1971 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 29th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 1971

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 143 ]

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

On the motion of Mr. A.B. Macdonald, Bill (No. 10) intituled

An Act to Amend the Supreme Court Act was 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.

THRONE DEBATE

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Minister of Agriculture.

MR. C.M. SHELFORD (Omineca): Mr. Speaker, it is once again my

privilege to take my place in this House and speak for the people of

Omineca. I would first of all like to draw the Members' attention to

the lovely British Columbia Okanagan apple from Omineca (interruption) .

I don't want to start a fight between you two on where it came from but

it is a British Columbia apple for the benefit of the Leader of the

Opposition. I hope that the Members of this Assembly will eat an apple

a day. I don't know whether an apple a day would keep the Opposition

away but I would like to try it.

I would also like to point out that it's the 185th year of

agriculture in British Columbia this year. I know I won't convince too

many Members in this House, because most of your ideas are too fixed,

anyway. I'm sure you are across the way but, however, I do hope I'll be

able to convince at least the page boys who do have an open mind. One

of the fathers of one of the page boys last year was telling me a story

the other day when he was introducing me at a Kinsmen dinner and his

young son came back and his dad said, "Well, now, after spending one

Session in the Legislature, which Members do you think were the most

outstanding of all the Members in the Legislature?" Do you know that he

came up with? Mr. Black, Mrs. McCarthy, myself and Herb Capozzi. Then

he said, "Now, how did you arrive at this decision of these four from

all the rest of the Members that spoke in the Legislature?" This young

fellow said, "Well, it's like this." He said, "Mr. Black, he gave us

candy, Mrs. McCarthy gave us a shamrock, Mr. Shelford gave us a jar of

honey and Mr. Capozzi, above all others, he gave us a hamburger." That,

Mr. Speaker, is part of the reason why you have an apple on your desk

today and the page boys will be receiving an apple, also (interruption) .

I wouldn't criticize too much because I'm going to speak again in the

next debate and I might give you another apple if you're kind to me

this afternoon.

AN HON. MEMBER: We're always kind.

MR. SHELFORD: You're always kind, are you?

One thing I want to touch on just for a second before I go on and

that is the demonstration that took place here on Opening Day. I don't

think anyone of us in this Legislature should condone in any way, shape

or form a demonstration such as this on Opening Day. The leaders of

this demonstration must accept the full responsibility because, in

times like this, they know full well that some people, if you get a

large enough crowd, will step out of line and cause problems. I would

say that if those who died in Italy, Normandy or Dieppe could have seen

the demonstration on Opening Day, if they could have stood up and said

so, they would say that they died in vain for freedom when those that

led the demonstration were trying to give it away.

As I said earlier, it's nice to be able to speak for the people of

the Omineca riding, second largest in this Province. I'm afraid our

friend from Atlin has us beat a little bit for size of his riding. Even

though the Leader of the Opposition thinks that we, in the north, in

Omineca, Atlin and other areas, live in shack towns, I would like to

point out that the northerner is a very independent type of a person

and even though their standards of housing are not up to what we would

like to see, I must say they've come ahead an awful lot in the last

fifteen or twenty years. I would point out that these people would

rather live in what the Leader of the Opposition referred to as a

"shack" in the north country to develop the northern half of his

Province than they would live in a $30,000 home in a city.

AN. HON. MEMBER: The company owns the whole town, property and everything.

MR. SHELFORD: You'd better open your eyes when you go back up, because this is not true. I hope you come back up north, Mr. Leader (interruption) .

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Minister proceed.

MR. SHELFORD: In both Burns Lake and Fort St. James, new

modern homes, right at the moment, are idle while people are living in

homes that are not up to the standards that we would like to see. In

looking into this, we find that it's not what the Leader of the

Opposition was claiming the other day, but it's due to the Federal

Government policy of high interest rates where a family can't move in

unless he is making over $4 an hour. My friend from Vancouver East is

laughing like he normally does. I hope he'll stand up and support the

Federal high interest rate. He certainly won't be back here after the

next election if he does. I was wondering yesterday as the Leader of

the Liberal Party spoke on the Government not hiring people when he

thought they should, whether he was aware of the fact that the Federal

Government has reduced its agricultural research staff by 107 at a time

when research is needed more than at any other time in our history. One

hundred and seven less research people across Canada than before (interruption) .

Are we less? My friend, you don't apparently know that there are two

separate jurisdictions of Government. The Federal Government does

research and we do extension (interruption). We have some, but we have

an awful lot less than we need, especially in the field of pesticides

and others. We need far more (interruption) .

