date when the Lieutenant Governor came back

again and read the Speech from the Throne. It's also interesting to

note that on the first parliament of this province we had a spring

session and a fall session and I think that's an interesting situation.

Now another, I think, interesting aspect of the whole thing was that

actually in the fall session McCreight was defeated on a nonconfidence

motion and Amor de Cosmos was appointed as Premier. But in the first

House there was six Members of that House that subsequently became

premier of this province. There was Amor de Cosmos from 1872 to 1874,

G.A. Walken 1874 and again at 1878, Beavan from 1882 to 1883, William

Smythe 1883 and John Robson in 1889 to 1892, and C.A. Semlin 1898 to

1900, and it's interesting to wonder if there are six people sitting

here that will graduate to be premiers of this province in years to

come.

Now to get on with the budget debate, we have heard another budget

address for this year and there was a great amount of fanfare before it

was delivered, and the Press were told that it was going to be the best

yet. But, I think that when the speech was read the prebilling had been

somewhat exaggerated and the product was, I suggest, badly oversold.

Disappointment, I think, showed on all the faces of the Members of

the government and also everybody else was, I think, quite disappointed.

Here we are in a land of plenty. We have an overabundance of natural

resources. We have the strong working force, we have the ability to

convert raw materials into consumable products, and yet we still have

poverty, unemployment, and waste.

The income for the province was suggested to be nearly $1.5 billion

and that's a lot of money. But the measure of a government is how that

money is spent. I suggest there is little heart in this budget. I think

the poor have been forgotten and I think the infirm and the handicapped

have not received too much hope from this budget.

I think the budget doesn't take proper care of the chronically ill

and I'd hoped that there would be some effort made in the budget to

look after the chronically ill.

The budget gives really little help to the senior citizens, and

generally the poor people of our communities. Now what have we given to

the chronically ill? I suggest really nothing — very little hope for

the chronically ill — and I think it is time that the government

decided that the chronically ill should be treated the same as any

other sick person. The chronically ill should have their hospital needs

cared for under the British Columbia Hospital Insurance Service, the

same as someone that is sick because of other causes, or for other

reasons.

I certainly believe that they should be considered in the same

position as the acutely ill, and pay $1 a day. These different terms on

the illness, "chronic" and "acute" and "extended care" are merely

bureaucratic terms to avoid the responsibility of these people that are

getting on and are chronically ill. And I was hopeful that the

government would do something about their place.

There's also no help, I suggest, in the budget for the people who

are living in their single rooms or in their attics who are looking for

something better — some kind of housing that would assist them in

improving their situation.

Now we've heard the Honourable the Minister of Municipal Affairs

(Hon. Mr. Campbell) and the Honourable Minister for Little Mountain

(Hon. Mr. Peterson) laud the government on their housing projects.

They've told us about the second mortgage provisions and the home

acquisition grants and I agree that those are good measures. However, I

think that they fail to discuss the other serious aspect of the housing

problem, the people who can never hope to qualify for these other

provision. The poor people of our society, people who cannot help

themselves — they need housing too. The Minister can talk about the

municipality allowing speculators and so on in the municipalities to

increase the cost of land, and I agree with him.

But these are not the major problems in our housing situation today

as far as the people that I'm discussing are concerned. They just can't

get there. They can't get a second mortgage, they can't get a first

mortgage, they can't pay the commissions for the purchase of the house

let alone buy one. And I think the province first of all must accept

the responsibility that they are the prime responsibility for housing.

Housing is a direct responsibility of the provincial government. I

agree it's an indirect responsibility also of the federal government,

and certainly a moral responsibility of municipal governments. But the

prime group responsible for housing is the provincial government.

Their budget again this year calls for $5 million as a low rental

housing figure, which has been the same for quite a number of years,

and I suggest in a $1.5 billion budget this is a very, very low sum — I

suggest a disgraceful sum when we consider the number of thousands of

people throughout the province that do not have adequate housing.

I think we have to already have a crash programme and make sure that

these people are properly housed, and do this quickly. But when we look

at what is spent of this $5 million we find that over the last few

years there's never been more than half of this $5 million spent on

this housing. As a result, we're getting farther and farther behind.

The policy seems to be from the Ministers to brag about the little that

has been done in housing and ignore the wide void in the housing

programmes of this government.

This government's record in the senior citizen's housing is much

better than on the low rental and in some areas I think they have done

a reasonably good job. However, all these projects seem to be, have to

be initiated by non-profit organisations. It seems to me that where

housing is required, where it is needed, surely it's up to the

government to make sure that housing is provided. They shouldn't have

to wait until applications come in from one group asking for permission

to proceed with the senior citizen's housing.

I want to spend a few minutes on the question of the instant town — the question whether or not in some cases there is any advantage in

creating instant towns, any advantage to the people of the province. I

know that mention

[ Page 501 ]

has been made of Houston and Sayward and Dufferin

at different times but I want to basically discuss the town that is

created in a mill site.

I can see the advantages of changing a company town into a

municipality provided that the people are permitted to buy land,

permitted to participate in the decision-making in the municipality and

so on.

I think it can be successful if there's not too much land owned by

the company in the area, but that the area be spread out, that a lot of

people have title to their property. But these sites generally, the

mill sites, are given exemption from local bylaws. They're not

responsible for any bylaw that the municipality might pass.

I want to deal specifically with the case of the Village of Tahsis.

In the Village of Tahsis under the letters patent, one of the

paragraphs states that from the date of these letters patent, no bylaws

or other regulation of the council other than those pertaining to the

abatement or control of pollution shall constrict the construction,

maintenance, or operation of industrial plants on any land referred to

in paragraph 16.

Paragraph 16, of course, sets out the wide area where the plant site

is located so that there is no responsibility of the company to obey

the laws of the municipality of which it is a member.

In Tahsis, there is basically only one landowner. There is the

Tahsis Company and there are two or three other lots owned by private

people. But by and large there is probably under six title holders in

the whole of the area.

In my opinion, this could never be a successful instant town, never

be a successful municipality. There can be no participation, there can

be no decision-making by the people there. The instructions received by

the tenants of Tahsis, the letters come from the Tahsis Company Limited

at Pender Street. Here is a letter that was sent out to the residents

and it's not dated but it says basically that the cost of accommodation

has risen over the past few years and that there has been no increase

in rentals for four years. They say the municipality must pay for the

water, the sewerage, the garbage and so on. These things must be paid

for by the municipality or by the residents.

Before it became a municipality, the company town had to provide all

these services. When it became a village it then was entitled to the

per capita grant. As a result a fair amount of money was received from

the provincial government for this grant. So, the country or the

municipality — in this particular case it's a synonymous thing — has

this money from the government to pay for the services provided to the

village.

What I am suggesting is that they would have had to supply these

services in any event, whether it had become a municipality or an

instant town. The letter goes on to give the rates of the sewer, the

garbage and water, and it goes on with the question that there's a new

Act — the Mobile Home Park Act and they would have to charge for the mobile homes, an additional tax. Then it says:

We have had inquiries as to the purchase of lots and the mobile

homes park. These lots will not be for sale…. As of October 1, 1971,

there will be a rental increase of 50 per cent on present rents, for

those tenants who have been residents for one year or longer.

That's a pretty sizable rent increase, I suggest — 50 per cent. Now,

these people can either pay the increase in rent or quit the job.

Because there's nowhere else for them to go. There's no private

ownership of property in that area whatsoever.

The letter tells them also that they have to go to the municipal

office to arrange for the payment of the bills. Then a bill comes out

from the company for garbage pickup and sewer fees. This bill comes not

from the community but it comes from 1201 West Pender Street.

Now, how can these people feel that they belong to this particular

town? It's strictly in this case a company town. They're getting the

benefits of the per capita grants. I say that this is wrong. It's a

straight gift to the company on these per capita grants. That was

certainly never the intention, I presume, in creating these towns. I

suggest this is welfare for the company on a grand scale.

We must also remember that on the per capita grant issue, that a lot

of this per capita grant in other municipalities is used for payment of

welfare, the share of the municipal charges of welfare, and I suggest

that in a place like Tahsis there are no welfare payments to be made.

The government is continually saying that it gives no subsidies to

private industry and I'm certainly suggesting that in this particular

case there is a subsidy given to Tahsis.

While I'm on the matter of subsidies to private companies, I would like to direct your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the Votes and Proceedings

today with a question that is answered by the Hon. the Minister of

Mines and Petroleum Resources. Question No. 30, Mr. Nimsick had asked:

"

(1) Have any payments been made under the Iron Bounties Act to Cominco, since October 30, 1970, and how much?"

The answer states that there was $44,534.00 paid to Cominco under the Iron Bounties Act .

Here is another subsidy to a private company. Over the years since

this started the company had been paid by this government under this

section $1,153,534 and this is a subsidy to the government from the

people of this province. A subsidy to a company that's making in the

neighbourhood of net profits annual of about $50 million. I certainly

question the wisdom of this kind of activity.

The Vancouver Charter was amended a couple of years ago in which

they allowed for elections every two years. I'm suggesting to the Hon.

the Minister of Municipal Affairs that he extend this provision to the Municipal Act .

Now, I know he's going to say: well, he'd like to, but the Union of

B.C. Municipalities has been unanimous in this proposition and that

they haven't come to any agreement.

I agree that that is the case. However, I know that the Minister

hasn't really been that concerned with what the union has suggested

over the past years. As their suggestions meet with their approval he

goes right along with it. But I don't think this is really the concern

that he has but I have a suggestion for him. That is that the

permissive legislation could be introduced so that each municipality

have the right to decide whether they want their elections every year

or every second year like it is in Vancouver. I think that would meet

with approval of all municipalities. They could then decide for

themselves what they wanted to do.

The question I spoke about some time ago, in this House, was the

taxation of university lands. Although I'm not in agreement with the

proposition maybe that universities should be excluded from taxation, I

want to discuss another matter. That is the situation at Simon Fraser

University where there are the Hydro micro-wave installations and the

Shell Oil gas station both situated on the grounds occupied by Simon

Fraser University.

In both cases, no taxes are paid. I'm sure that that is not

[ Page 502 ]

the intention of the taxation Act to relieve

industrial and commercial properties from taxation. I would hope that

the government would amend this legislation and I would suggest that

they do so at this session if possible. Actually, I'll help to draw the

legislation to speed the matter up at all.

Now, it is certainly with some degree of temerity that I see that

the Hon. the Attorney General is not here. I've mentioned this to him

before. It's the question of the removal of Oakalla from Burnaby. I

speak to him every year about it and he sits there and listens and I

think he's hearing but every year goes by and the jail remains.

Now, I would certainly hope that the Minister will take this matter

into serious consideration and have the jail removed completely from

Burnaby, and that the land presently occupied by Oakalla revert to the

municipality for public purposes. I thought two years ago we were

making some headway when the Clydesdales were removed but they have

since been replaced by humans. There seems to be more and more activity

there all the time.

There is no hope at the moment. But I am sure that when the Attorney

General does get the message that he will look into the removal of this

construction.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. LORIMER: Well, you know we have to go through the channels.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. LORIMER: Now, certainly the question of whether or not

such a facility as Oakalla should exist in the first place is certainly

another question. It's a question, however, that I won't deal with

today. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. lady Minister without Portfolio.

HON. P.J. JORDAN (Minister without Portfolio): Thank you very

much, Mr. Speaker. I'm very pleased to take my place in the debate

today, and to follow the Hon. Member for Burnaby-Willingdon who treated

us to a very nice and interesting history of the Legislature. I'd just

like to thank him and also tell him that we also read Jane Nesbit but

it was very enlightening.

He spoke quite passionately in his quiet way on the plight of the

poor and the helpless senior citizens. I listened very carefully and I

would suggest that this side too is deeply concerned but I would

suggest, Mr. Speaker, that I would have been more impressed with his

statement if he could back it up with facts and if he hadn't played to

the gallery so eloquently.

Mr. Speaker, that Member as a Member of the Socialist party says

that this government is not doing anything for senior citizens, and the

poor and the elderly, and yet he has before him a budget which outlines

time and time again the policies of this government which show great

concern for elderly and senior citizens and helpless people.

He mentioned personal care. There is here in this budget, Mr.

Speaker, over $2 million to enrich this programme for personal care for

helpless people who need nursing care. He was playing with sympathies,

Mr. Speaker. There is a total of $4.5 million available for outright

projects in this province this year and this year alone. This doesn't

include the masses of millions of dollars and effort that has gone into

this programme.

You know as well as I do through you, Mr. Speaker, that in England

these are nothing more than institutions. This side of the House will

have nothing to do with institutions in this province. My colleague from Little Mountain, Vancouver, has spent many hours and effort helping senior citizens' groups and other

low income groups in building their own housing in British Columbia.

cooperative housing, Mr. Speaker, where these people know the pride of

ownership, they know independence and they can design them and build

them in a manner that suits them. Not the way that the state says.

My other colleague, the Honourable Minister without Portfolio from

Mackenzie, (Hon. Mrs. Dawson), has spent hours and hours and that

Member very well knows it. Weeks, months and years along with the other

colleagues in this government and through the Premier's policies

developing independence for senior citizens and senior citizens'

housing. I too, will make reference to senior citizens' recreational

centres.

There isn't anyone, at any level of government, I would suggest, who

wouldn't like to do everything for everyone but reason has to prevail.

The fact is that the country that was under Socialist domination for so

long now finds itself with one of the highest costs of living in the

world.

Speaking of senior citizens' pensions, it has pensions ranging from

$40 to $50 a month, and one of the lower standards of wages in the

world. So while I accept and appreciate his sincerity and his good

intention, I would suggest that he would do far better to follow the

Social Credit policy and the policy for people rather than a Socialist

policy and a policy for state.

While I am addressing myself to the Honourable Members of Her

Majesty's Loyal Opposition, I would refer to the fact that the Leader

of the N.D.P. had shown himself a man of considerable talents in

gyrating through various emotions. He has a long record in this House

and in this province and in fact in Canada, of being anti-American, yet

he had one sweet day's wooing by the Americans — and American

politicians at that — and he came back very strongly pro-American. I

would like to pose a question to him in view of this apparent ability

to fluctuate back and forth without any major convictions, of just

where he stands, and on some statements that were made by a leading

labour leader in North America.

"This leader is very constantly shuffling around under the sheets with the labour leaders in this province."

I would like to know where he stands on George Meaney's statement

and I will quote it. George Meaney, as you know, is considered the

granddaddy of some of the most advanced labour legislation and most

advanced and progressive ideas in North America. He said yesterday, in

Miami Beach, Florida, he favours "binding arbitration." He suggested,

"there is a growing feeling that strikes of people getting $7,500 a

year or more just doesn't make sense."

Where does the Hon. N.D.P. Leader stand there? What is he going to

say in British Columbia? Mr. Meaney agrees with the Government of

British Columbia, and he's learning from our efforts to achieve labour

and management harmony. The value of laying legislation on the table,

not keeping it under the cuff.

Mr. Speaker, I got a message from the whip suggesting that I set a

new record and example for this House by giving a brilliant speech in

two minutes because there are a lot of speakers on the rostrum this

afternoon. I'll forego the brilliance if he'll forego the two minutes.

I would like to cover four projects this afternoon and

[ Page 503 ]

start with the area of recreation which I suggest applies very strongly to all people in British Columbia.

If we listen to the young people and the older people and people in

my generation, not only in British Columbia or Canada, but throughout

the world, then we are aware that they are looking for — and we are all

looking for — a new sense of values in life.

I would suggest that the advances in technology and the advances in

our economy which basically lead us to a very comfortable standard of

living, means that we must find this new sense of values through a new

philosophy and that is in the area of recreation and in the area that I

would like to call "leisurology" because it involves hard-core sports,

cultures and just generally doing your own thing in a constructive

leisure time area.

I would suggest that in this budget we see a dramatic new approach

by the Government of British Columbia to this new philosophy that we

are all working towards. One is in the area of environment and ecology,

where we see $67 million set aside for parks, reforestation programmes

and people-orientated ecological programmes. I won't speak of that in

detail today but I would like to talk about leisurology and to suggest

that my statements that this is a bold and new approach to a new avenue

of life by the government is backed up by the dollars in this budget.