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. SHELFORD: That's why I was protesting the closing down of Saanich Research because we do need more in that area (interruption) . I think you'd better get back on your hot line to Ottawa (interruption) .

AN HON. MEMBER: You're getting lots of help.

MR. SHELFORD: Yes, lots of help. I must say I listened with

care to both the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Liberal

Party when they spoke early in this debate. I must say it burns me up

that two very well educated people would tell this House such a lot of

lovely theories but very little practical suggestions that could be put

[ Page 144 ]

into force.

Let's take for instance the clearing of Ootsa Lake or the Williston

Lake, very desirable projects, I'll admit, which were mentioned by the

Leader of the Opposition. Without revolutionary changes in monetary

policies at the National level, how could it be done? Both would cost,

you never told us, both would cost over one billion dollars each. Where

would this money come from? If we borrowed the two billion dollars over

twenty years, the Province would finally pay approximately six billion

dollars in interest charges. Now, I don't think that's your policy, I

would hope. It is the Liberal policy, I know (interruption) .

This year I got elected on…because I got the most votes. Hospital

insurance was one. Another one was taking the merchantable timber out

of Ootsa Lake, that's quite true. I hear the Liberals chit-chatting

about Ootsa Lake. I wonder who flooded it.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's right.

MR. SHELFORD: That's right. I don't think this is a sound way

of doing business, of borrowing money and paying it back with the high

interest rates that we have today. The Federal Government is now paying

over two billion dollars in debt charges each year before it gives any

service to people at all. If either of you think that we have control

over interest rates or the monetization of money you all have another

think coming. I think all you have to do is review the history of the

Bank of British Columbia. When we did try to get into the Bank of

British Columbia without the support of the Liberals, we certainly

didn't get very far. I think this is one of the best moves the

Government attempted to do.

I was interested the other day when my friend the Liberal Leader

told us about the bovine faecal going into the lake from a feed lot in

the Okanagan. I only wish for the benefit of us country boys that he'd

call a spade a spade and call it plain BS — like an awful lot of his

speech the other day.

I wish to advise the House on World Disaster Aid this year under the

Agricultural Aid to Developing Countries, and the purpose of my trip to

Europe. Before I go on to say too much about the purpose of my trip, I

would like to point out for the benefit of the Leader of the Opposition

and the Honourable Member for Cowichan-Malahat that I didn't go over

there to join the party. I only went and came back to tell things as

they are, not only the way I want to see them. That's what I've

attempted to do. I was quite surprised at the two Members, after

Senator McCarthy has been dead for so many years, that they would take

on his approach of trying to smear people in politics.

Before I start telling you about the projects and, during my next

speech in the House I'll be speaking strictly on the Department of

Agriculture but first I would…I think it's quite safe to say that,

the setting up of these funds by the Premier, is one of the best things

that he has done as Premier of this Province, because all of these

funds are working extremely well. I would say they are a good example

on how Government projects should be financed, and I hope our friends,

the Liberals, will take note. We have spent from this one fund of five

million dollars that was invested nearly $300,000, without taxing

people, and still have that much in reserve; in other words, we make

from the interest about $29,000 a month without taxation. I hope to see

the day when Departments of Government can be financed in the same

manner, then we would have real Social Credit in this Nation, and we

could carry out some of the dream projects as suggested by the Liberals

and NDP.

You will find a list of the projects attached when you receive a

copy of my speech. I know every Member would like to know how we've

spent this money and how we intend to spend it.

The first, Korean Relief for canned milk, Unitarian Services,

$5,000; Nigeria, Unicef, $25,000; Peruvian relief, $5,000 through the

Canadian Red Cross; Turkish relief, this was an earthquake to help them

out for housing, plywood through Unicef, $27,900; agricultural

assistance to the Cameroons, this is to train people in their own

country. They have a nice university, but no animals to train them in

agriculture, so we bought $5,000 worth of farm animals, cattle, sheep,

etc. and we're now going to buy a further $5,000 worth of machinery to

give them further assistance, which I know all of you would support. We

sent a further shipment of canned milk to the children of Korea,

$5,000; egg powder to Peru, during their earthquake, $5,000. I'm just

giving round figures. Egg powder, again to Peru and concentrated apple

juice to Peru, and then we sent some electrical generating sets $10,000

worth, because of power shortages during the earthquake and they needed

them for emergency services in their hospitals. Another shipment of

concentrated apple juice to Save the Children Fund in Korea, $4,000;

some more egg powder, $5,000; and then Philippine Relief, cash donation

to the Red Cross, $5,000; and we started off with a cash donation to

the Canadian Red Cross for assistance in Pakistan of $10,000, the day

after the disaster struck, so that they could get in there and help out

as quickly as possible.