We see combined with this and ecology, $10 million for reforestation

which will lend itself to a multi-land use, recreational programme so

that our forests will not only be productive but they will be used for

recreation and people's enjoyment as well. The $25 million for the

green belt protection fund, the $15 million amateur sports and physical

fitness fund and the $15 million for the British Columbia culture fund

as well as the $25 million for the drug, alcohol and cigarette

education, prevention and rehabilitation fund.

These moneys, Mr. Speaker, and it should be pointed out very

clearly, do not include recreational money and jobs that will be

provided through departments such as the community recreation branch,

the agricultural department and its foliage policy, the provincial

secretary and through various senior citizens.

I would like to talk a few minutes about the community recreation

branch because they are little mentioned in the media and certainly to

my knowledge have never been championed in this House and yet they are

a very great influence in the Province of British Columbia in the area

of leisure activities.

It was a small department that started in the Department of

Education, recognising that there had to be education for people in

order to encourage them to involve their leisure time on a constructive

and interesting basis. It was a small staff and it did an excellent job

and it has now just undergone a year's revitalisation in its new

department, the Department of Travel Industry. I would suggest that the

testimony to the effectiveness of this small band of people — six — and

the band that I call the band of seven who are the consultants around

the province, is that there are more than 350 recreation commissions

throughout the Province of British Columbia and in almost every area of

British Columbia.

I think that the second testimony to their effectiveness has been

the large and rapidly-growing number of highly qualified and competent,

professional, recreational people hired throughout the province by

small communities and by large communities.

I have had the privilege of meeting nearly all these people in this

past year and I would like to say that one can't help but be impressed

by their dedication and their breadth of knowledge and their

willingness to approach recreation, not from a narrow point of view,

but from a very broad point of view. I should think that we must

consider ourselves most fortunate in British Columbia that we are

attracting this type of recreational person and development.

One just has to look at the number of young people and married men

and women of early and middle age and older people who are not

professionals and who are involved in these recreational programmes in

their own communities and who give of their time and their effort and

their money to help involve other members of their community in

recreational and cultural activities. I would suggest in evolving a

more active people-orientated recreational programme in British

Columbia that these volunteers or non-professionals will play an

extremely vital role.

The branch has essentially been in two departments. One are the

field seven, the others are as a resource centre where they provide

advice to public agencies and individuals and where they lend aid to

recreation for the handicapped, the blind and the emotionally

disturbed. They have offered leadership for public cultural and

physical fitness programmes and they have sponsored and paid for or

helped pay for seminars for professional people and seminars to train

coaches at the community level and seminars for the public who want to

become interested in recreation.

They have also provided a resource centre for the names of

outstanding people who can be used as resource people and resource

material.

The library service which is now under the direction of Mr. Peter

Grant has just completed an evaluation of the film library and I'm sure

you'll be pleased to hear, as many of us were, that a lot of the old

films that were very much out-of-date in displaying crew cuts and long

dresses has been dumped in the garbage can and that we have a large

inventory now of new films and we'll be acquiring more.

In the drama division, I think we must pay great recognition to Miss

Anne Adamson's dedicated service and the effect of her dedication and

service throughout the province is reflected in an accelerated upsurge

of drama interests all over the province, in the cities and in some of

the very small communities. She disperses well over 6,000 books,

pamphlets and magazines which are borrowed from this department yearly.

I would suggest that it was Miss Adamson's enthusiasm and assistance

to drama interests throughout the province which has resulted in an

increase in work-shops and festivals and touring groups. Audience

participation is up and there is a marked increase in outdoor

entertainment in local squares and plazas. What can be more great

testimony to the enrichment of the peoples' lives in British Columbia

than to have them in outdoor, cultural and physical activities?

In evaluating the programme it was felt that to expand recreation at

the more-or-less grass roots level we should evolve a financial

programme which would be stimulating to areas to move more directly in

this area.

It was felt that they would like to analyse the effectiveness of

current programmes and to encourage the hiring of more professional

people throughout the province, and at the local level.

They wanted to assist with a close examination of the advisability

and needs of regional recreation at a level on a regional basis with

local participation. A new grant system was evolved which consisted of

a $300 grant to any recreation commission in an unorganised area but no

full-

[ Page 504 ]

time recreational personnel and a staff-hiring incentive which I like to call the 5 minus 1 theory.

The first year for a professional director or superintendent there

is an outright grant from the provincial government of $4,000 towards

his salary. In the second year it is $3,000, third year $2,000, down to

$1,000 at the fourth year when it is felt that the service to the

community must either be of value or in fact it's not worth it at that

time continuing.

For the recreation employees who programme and supervise and

organise, there is a grant system for the first year of $2,000 working

down to $500 in the last year.

There is an incentive in cash to encourage recreation people to look

at recreation on a regional basis. There is $400 as a once-only grant

to study regional recreation and regional districts who decide to form

a regional recreation commission can receive a $3,000 grant for

organisational purposes. Upon formation of regional district

recreation, there is another $3,000 to assist with the initial

programming. There was also an increase in funds under the special

programmes projects

section and these have been used to stimulate many

new activities and to try and encourage commissions not to fall into

the habit of putting on easy programmes just because people come and

just because it's convenient.

We would like to encourage more initiative, more people to become

involved and more imagination in the programmes that they undertake.

Part of the revitalisation programme are a number, of developments

but there are two new brochures which all Members of the House should

be aware of and pass out to their constituencies. One is the community

recreation branch and the other is a guide to recreation commissions

which will be very informative and I see the Honourable Member from

Burnaby-North, (Mrs. Dailly), is interested and I think you'll find in

it all the information you need to help people in your area organise

recreation on a regional basis or on a local basis.

I feel, Mr. Speaker, that there is an undocumented awareness in this

budget that if we are to assist people in meeting their emotional

needs, that we can place greater emphasis on preventive health care and

physical fitness through environment and through recreational

activities in their broadest terms.

I think that we are aware today that many people's frustrations or

minor illnesses are really a matter of circumstances which are

temporary but which they cannot cope with at this time. If the

situation is allowed to lie dormant then the frustrations compound

themselves but if we are going to meet these on a people-to-people

basis which so often is all that is needed, then we can use recreation

as that vehicle and there is a strong emphasis on the part of

government to draw a closer relationship between those working in

health, those working in social, rehabilitation and those working in

recreation.

So often frustrations or problems, if you want to call it, are not

of a deep psychological nature and don't necessarily need a

highly-qualified professional to service them. What they do need is

someone to help them out of this particular moment. They are often to

do with age, where you have the death of a partner, or where you have

elderly people retiring and moving to a new locality or where you have

a change of locality of a family or personal isolation because of these

reasons, or because of a person's own personality makeup where they

might be shy or for some reason cannot quite motivate themselves to

become involved.

It is very easy to have somebody say: "You should go down and do

this." It's not quite so easy to do it, if you have one of these sort

of temporary frustrations on your mind. I think living standards lead

to this and certainly family circumstances where you have a single

parent, whether it is a male or female or where you have a breadwinner

who is preoccupied with earning a living and therefore his family

doesn't get his attention nor the incentive to take

part in

recreational activities.

Certainly, young children with young mothers create a time in their

life when it is difficult for them to get out or often to motivate

themselves to get out.

I think family priorities have a lot to do with it and certainly I

have been impressed in travelling around the province in recreation of

finding some of the families and feel that their dollar priorities

should go into material benefits in the local pub or the local club but

in fact don't leave enough money for their family to enter into forms

of recreation.

So I suggest that through a closer relationship with the health

department and the health workers, hospital workers, with social

rehabilitation and recreational people — without divulging any

confidential information — if these people have these problems then

through recreation we can reach them. We can arrange to have a friend

or someone who is interested become their buddy or their partner and

encourage them to get out or go on a camping trip or whatever it may be

that they need, just to lend a helping hand. I know that you will be

pleased to know that we have a number of these buddy programmes now

developing in the province — there are friendship clubs which are for

both younger and middle-age families and we have one or two teenage

brown-bag clubs where teenagers take their lunch and join with the

Meals-on Wheels people and go and have their lunch with the senior

citizens.