AN HON. MEMBER: Anything more in Pakistan?

MR. SHELFORD: Yes, a further $75,000, that we sent in the

form of plywood to build two buildings to house all the aid supplies.

Aid was pouring in from every nation and it was getting damaged by rain

and such like, and so we built two buildings, pre-fabs, 120' x 60', and

they were moved to Pakistan and there will be a sign on these

buildings, too: "Donated by the People of British Columbia." I thought

you might be interested thinking that we might put: "Donated by Social

Crediters," so breathe easily. We sent $7,500 worth of dried egg powder

through the Canadian Arab Friendship Association for starving children

in the Arab countries. The last one of canned milk to Korea, Dr.

Hitschmanova seems to come to visit me quite regularly to try to get a

little extra for the starving children in areas in which she serves.

Now we've started a scholarship programme in the Asian Institute of

Technology and we've made a grant of $20,565. This will be on a

continuing basis so that students can take their training and serve the

people of those areas.

The purpose of my trip to Europe was to get acquainted with those of

other nations involved in the field of aid to the developing nations.

This was only possible because my deputy, Alex Turner, knew most of the

people involved on a first-name basis from his wide experience with FAO

and other organizations around the world. Believe me, it was certainly

helpful to have him along on this trip.

We first stopped in London to meet a number of British importers,

arranged by Admiral Stirling, who I must say is doing an excellent job

for us in Great Britain. About sixty people came to the reception which

gave us a good chance to tell. them what we wanted to sell and, of

course, they could tell us what they wanted to buy. I must say it was a

little disappointing our stop in Great Britain, due to the

[ Page 145 ]

uncertainty of Great Britain going into the Common

Market. I found that the only thing they really wanted was Canadian

salmon and, believe me, everyone that filed in the door to meet with us

seemed to ask about the same question, "How can I buy more Canadian

salmon?" (Interruption.)

About $4 a pound in some places. I will say that Canadian salmon has

a tremendous reputation overseas and I only wish Canadian everything

else was as easy to sell as Canadian salmon and Canadian Holsteins,

because both have a tremendous reputation all through Europe.

From London we went on to Moscow and Minsk, where the International

Agricultural Economists Conference was being held, for the first time

including the Soviet Block powers. There were 800 delegates from 76

nations and the theme of the conference was "How to Help the Developing

Nations." I would add that one of the things that was discussed and

certainly one of the most important points that was discussed, was that

there is no solution to aid in the developing countries without family

planning. I met with a group from OXFAM this morning and that's agreed

by pretty well all.

All delegates were either professors or doctors of economics and I

might point out that I was the only farmer in the whole works. I must

say it was a very interesting experience but it was quite a little like

listening to the Honourable Leader of the Liberal Party when he is very

heavy on desirable philosophy but light on practical application.

The conference lasted ten days with no serious arguments on

political philosophy between East and West. I suppose this is the

reason why the international press didn't attend, because no one got in

a tight and I guess it wasn't news. I never met anyone from the press

from the time I left British Columbia until I returned to British

Columbia. I must say it was a very interesting conference and I got

acquainted with an awful lot of interesting people who are very helpful

contacts for either sales or other aids of progress.

Certainly, I found the Soviet Union a very interesting nation, with

no unemployment, because everyone has to work there, and a tremendous

enthusiasm by the people to build a better nation. One thing that is

interesting to note is that they lost 40 million people killed during

World War II and about half their agricultural livestock population was

destroyed. If you would like to relate this to Canada, it is about

equivalent to wiping out Ontario and Manitoba and then having to build

Canada after that. They tell us that at least one person in every

family in the whole of the Soviet Union was killed during World War II.

They openly admit they have made lots of mistakes, at which I was a

little bit surprised. But they did, they openly admit that their

greatest mistake was doing away with incentives. This changed about

three years ago and they're moving in the other direction now, back to

incentives in practically everything they do. There has, no doubt, been

a very rapid change in their thinking.

I want to say, I certainly wouldn't want to live there after coming

from a country like Canada but if you lived in one of the

underdeveloped nations, of course, you would look at it in quite a

different light. But the inefficiency in hotels, restaurants, airlines

is practically unbelievable. I waited for three hours to get a room in

a hotel at Minsk (interruption) .