There is probably nothing worse than eating alone even if it is a

hot meal and we've found that in these associations that these young

people have interested the senior citizens in coming out. In one case

that I know of a boy was a basketball player and his family weren't

terribly interested. But he got his brown bag partner, a senior

citizen, to become interested and ended up by getting his mother and

father and brother to pick the senior citizen up and take them to the

games.

I think this is a very worthwhile project and a worthwhile way of

approaching these problems. It's slow, admittedly, but certainly

something so valuable as getting people involved with each other and

meeting our needs on that basis is very worthwhile and worth the time

that it's going to take.

I suggest that these programmes and the expansion of these

programmes will be pursued more vigorously this year and certainly any

member of the branch would be pleased to help any Member of this House

if they wanted to help start this in their own area.

My colleague, the Honourable Attorney General, almost took half my

speech yesterday but he referred to the run-walk-cycle-swim programme

and I would just like to mention — because I'm not sure it was clear

yesterday — that this programme started last year by the community

programmes branch. It was highly successful. We have 80-year-old ladies

in the walking programme who got their medals and we have families

cycling together, families swimming together, people who didn't know

each other doing recreation together and it's so popular that it will

be continued this year.

There will also be another programme coming out shortly whose emphasis will be on family or people involvement,

[ Page 505 ]

people who don't know each other, to get involved

in recreation as well as taking an interest in each other. It will be

in the form of a game and I'm sorry that while the mockup is in, it

hasn't been finalised and I can't show it to you today.

I think, Mr. Speaker, in talking and thinking about recreation that

we must be very mindful of the variety and scope that this

all-encompassing word offers. I don't mean that one sport or one

activity should eclipse another. What I do suggest is that while in

smaller communities and in cities on planned occasions, the outdoor

free-flowing recreational activities or artistic activities should and

will be available, that we have to recognise that the freely-structured

hard-core form of recreation is essential and by this I mean what I

might call the sweat-producing activities of calisthenics and handball,

squash, badminton, and that in the large metropolitan area we're going

to need a new set of attitudes towards urban living.

I suggest that it's a fact of life that cities are with us and they

are exciting to many people and many people like to live in them. But I

think we have to, in developing a new attitude, make cities more of a

place in which to live than a place in which to work in and get out of.

This is where recreation and what I call the broad concept of

recreation comes in to play.

I think that we have to aim as a long-range objective to have these

hard-core calisthenics sweat-producing centres in all areas of our

cities and in most of the larger smaller towns. They should be combined

with areas where cultural and educational and health activities all

carry on.

I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that man is never so refreshed,

content or healthy both mentally and physically as after physical

exertion and if you look at it, yesterday's manual labour and so-called

home chores are now extinct.

Not too many people have a garden but if they have they have a good

place for it. But I think the point to be remembered here is that where

there are not these chores and there is not the opportunity for this

physical exertion. We have to co-ordinate our physical fitness

programmes as a major avenue of people resources and health.

I would suggest that we have to accept the fact that where young

people in the past learned self-discipline and health and a sense of

appreciation for their own worth and this was done through work and the

physical activities which I now consider are basically extinct, today

these attitudes and these values will be developed through sports and

through recreation.

Just before leaving recreation I would like to go into the area of

senior citizens' activities. My colleague, the Honourable Member for

Mackenzie (Hon. Mrs. Dawson) has worked as I mentioned earlier with

senior citizens. But I think it only right to bring to your attention

that this government has not just talked as so often happens with the

Opposition, they have acted and in co-operation with the elderly to

help them achieve their desires.

Since 1963 we've had legislation whereby the provincial government

offers a one-third capital grant for any recreational centre

development or renovation. To qualify all the senior citizens have to

do is be part of or form a non-profit society. There does have to be 10

per cent local involvement — because we don't want these developed and

then the people in the programme just dumped aside, there is no

question that they need help in the business details generally — and

that they be structurally sound and that the senior citizens themselves

be in control.

I suggest that when you look around the province and see the amount

of dollars that are involved and the number of senior citizens involved

in this activity all over the province that you would suggest the idea

of bringing them in to do what they want is the better approach.

I'd like to give you a few examples. Vancouver to the Jewish

Community Centre — $17,000. Another one — New Westminster, the

Honourable Member will be pleased to know — $25,000. Victoria, where

the M.L.A.'s are supposed to do nothing — $41,000. Vancouver — $30,000.

Vancouver — $30,000. North Vancouver — $17,000. Port Alberni — $27,000.

Hedley — Union Bay — Courtenay — Fort St. John — Osoyoos — Fort St.

John — $28,000.

All over the province, Mr. Speaker, senior citizens are taking

part

in helping recreational activities in involving themselves in more

interesting lives. They have the full support and help of this

government.

Well, the Member from the north shore isn't here, but I'm sure he

would be glad to know that with your efforts that they'll soon have a

new senior citizens' centre.

Nearly $1 million has been spent so far and more is committed in this budget for this coming year.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to turn for a moment to agriculture with

particular reference to the budget and the $200,000 that is set aside

for the promotion of British Columbia agricultural products.

I think that on behalf of agriculture this is a very positive and

welcome promotion and alone with it I would like to suggest that it is

time and that British Columbia has matured enough to develop its own

distinctive label or symbol and I would like to see along with this

promotion the development of a British Columbia stamp and label which

would either be in the form of a dogwood flower or would be a

modernistic symbol of British Columbia. It should be awarded solely to

British Columbia–owned agencies and British Columbia–produced products.

It should be synonymous with quality at sight and awarded only to

those achieving the highest degree of excellence in their products and

the regulations should be rigidly adhered to and if the product falls

below standard in quality then the symbol should be withdrawn.

In promoting our products we have to be very sure to sell also an

identity. People buy what they think about. If you're going to buy

apples, then you're going to buy British Columbia apples if you know

when you look at the labels that they are quality and what British

Columbia apples mean to you.

But I wouldn't suggest that this be confined solely to agricultural

products. We have a thriving and excellent garment industry in British

Columbia and their products are competing very favourably on the

American market and some European markets. It's possible that they may

be able to expand into the Japanese market. They should be included and

have the opportunity and incentive.

The areas of camping equipment — almost any British

Columbia-produced product should be eligible. This would be an

incentive to producers for quality and competitiveness and it certainly

would instil a sense of pride in British Columbians and also encourage

them to buy our British Columbia products.

I'd like to turn for a moment to day-care. I'm sure it is of little

interest to the gentlemen in the House but would like to assure you is

of great interest to many people in British Columbia and Canada and

particularly to the working mother.

[ Page 506 ]

We feel as a government that day-care plays an essential role in the

lives of many Canadian families. The first national conference, I'm

sure you'll be pleased to know, Mr. Speaker, on day-care in Ottawa last

June clearly stated that British Columbia leads in the day-care area in

providing financial support for day-care services, the establishment of

standards, the licensing requirements, and the flexibility and scope of

this programme.

The inter-department approach which has been very carefully built up

in this area, in cooperation with health departments, welfare, social

rehabilitation department, and education was singled out as being an

outstanding approach. We feel, and certainly I feel, as a mother and as

a Member of this Legislature, that the key factor in evolving a

day-care centre is the care and the welfare of the child. The benefit

to the mother is a companion benefit.

In developing day-care programmes further I think and believe that

every effort must be made to protect a child, to provide this service

in a manner that is strengthening to the family life, and to provide

enforcing agencies for good basic standards of child care. We should

ensure the availability of this service to any parent — male or female

— and that the flexibility must be there to ensure that where there are

circumstances in a home where for one reason or another a mother can't

cope with her children this service will be available.

I see the Honourable Member for Burnaby-North (Mrs. Dailly) smiling

and I would like to say to her that I'm very pleased that she has toned

down her radical views on child-care and day-care and that she is much

more in support of our programme than she was when she came into this

House.

She often says that we aren't at the same meetings and I suggest

after I listen to her speak that I often wonder if we're at the same

meetings. Because our programme, through you Mr. Speaker to the

Honourable Member for Burnaby, has as I mentioned been pointed out in

Canada as leading the way and that when I've had the opportunity to

share these ideas with groups and many mothers who are concerned about

day-care they have agreed that our objectives must be adhered to and

that the welfare of the child is the essential ingredient.

I think that our service will continue to be and has been predicated

upon community professional, parent and government involvement. We feel

strongly that the parents should be involved as much as possible and

continue to be a strong influence in the child's life.

The present day-care services that are offered through British

Columbia are through non-profit societies, through the private sectors,

through special agencies such as mental health, handicapped and through

universities, through churches and through creative interests. They

range from full day-care, special needs, to after-school centres to

family day-care homes for the younger child under three.

The financing is based on the formula basis and while it has been

credited with being the outstanding formula in Canada it is now under

review and we are hopeful of making this money even more effective and

more available to those who need it.

The Royal Commission on the Status of Women recommends that each

province and territory establish a child care board to be responsible

for the establishment and supervision of day-care centres and other

child programmes. Here again, the Honourable Member from Burnaby

clapped diligently, she always wants to put people in a capsule and if

you set up a board holus-bolus you're very much in danger of capsuling

these children and this service. This government will have no part of

it.

We're examining it but under the present situation where the

inter-departmental committees handle this matter we have the great

advantage of inter-departmental communications. They think of it from

the broadest point of view of the child's welfare not just from a

segmented board's point of view. There's no way there will be a board

until we're sure that this is in the best interests of the children.

Child-care centres are established throughout nearly all parts of

British Columbia — they range from Dawson Creek to Prince George to the

lower mainland, Vancouver Island and in the Kootenays. I'm very pleased

to announce, Mr. Speaker, that for the period of January 1, 1971 to

December 31, 1971, day-care services in British Columbia have increased

from 78 centres to 126 centres with expenditures under the formula

programme just under $1.25 million. There are now over 100,000 day care

days in British Columbia. This is up 40 per cent from last year. These

include family day-care homes for very young children.

I wouldn't suggest for a moment, Mr. Speaker, that I announce that

with pride — that that's all that has to be done. But I do suggest that

for a programme that is leading Canada in its philosophy, in its

financing and its stringent regulations, and its concern for the child

that this is a most admirable step and that we will proceed from there.

I would also remind Members of the House, that this does not include

the 10,000 children, over 10,000 children, who take

part in

kindergarten programmes throughout the province where the provincial

government shares in the capital costs and in the operating financing.

There are other areas of day care which I would like to mention.

One, I would like to thank publicly the number of groups of women who

presented excellent briefs. I would single out the R.N.A.B.C. brief

because the Honourable Member for Burnaby quotes it quite frequently I

understand. I have no particular quarrel with that brief. I think it is

an excellent one.

We must look very closely, and we are, at the advisability of

expanding beyond a very need for service for children under three. We

are examining very carefully the advisability and the value to children

of pre-school enrichment programmes and it's very interesting to note

that the Honourable Member for Burnaby again championed these

programmes, diligently, when she first came into the House. We were

derelict in our duties and we were scoundrels because we didn't set

these programmes up all over the province and while the Honourable

Member for Yale-Lillooet (Mr. Hartley) is clapping loudly, he's

clapping a programme that is being highly questioned by child

psychologists and educationalists.

They are very concerned that on appraising the children who have

been through a young-child-enrichment programme that:

(1) They show no

greater progress after Grade 3 to 4;

(2) There is a marked tendency

among them that when they get into Grades 7, 8 and 9 to show an extreme

reaction to a group-learning situation. And their concern here is that

by breaking the parent love relationship with the young child too soon

that the child becomes bored, or frustrated by the group exposure

position, or circumstances.

I think that this is something that we must pay very close attention

to. It has been summed up by a number of experts both in the United

States and Canada, and some in Europe to the point that if your child

has taken

part in one of these enrichment programmes, pre-school

enrichment programmes,

[ Page 507 ]

if by the age of 12 you've done him no harm that's the best you can hope for.

The headstart programme in the United States, which we have been

watching very closely has shown no major impact on the learning

abilities or the adjustment of these young children.

Mr. Speaker, for a long time I've talked about the situation of

income tax and the working mother, and I was pleased when the federal

government did allow up to $500 for day-care for the working mother.

But I suggest that this is just not enough, and it doesn't face the

situation squarely, it puts working women in a position where they're

half-baked employers, or their service is half-baked. If we look at the

matter of child care we should be promoting child care in the home as

vigorously as we promote day-care centres, because of the parent-child

relationship. This not only offers a second relief to the working

mother, because this figure frequently helps with household chores and

preparing meals, but it also should offer a rewarding financially and

respectable form of employment for many older women, who want to do

this, who are quite capable of doing this but can't do it because the

working mother cannot afford to pay them. And I suggest at this time of

national unemployment it's a ridiculous approach to not make this

available through income tax.

In suggesting that $500 is all you can have to care for your child,

I suggest they are also making the child a second-class citizen, and

that this programme is designed not for the care of the child and the

well-being of the child and not for the relief for the mother, but in

fact to do more than flush out the people who have been working

part-time or full-time in child-care situations in homes and have not

been declaring it on their income tax.

And I don't think anybody should not declare things on their income tax, but I think this is a poor way to flush them out.

If you examine the figures, and I have a hypothetical case here, you

have a mother, a single-parent mother who is working — anyway if she's

working and making approximately $420 a month when she has paid off her

various debts or obligations to unemployment insurance and pension

plans she has approximately $365 a month left.

Now, if she's working independently and not applying for any

assistance she will pay anywhere in Canada up to $60 a month for her

child's care. If she's a single-parent family she's allowed $500 for

that child a year, and if she has two children and is a single parent

she will be allowed $1,000. But in fact her baby care or child care

bills will be well over $1,700 a year. And I would suggest that this

approach is half-baked and discriminatory, and that this House should

go on record as supporting full-time legitimate baby-care, child-care,

children-care as a legitimate income tax deduction for working parents

whether they are male or female.

I'd like to change just for a moment, Mr. Speaker, before closing

and talk about agriculture. I was appalled as everybody else was

appalled at the attitude of the Prime Minister of Canada and his rather

childish outburst.

But I think what appalled me more was that if I might almost say it

"Pat became the patsy" and the Leader of the Liberal Party is letting

himself either be used by the federal government or in fact is siding

with the federal government in his statements in the Press today that

British Columbia's action is inflammatory and is in fact designed to

destroy Canada.

There are no greater Canadians than the Members on this side of the

House, but I think the Attorney General spoke very eloquently about why

we are concerned about the taxpayers' dollar. And if the Honourable

Member of the Liberals is in support of tax dollars going into "Kitten

Clubs," going into major companies like General Electric, going into

black-top parking lots in any province, going into subsidies for which

there is no accounting, then I suggest he is a patsy of the federal

government, or he is not worthy of the education that he has.

And coupled with this stand of the local Liberals to defend the

action of the Prime Minister and the policies of unemployment, the

policies of half-baked treatment to working mothers, I must speak on

the part of agricultural people again and I was appalled when the

Honourable Member for Howe-Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) stated that he

supported the federal government policy on agriculture and the

abolition of independence farming.

For your information, Mr. Speaker, I did just a little research on

this subject of small farms. He called them "pony farms" with a tone

that was nothing short of a sneer, and I would like to ask him what he

thinks the farmer of British Columbia is today. When you listen to the

Liberals talk it sounds as if they either own 10,000 acres, or that

they own 10 acres of weeds and bush or that they're some potentate

luxuriating in their farms having others do the work for them.

I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, if he knew anything about farming in

Canada and British Columbia particularly he would know that there is no

such existence in British Columbia. If you own 10,000 acres and it's

productive you are a hard-working farmer and you've poured your life

and your soul into that land, and you may well work at other areas of

employment from choice or from part to supplement your income.

I would suggest that the farmer in British Columbia today is a

person who is well-educated, well-involved with his community and very

much interested in independence. If there's any question about that I

would like to quote from an

article where the writer is a farmer and is

commenting on the statements of the Liberal policy and he says: "Does

the federal government owe these farmers a living? My answer as a

farmer is 'no'. All we want is a right to work our own land and reap

fair price for what we produce."

And then to the Liberals' statement that we should subsidise farmers he says:

"Subsidise us because we like to farm, because we don't want to learn different

skills and move to the city? Pardon me for saying this Mr. Liberal but 'get

off the pot'." And that's a quote.