I paid my bill before I left. One thing was quite interesting, even

though we waited for three hours. There was a line-up of practically

every nation in the world and the Ugandan delegates were ahead of me

and a Polish group were behind, so you might say we held a little

United Nations meeting while trying to check into the hotel. Telephone

communications, as far as I was concerned, were hopeless, one of the

reasons being that they don't have any telephone books. You're supposed

to know your friend's number and if you don't know his number, you're

not supposed to be ringing him, anyway.

AN HON. MEMBER: We know your number.

MR. SHELFORD: It's taking you a long time to get it, though.

One thing, even though they're extremely inefficient in this area, they

are highly efficient in other areas and I visited some of the most

modern poultry and dairy units that you could find anywhere. All

computer controlled lighting or. the windows of the units. They dial

their ration; if they want 16 per cent protein, they can sit in a

central office and dial 16 per cent. If they want 13 per cent for their

growers, they can dial 13 per cent. The electronic equipment in some of

these units is something I had never seen before.

AN HON. MEMBER: What are their chickens like?

MR. SHELFORD: They are our chickens, so they'd better be

good. They bought their poultry from Canada in the first place and we

found this all over Europe. In Yugoslavia, Canadian Holsteins; Italy,

Canadian Holsteins. We have everything, really, going for us in this

regard.

AN HON. MEMBER: How are the gasoline prices?

MR. SHELFORD: About twice as high as ours. I only found one gas station in Moscow, but maybe I missed some.

One of the problems that our delegates faced was our inability to

solve high interest rates and unemployment, and the gap between the

rich and the poor certainly placed the Western delegates at a

disadvantage. That was something that was discussed at length all

through the conference. I made a point of having either coffee or lunch

or something with a different nation every time we broke and I was

there for ten days. They would ask, "What could we supply on a

twelve-month basis?" Talk about politicians getting their necks chopped

off. I think I got mine chopped off as much as anyone because I would

bravely stand up and say, "We can supply many things," and they would

point back and say, "Mr. Minister, do you know that your ports were

closed by strikes three times last year and you're not capable of

continuity of supply?" This is something that we should be very

concerned about, as a Nation, because unless we can supply on a

twelve-month basis the best product we have to sell, then we're at a

great disadvantage in sales.

I would say the Maple Leaf is a passport to anywhere in the European

countries and I did manage to end up with invitations to sixteen

nations, including Mongolia. I would say again that everything is going

for us, excepting ourselves, because we have a good name. Certainly,

all of the nations that I came in contact with like Canadians; they

thought we were great people but they thought we were a little bit

stupid as far as our aggressiveness in sales, and our strikes and

lockouts, which closed our ports and upset our market.

One thing I found quite interesting during the conference was that

our ideas on aid to students to train in their own countries was used

as an example on how it should be done in one discussion group in which

I sat. This was attended by 33 nations, and Russia and the United

States were criticized

[ Page 146 ]

for not following our lead, because they're

inclined to bring students in who want to stay on in those countries.

Now, we don't propose to do this and our little aid scheme was used as

an example on how it should be done, because they found, in following

what happened, that 85 per cent of those trained in the developed

countries remained in the developed countries, which didn't help the

underdeveloped ones one little bit. Of the 15 per cent that went back,

they went back to sort of clear their conscience. At least half of them

would return after only a year or so. So this is not a solution, and it

was recognized by this Conference of Agricultural Economists that our

type of a programme is a desirable type for all to aim for.

There's no question we will face some severe competition from some

of these areas in the years ahead. When we look at desirable projects,

for instance, in agriculture, forest and even apartment buildings, they

are getting money at one half per cent and the highest percentage is

one and one half per cent.

In Italy and Yugoslavia, with our trade representatives, we had a

very nice visit, along with FAO in Rome. We have several trade

possibilities in both countries, especially cattle, which I mentioned

earlier — dairy and beef. In Yugoslavia, I was only there overnight but

there were three companies contacted me that they wanted to buy

Canadian pulp. It was small quantities, I'll admit, but here is quite

some opportunity. There is a diary farm outside of Belgrade, 18,000

dairy cattle in one herd. That's the largest dairy herd in the world

and a lot of these cattle are Canadian Holsteins. When I was in Italy I

visited a Chianina farm, which is a new type of stock which will be

coming into Canada in the near future…. The Honourable Minister of

Mines might not agree with me but I do think there is quite a potential

similar to the charolais (interruption) .