When the Liberal Member in this House suggested that the Liberals

would make farming an efficient industry this gentleman says: "Why not

let the farming industry become efficient?" In case you don't know it,

Mr. Member, our Canadian farmers are the most efficient primary food

producers in the world. And efficient farming is not going to

necessarily bring low food costs to the British Columbian consumer.

I'd like to just tell you about one or two examples of the so-called

pony farms that there are in this province. And I'll cite one example

which is 30 acres, it was bought by a family that moved over here after

the war. The father was born in Poland, and the mother was born in

Austria. They had suffered through the war, they had lost their child,

he died in the mother's arms.

They came to the Okanagan and they settled in a small community on a small lot in town, and they grew beans in

[ Page 508 ]

their back yard and sold them to the canneries, and

with his job and these efforts they were able to achieve a farm of 10

acres. Which is now a farm of 30 acres, and they farm it and he works

out as a carpenter. He's an efficient farmer, they have a very happy

way of life, but he is a pony farmer.

There are others in the area. Orchards, for example — productive,

efficient orchards — are frequently no larger than 14 to 16 acres, yet

that's classed as a pony farm.

These, Mr. Speaker, and Members, are the people and the way of life

as the Liberals say they are going to get rid of. And I would just like

to quote you a few figures on farming which come from the agricultural

people themselves.

The total number of farms in British Columbia is 19,085 and this

includes thousands of acres and small two-and-a-half acres farms. The

indication here is that nearly 80 per cent of all farms — 80 per cent

of 19,000 — are owned by and operated by a farmer and his family.

This is a province of family-owned farms. Those who can afford to

hire a manager, and I'm glad the Member from West Vancouver–Howe Sound

is here because he is the one that stated that he would get rid of the

pony farm. Those who can afford to hire a manager make up a very small

percentage, in total 0.8 per cent of 19,000 farms in British Columbia.

I would just like to point out about one or two other points about

the so-called hobby farm. That they are bought, and this is from the

farmers themselves, with the intention it should pay and in its own

way. And this does happen particularly when the owner lives on the farm

and his family supply most of the labour. Some hobby farms are also

bought with the intention that it should pay and this does happen.

He also suggested that the so-called commercial farm, which is a

commercial pony farm, provides a great source of information to

agriculture. Frequently people who have an income from outside can

afford to bring in new breeding stock, usually breeding stock that the

average farmer couldn't and the offspring from this stock after the

experimentation are available to the farmer at much less cost.

They develop acreage of raw land which is frequently subdivided into

smaller efficient farms and that they bring, and I quote again: "They

bring to agriculture stimulating attitudes, valuable information and

have been influential in the larger community for the betterment of

agriculture."

I would suggest that it's deplorable that Liberal Members of this

House have openly stated that they will support a policy that will do

away with this type of agriculture. And I suggest that it only evolves

not from intention, from lack of knowledge.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Oh, you damned the pony farm, don't try and retract

your words. You spoke in a most scornful manner about the pony farms, and now

you're trying to back out of it. A typical Liberal "flip flop."

Now, Mr. Speaker, in closing I would like to suggest that these are

some of the programmes that I've had the privilege of working on with

my colleagues this past year. They are an example of a response of this

government, both financially and supportively to the interests and

needs of the people of British Columbia. And the budget emphasises the

economic stimulation that is necessary to balance our desire for

ecological and for social opportunities.

Interwoven in this budget and its emphasis on social opportunities is a steady

pointing out of job opportunities — not only through industry and commerce,

but through a better way of life. And this budget in comparison to all other

budgets shows beyond a doubt that we will carry on and we will be able to improve

our way of life in British Columbia and that we will be able to afford to do

this without loading the future generations with a burdensome debt.

It's interesting that the economic forecasters in Canada predicted

that the federal government will bring in a deficit budget and I

predict that it will and they have predicted that all provinces will

have to borrow to meet not only current obligations but the obligations

that they wish to bring in to evolve new programmes. This Social Credit

government, Mr. Speaker, has brought in an exciting and innovative and

a balanced budget with enough reserves to assure us stability should

the economic situation vary beyond our jurisdictions.

It's on the basis of this and the reputation of this government and

its response to people that I will proudly support the budget on behalf

of the people of the North Okanagan.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Cariboo.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. First I

want to congratulate the Honourable the Attorney General on his remarks

yesterday with reference to the statement made last weekend by the

Prime Minister of Canada about the Premier of British Columbia — and

also to congratulate him and the government for the action they intend

to pursue following these statements.

To say the least I'm sure this has shocked all the citizens of our

province and they will certainly give their reply shortly. I would

recommend, Mr. Speaker, to the Honourable the Premier that any time he

wants to go to the people of British Columbia I think he has a real

issue here, and we should go as soon as possible on this alone.

The Prime Minister called our Premier a bigot. Mr. Speaker, this

means that the Prime Minister of Canada said our Premier was

intolerant, and a prejudiced person. In my opinion he is just the

opposite. I would say he is very tolerant. What Premier in Canada has

such a bunch of back-benchers as our Premier has. (Laughter).

AN HON. MEMBER: Very tolerant.

MR. FRASER: His backbenchers are forever after him, and

disagreeing with him. I would say that our Premier is very tolerant.

Our Premier is not prejudiced against anybody and particularly French

Canadians, Mr. Speaker. Why he only recently appointed an outstanding

French Canadian to his cabinet. I refer of course to the Honourable

Member for Columbia River, the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Chabot).

The lack of understanding by the public about what equalisation

payments really rest on is appalling. And since 1957 Canada has spent

$5.5 billion on equalisation payments with no apparent result. I might

add here, Mr. Speaker, that on a per capita basis, British Columbia has

contributed by far the most to this $5.5 billion. As a matter of fact,

say that the disparity between certain parts of the country and those

receiving equalisation grants is in fact growing. Surely this would

cause any sensible person to take stock of the policy and so we should.

The incredible thing is that equalisation payments in fact are a house built upon shifting sand. Let's just take two of

[ Page 509 ]

the reasons why they are paid in the first place.

They are paid because the resources revenue from a particular province

does not reach the national average. They are paid as well on the basis

of the personal income level reached in a particular province. In other

words, governments such as Newfoundland, New Brunswick, and Quebec can

go on massive give-away programmes, turning their resources over for

little royalty to anyone, and this policy will naturally diminish their

revenue from resources.

Similarly, governments such as Quebec, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick

can deliberately have low minimum wage laws which naturally diminish

the earning capacity of their people. How stupid can we get when we

reward patronage and give-aways in the resource picture and reward a

policy of sweatshop wages at the the same time?

A further incredible thing, Mr. Speaker, about this is that the

Halifax housewife or, for that matter, the Fredericton or Quebec City

housewife, knows that when she goes to the shoe store or to the

supermarket she certainly has to pay either exactly the same as she

does in Vancouver and in some instances, a little more. Equalisation

payments not only do not correct this situation, they ensure that these

people will be locked into patronage and sweatshop wages forever.

Let's get down to specifics, and so that there is no

misunderstanding that the British Columbia position is aimed strictly

at the so-called French fact, let's take Joey Smallwood's Newfoundland.

Mr. Doyle, that enterprising character from the United States, has

enjoyed multi-million dollar opportunities from the Government of

Newfoundland to develop resources for which he has paid zero.

In other words, the treasury of Newfoundland has permitted its

resources to be managed on money put up by the Canadian taxpayer and

then we reward that situation by paying Newfoundland equalisation

payments because they get no money from their resources. When one

considers that the resources being used in Newfoundland — namely, trees

— are the same resources that here in British Columbia we expect return

from, the story becomes even more incredible because the resource

revenue that we extract from our developers in British Columbia has to

put up into the national treasury so that we can make payments to

provinces that do not choose to get any money from their resources.

Similarily on wages, Mr. Speaker, if the governments of New

Brunswick or Nova Scotia choose to enact labour laws which prevent a

flourishing trade union movement to exist, and enact laws which make

their minimum wage laws a farce, then the wage earner in British

Columbia through their income tax must again cough up equalisation

payments to redress this deliberately-inspired imbalance. How stupid

can we get?

In other words, every time the British Columbia wage earner gets his

wage package a percentage of that wage package is deliberately siphoned

off to theoretically equalise the wage situation deliberately created

in another province. It should be obvious to even a Grade 6 student

that reinforcing this kind of situation by equalisation payments will

be a never-ending story.

Is it any wonder when one considers this situation, that the

Government of British Columbia believes that the revenue of Canada

should go to the people and not to governments?

If the equalisation payments were the only part of this story it

would be bad enough. Unfortunately there is much, much more. Programme

after programme is designed on top of these equalisation payments to

confer even more benefits on certain selected areas of Canada.

Obviously these areas are selected on politics only; economics mean

nothing.

Just to name a few: The Atomic Energy Corporation, in the year 1969

had expenditures of $411 million — none to British Columbia. Ferry

subsidies to the east coast were $12 million, a very small sum to

British Columbia, I believe around $300,000. The Atlantic Development

Board approved expenditure of $110 million in 1969, involving highways,

et cetera, in the Maritimes and again there was nothing, Mr. Speaker,

to British Columbia.

The Atlantic Provinces Power Development Corporation has spent $63 million in 1969 and again nothing to British Columbia. The Interim Arrangement Act

specifically applying to the Province of Quebec — and isn't that a

beautiful name — approved the expenditure of $186.9 million in 1969 for

Quebec only.

Even when it comes to such sharing proposals, Mr. Speaker, as we

find under occupational training, we find incredible disparities: for

the fiscal year 1968-69 Quebec got $123 million — British Columbia got

$13 million.

It is any wonder the Province of British Columbia has a right to ask

questions in the face of this kind of waste, extravagance, and special

treatment? It is time that the people of Canada woke up to the fact

that when Quebec is asking, as she is asking now, for the complete

control of all payments under the Canada Assistance Plan, all payments

under the family allowance legislation, all payments under Canada

Manpower, and all payments under Mr. Pelletier's special slush fund for

other weird and wonderful projects such as the $2,500 for teaching

people to boil spaghetti, it is not just money that is at stake, it is

the future of our nation, Mr. Speaker.

Quebec says quite clearly that in addition to all other special

arrangements they want the total dollar value of all those other

programmes, not to spend necessarily on those programmes, but on

anything that the political dictates of the Quebec government might

determine.

If we do this, where is the principle of Canadian mobility from

province to province? Where is the Canadian going to be who expects a

certain type of national service from one part of the country to

another, Mr. Speaker?

When British Columbia gets upset about this we sometimes have had to

stand alone, but unfortunately the story is so incredible that it is

sometimes difficult for the man on the street to believe that it is

happening. But it is happening. It will be a sorry day for the country

if we let it happen without our voice being raised in protest.

I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that in British Columbia, we have 23

Members of Parliament representing this province in Ottawa. I would

like to ask Members of this House what have they been doing while all

this has been going on? I would suggest to you nothing. An absolute

silence. They know full well about this. I have never heard their voice

raised on it and I don't think anyone else has. What I am completely

concerned about, apart from the Members of Parliament, is that three of

these Members of Parliament are cabinet Ministers in the Trudeau

administration, and therefore they are one-tenth of the policy body of

that administration.

I would say they have failed, as all the other M.P.'s from British

Columbia have failed, British Columbia and I don't think they should

wait until the Prime Minister calls an election. I think they should

all resign, and resign now. We can then replace them with people who

will probably speak

[ Page 510 ]

up for this province.

Mr. Speaker, the budget we are now debating is the 20th budget

brought down by our Premier as Minister of Finance. At this time I

would like to congratulate our Premier on delivering this budget. I

only hope that he's around to deliver another 20 or 30 more.

This budget is a completely-balanced budget with no increase in tax

rates to the taxpayers. It is a budget with emphasis on service to

people, 69 per cent of this budget is to be spent on education, health

and social services. A large increase in the Health Department

expenditures is forecast for the new fiscal year. Included in this

increase is the provision for a branch of mental health in the Cariboo

to be located at Williams Lake. I might say, Mr. Speaker, the people of

Cariboo are most gratified about this.

A substantial increase is provided for in the budget for the

Highways Department. This is indeed great news for the riding of

Cariboo. Last year a very large programme of highway work was carried

out in the Cariboo. With the increase in the highway budget for this

fiscal year we can be assured that this will be continued. Mr. Speaker,

as I advised this House when I first spoke here in 1970, the most

important concern to the riding of Cariboo are the roads.

The Cariboo riding has 3,800 miles of public roads within its

boundaries. It has by far the largest mileage of public roads of any

riding in British Columbia. For this reason, it is essential that the

Department of Highways be provided with adequate funds to build and

maintain these roads.

I would at this time like to congratulate all members of the

Department of Highways in British Columbia for their excellent job of

snow removal during this past winter. All personnel of the department

deserve the thanks of all of us for the wonderful job they have done in

keeping our roads open during the winter under very severe conditions.

However, Mr. Speaker, I am satisfied that our personnel of our

highways department could do an even better job if they were given a

little more and newer equipment to work with. I intend to have

something to say about that when we get into the estimates of the

Department of Highways.

Last year this Legislature provided $15 million for the accelerated

parks development fund. This year $10 million has been added to the

fund. This is an important make work and create jobs programme. With

the addition of $10 million this year, it means, Mr. Speaker, that our

parks will be further improved.

While I am on the subject of parks, I would like to mention the Barkerville Historic Park and the Bowron Lake Park.

Many years ago this government decided to restore the community of

Barkerville, which you all know was so famous in the early days of the

history of this province as the gold mining capital of the world. Over

the last ten years, much has been accomplished in the restoration of

Barkerville. Work is continuing on this restoration at a satisfactory

pace.

Barkerville continues to attract people from all over the world.

This government has done an excellent job in advertising Barkerville as

an historic area of our province.

However, Mr. Speaker, two complaints have been made about

Barkerville by the visitors. They have been the road from Quesnel to

Barkerville — a distance of 60 miles — and the lack of campsite

accommodation when they arrive in Barkerville.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to inform the Hon. Members of this House that soon

these complaints will also only be history. Last year the Department of Highways

paved 50 miles of the road from Quesnel to Barkerville.

Further work will be done on this road this year. It is now an

excellent road and I urge anyone contemplating a trip to Barkerville

not to worry about the road.

On the subject of campsite accommodation, I am pleased to advise

this has been greatly improved. Last year thanks to accelerated park

development fund a new 85-unit campground was started. It is now 65 per

cent complete. This camp will be finished this year and will increase

campground facilities for the people from 45 units to 130 units.

Last year approximately 175,000 people visited Barkerville. Each

year since the early 1960's this figure has increased tremendously.

With the improved facilities I have outlined I am sure that the

increase will continue.

Improvements continue to be made to the Bowron Lake Park. This park

is 20 miles from Barkerville. It is a very large wilderness area with

lakes, streams, scenery and wildlife in abundance. A canoe trip can be

taken around a chain of lakes in this park. Many thousands have already

taken this trip. I urge more of the citizens of British Columbia to

take the trip, particularly the citizens of the lower mainland and

Vancouver Island. I am sure they will find Barkerville and Bowron Lake

a great relief from the places where they live.

While urging the citizens of the lower mainland to make a trip to

Barkerville and Bowron Lakes, I will remind this House that the riding

of Cariboo is a very large area that can be enjoyed by everyone.

Starting at Cache Creek on Highway 97, you enter the Cariboo and can

observe and enjoy wide-open spaces, fresh clean air, fishing and

hunting to your heart's desire. Cache Creek and Clinton have many

attractions for the visitor.

As you travel north on Highway 97, Mr. Speaker, the next major stop

is 100 Mile House. Famous in the old days as a stopping place on the

road to the Barkerville gold fields. It is now a thriving modern

community with a large surrounding rural area catering to holidayers

who enjoy visiting a dude ranch, fishing, camping and all other types

of outdoor activities.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that written by the citizens' Chamber of Commerce?

MR. FRASER: Yes, they sent it down to me.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR, FRASER: Further north you arrive at Quesnel which is the

largest area in the Cariboo. This is a thriving community and known as

the gateway to Barkerville as well as other large rural areas.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I recommend to all citizens of the lower mainland,

a trip through the Cariboo. You will receive a warm Cariboo welcome and

I am sure you will enjoy your visit.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. FRASER: While I have devoted some time to promoting

tourism in the Cariboo — and for the Hon. Member for Kootenay (Mr.

Nimsick) I got the speech written for me by the tourist association,

not the chamber of commerce — Mr. Speaker, and while it is an important

part of our economy it is only part of our economy.

By far the largest industry in the Cariboo is the forest product industry. At least 50 per cent of our citizens are

[ Page 511 ]

employed in this industry or servicing this

industry. Other large contributing factors to our economy besides

tourism are farming and mining.

Under the forest policies of this government, our forest industry

continues to flourish and expand. Since the policy of close utilisation

was introduced a few years ago our forest industry has made terrific

advances and are creating many new jobs on a permanent basis that never

existed before.

The official Opposition try to criticise our forest policy and the

forest industry. I will say to them that in the riding of Cariboo their

criticisms are falling on deaf ears. The Cariboo people know how the

forest industry has created many new permanent jobs and they appreciate

this.

The official Opposition try to impress the general public that the

large operators have forced out the small operators and now have things

their own way. Mr. Speaker, it is correct that we have fewer operators

in the forest industry than we had in the 1950's and the early sixties.

The present operators did not force out the smaller operators. They

purchased the smaller operators at a good price from the people who

wanted to sell. What is wrong with that? If you want to sell and the

buyer agrees to purchase at your price I see nothing wrong with that. I

repeat that we have not got as many small mill operators as we had, but

they were not forced out by the larger operators. They sold out at a

good price and they decided to sell. They were not forced out by anyone.

Another impression the official Opposition is attempting to create

with the public is an impression that the forest industry is not paying

its fair share of taxes and this government is giving away our forests

to the industry for peanuts.

It is my information that the forest industry is paying its good

share of taxation. Mr. Speaker, the forest industry is presently paying

56 per cent of its income in taxation. How much more does the

Opposition feel they should pay and still stay in business, creating

many jobs for our citizens? If the Opposition had their ideas of

taxation imposed on the forest industry it would not be long before we

would not have any forest industry in British Columbia, and

consequently less prosperity and employment.

Mr. Speaker, last Friday in this House the Honourable Minister of

Mines and petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Richter) delivered an address

which reviewed activity in his department. The Minister noted in his

address that several mines closed down operations in British Columbia.

The Minister further pointed out that mining is a high-risk industry

and is subject to the ups and downs of the international markets. That

was certainly shown in a most emphatic way in the Cariboo last November.

Brynoor Mines Limited who had operated a molybdenum mine at Hendrix

Lake east of 100 Mile House in the Cariboo, had operated there since

1965, ceased operations. They had 200 people employed, and while most

were able to find other employment they had to leave this area with

their families to find this employment. Consequently the 100 Mile House

area was dealt a severe economic blow as most of these people spent

their money in the area and they are no longer there to do this.

The cause of this closure of this mine, Mr. Speaker, was due to the

depressed and overstocked world molybdenum market. I only point this

out to all Members of this House to show how risky the mining industry

is and the Opposition continues to harp that they should be taxed even

more than they are already taxed.

If this government took the advice of the Members of the Opposition we would

not have any industries left make their contribution to the tax revenues of

this province. I will repeat here, Mr. Speaker, what some other Honourable Member

mentioned. Their policy, that is the Opposition's policy, is to tax out of business

the goose that laid the golden egg.

In 1970 the provincial government collected $32 million in taxes

from the mining industry. Included in those mines who paid this $32

million was Brynoor Mines. They unfortunately are no longer operating

to pay their share of taxes.

He referred to the Fraser River Board report of 1963. During his

address he seemed to be saying that it was not necessary to dam the

main stream of the Fraser River to effect flood control of the Lower

Fraser Valley, but it was necessary to build dams on tributaries of the

Fraser River as well as build dykes in the lower Fraser Valley, to

prevent a recurrence of the disastrous floods of 1894 and 1948.

Mr. Speaker, I would remind this House that most of the tributaries

of the Fraser River are also in the riding of Cariboo and if an attempt

to dam any of them for flood control is attempted the government will

find total opposition to this from the citizens of the Cariboo. The

opposition to damming of the tributaries of the Fraser River will

receive as much protest from the citizens of the Cariboo as an attempt

to build a dam at Moran on the main stream of the river.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words about the provincial

government-owned Pacific Great Eastern Railway and to tell this House

that it is the economic life line of the riding of Cariboo as well as

other ridings in the interior of British Columbia.

Under the direction of the government the railroad has been expanded

and improved and changed from the laughing stock of British Columbia to

one of the most modern, efficient and respected railroads on this

continent. Without the Pacific Great Eastern Railroad very little of

the expansion would have been possible that has taken place in the

interior of our province since the early 1950's. This railroad delivers

to market, in a fast efficient economic manner, most of the products

produced in the interior.

To say the least I was shocked to hear the Leader of the Liberal

party criticise last fall the quality of railroad construction that was

being carried out by the Pacific Great Eastern Railroad. I knew he did

not know what he was talking about, but unfortunately some of our

citizens do not realise that he continues to make irresponsible

statements on many subjects.

I would like to illustrate to this House how irresponsible his statements are about the railroad.

All Members realise that we are experiencing a most severe winter in

British Columbia. This has caused severe operating conditions

throughout the province for all types of transportation. The large

railroads, the C.P.R. and the C.N.R., have had as many days since the

New Year that they could not operate as they have had that they could

operate. This has been caused by the severe weather conditions which is

most unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, but their roadbed failed under these

conditions.

I would like to advise this House, Mr. Speaker, that the Pacific

Great Eastern Railroad operating under the same weather conditions and

the same problem with terrain at this moment have not lost one day of

operations and they continue to deliver their freight on time.

This should prove to the citizens of British Columbia

[ Page 512 ]

what railroads have inferior road beds in British

Columbia and what railroad has a roadbed built to stand anything the

weather can throw at it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who's the president?

MR. FRASER: Well, I just forget his name. And the leader of

the Liberal Party should apologise to them for his unfounded,

ridiculous statements about the quality of their tracks and roadbed.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, this budget is a balanced budget, no

increase in taxation is forecast. It is job-creating, it provides

services to all citizens of our province and for these reasons I intend

to give it my unqualified support on behalf of the citizens of the

Cariboo Riding who I have the privilege and honour to represent, in

this House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for South Peace River.

MR. D.A. MARSHALL (South Peace River): Thank you, Mr.

Speaker, I take great pleasure in rising in my place and lending strong

support to the budget that we are debating here today. And I could

state as the Opposition have that there are many segments of society

that are not receiving sufficient under this budget. And I could also

state that there are many areas in the North that are not receiving

sufficient but of course this is not true. Because we have been treated

very fair and very well in this great budget.

I'm not going to reiterate all the many fine parts of the budget as

this has been capably done by the prior speakers before myself. But I

simply want to repeat again that we have been treated very fair and I

am confident that continued economic growth will be experienced in the

northern part of this province.

I do not want to again stand here as a Member and blame Ottawa for

everything that happens because I know the Members of the Opposition

will simply state that we are the "Blame Ottawa Boys". But I want to

place the blame squarely where it belongs in my opening remarks as it

concerns one of the most important communication links in the Dominion

of Canada and certainly one of the most important communication links

in the Province of British Columbia.

Here I am referring to the most recent news concerning the Alaska

Highway. My colleague from North Peace (Mr. Smith) spoke about this in

the Legislature yesterday. And according to the news release that I

saw, President Nixon told Congress that the United States Government

has abandoned plans to join Canada in the paving of the Alaska Highway.

It said that new routes now being developed especially in British

Columbia, in fact, the growth of traffic was not as high as expected as

on the Alaska Highway, made reconstruction and paving of this

communication link unjustified.

I have always in this Legislature, Mr. Speaker, spoken of the

necessity of construction of the communications links within our

province and I have mentioned more particularly the Alaska Highway and

the Fort Nelson–Fort Simpson connection.

The Alaska Highway, as I'm sure each Member in this Legislature is

fully aware, is not the responsibility of the British Columbia

Government. On January 31 last, it has been mentioned two

representatives of the Dawson Creek Chamber of Commerce attended with

the Canadian Chamber of Commerce in Ottawa in a joint meeting with the

federal government at which time much support was lent by the Canadian

Chamber of Commerce towards upgrading and paving the Alaska Highway.

And