No, not yet, but there is a group that is trying to get a monopoly

position on these animals, which they won't get. I can give you

assurance of that. I visited a Holstein sale in Italy, along with my

deputy, and one little Canadian bull, one year old, went for over a

million lira. I told my Italian friend I like to see them bidding so

high on a little Canadian bull because it was always good. The Italians

loved it (interruption) . I

didn't say millilira, I said million lira. In Brussels, we were

fortunate to get the cooperation of our trade officials and meet with

two key ministers from the Common Market, whom I found extremely

interesting to talk to. I was surprised to learn that, with the

enlarged Common Market and their shirt-tail relations, 51 per cent of

the total world trade is controlled in that area. Now, I didn't realize

it was this high.

Last year, and this again is the competition we're facing, last year

they paid out over three billion dollars in subsidies to agricultural

protection, mainly for products they didn't need. Then, they paid a

further billion to export these products they didn't need in the first

place. I must say it's madness at the most. It was from this meeting

that I was convinced that our producers cannot compete on this basis,

especially when they are faced with the high cost of money where they

will have to pay for three plants in order to build one. It was for

this reason, on behalf of all farm organizations in this Province and

the Department of Agriculture, that I asked the Federal Government to

set up a billion dollar Producer Export Development Fund, funded

directly from the Bank of Canada, so that our producers can cooperate

with foreign companies and set up production units to move our products

from year to year rather than try for one-shot sales, which we are

doing at the present time. We have to find a completely new approach in

the '70's from what we had in the '60's and, in my opinion, the

Canadian so far is possibly the world's worst salesman and I would say

that something that everyone of us has to do is to get out and sell.

When I hear Members criticizing Ministers for going abroad and trying

to put to people in other countries what we have for sale and to

promote sales, and one of the best ways is for personal acquaintance

with this kind of people, then I shake my head because I think we

should be doing more of it, not less.

I would say to my friends in the Liberal Party that if their friends

in Ottawa do not carry out such a scheme to get us into the export

markets of the world then someone else will do it for them

(interruption). There was no one with me, my friend. I had three offers

of joint development while I was at this conference, two from India,

one for a poultry unit, one for a dairy unit, and another one from

Indonesia. Now I think if the producers of this Nation can get export

development money, and some will stand up and say we already have that

and that's not true, it doesn't cover what we're trying to do with

this…

The Belgium Minister of Agriculture arranged a dinner for us and

invited research directors from all over Belgium to attend. I must say

they were greatly interested in our types of production and naturally

we can pick up things from their research, also. I found they couldn't

raise a good red apple, that's one thing we have going for us. They

don't have the right sunlight and they're a dull-coloured apple.

It was quite odd, and I know the Opposition will appreciate this,

but Dr. V.S. Vyas paid our Premier a tremendous compliment, I thought,

at this conference when he called on me to explain the principle of not

only the World Disaster and Agricultural Aid Fund but how this Province

was able to establish such a fund in the first place. To start with I

thought I would get off kind of easily and tell him, "Well, after all,

I'm not an economist, " and he said, "Mr. Minister, it is your duty to

tell us, when you come from the best governed Province in the world."

This is something you hear a great deal of…you won't believe it…but

this is something you hear a great deal of when you get away from

British Columbia. You hear more compliments on the Government of

British Columbia than you do right here at home.

AN HON. MEMBER: All across Canada.

MR. SHELFORD: Not just in Canada either, in other nations.

One thing we did find was that many developing Nations are quite

confused by the term "free world," which I suppose we use far too

freely. When we consider countries that are quite often considered to

be in the "free world" such as Greece, Spain, Formosa, Argentina,

Brazil, South Africa, Uganda, and several others in Central and South

America quite often are referred to as in the boundaries of the "free

world." They ask what is so free about them and it does defeat our

argument.

Many think that our system is good but that it is too complicated by

laws stopping people from joining unions or professional groups, even

if qualified to do the job. It not only confuses them but I would say

it confuses quite a lot of people in Canada, too.

One of the discussion groups that I mentioned, the last one I was on

with 33 nations, ended this way with a question from Dr. Benalcazar

from Ecuador to myself, and these were the three questions he asked:

"One — can you as a nation produce enough food for your nation?" My

answer was, "Yes

[ Page 147 ]

and we can produce six times as much as what we can

use." His second question was, "Can you produce sufficient clothes,

etc. to clothe your people?" Again the answer was, "yes." The third

question was, "Have you the material and labour to build enough

houses?" Naturally, my answer had to be yes and I pointed out that with

our forest resources we could build twenty for each person and the

meeting closed with these comments from him, "If your answers are true

and they are," he gave me credit for that, "then the world problems are

not as complicated as economists are trying to make them, except in

that we have allowed money to be our masters instead of our servants."

I thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Kootenay.

MR. L.T. NIMSICK (Kootenay): Mr. Speaker, I was a little bit

taken off guard with the honourable Member sitting down all of a

sudden. He just seemed to be getting into gear and he quit. It gives me

a great deal of pleasure once again to take my

part in this debate and

I do so with very deep concern about our ship of state and about the

crew that's guiding that ship of state because… (interruption) .

I wonder sometimes to what port they are going to take us. The last

speaker that got up proved to me that no matter how much you change

things, we still have no change. They have sure changed the honourable

Member that just spoke, the Minister of Agriculture, from the time he

first got in this House (interruption) ….

because I was sitting in the House at that time. He had tears in his

eyes about the beavers and about the animals that were dying due to the

blocking of Ootsa Lake, telling us about the trees that were standing

in Ootsa Lake and how the Honourable the Premier got up and said,

"Never, this was a black mark against the Liberal Party and never would

the Social Credit Government allow any desecration to go on like went

on at Ootsa Lake." This was the statement that was made in this House.

AN HON. MEMBER: Have you ever heard of the Bennett Dam?

MR. NIMSICK: Now we've got Duncan Lake, we've got the Bennett

Dam, Williston Lake, we've got Mica coming up. All of them buried the

trees with water. Maybe that's what they'll do, they'll call Mica the

Shelford Lake. I admired the Honourable the Minister for years in this

House because he had the courage to stand up and fight on behalf of the

people of his area and the people of the Province. Yet all they needed

to do to quieten that Minister was to put him in the Cabinet and he

shut up from then on as far as the people went. And I don't think this

is too good for the people and I don't think that the Honourable

Minister who started out so well has proven himself to be able to carry

through. A fat living has changed him considerably. The Speech from the

Throne… (interruption) .

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. NIMSICK: …Mr. Speaker, the Speech from the Throne was

very anaemic, I'd say. I had to admire the Lieutenant-Governor for the

struggle that he had to go through to speak above the noise and the din

that came from the gallery. It was nothing more nor less than what the

Premier had stated, a State-of-the-Union message and it was a biased

report of what's going on in British Columbia. It painted a glowing

picture of the things that would give them credibility but said nothing

about the things, the real problems, that are facing the people of

British Columbia. The demonstration that took place at that time…I

listened to the Honourable Minister of Agriculture stating about these

men who died on the battle front. I dare say that some of the people

who were in that parade were men that had returned from the battle

front and that's the treatment they're getting today. They can't get

jobs, and to make a statement like that, I think, it's a ridiculous

statement because it doesn't mean anything.

The violence that took place in the gallery that day was probably a

small group of people that got out of hand but this should not deny the

people the right to bring their problems to the attention of the

Government by demonstration. The Members of this Government who have

spoken since then have been trying to focus attention on what went on

up in the gallery rather than focus the attention on the problems for

which the parade was organized in the first place. We've had many

parades since I've been in this House. We had the farmers with a cow

out on the steps and banging on the doors of this Legislative Chamber.

We had the friends of the Minister of Highways, or the Minister of

Rehabilitation now, up in the gallery here shouting, hooting and

hollering and they made as much noise as the group up here.

AN HON. MEMBER: They flew planes over this House.

MR. NIMSICK: We had the PTA throwing their scrolls all over

the edge of the balcony. We have had many other demonstrations and you

say that we shouldn't put up with any of these things. You're going to

have to put up sometimes with some of these things getting out of hand.

I don't agree with violence, at all, but I disagree with the idea of

trying to stop people from demonstrating their problems before the

people of the Government of British Columbia. They do this to impress

the Government and why do they do it? People who are hungry will not

wait. It's easy for us to live in here. We're all living fat, we're all

living fat. We can go and get our three square meals a day but, when

people haven't got enough to keep the proper food on the table and

clothes on their back, they're not going to wait for a year or two

years until you say you're going to solve this problem or the uptrend

of the economic affairs of the country is going to solve it for you.

People can't wait that long. Hunger won't allow it. These people are

bringing it to the attention of the Government and although it probably

did get a little out of hand, and these unemployed people in the

Province they're a pretty lonely group, they haven't any bargaining

power, they haven't any organization or money to deal with it. I think

people who take them under their wing, and who else should take them

under their wing but their fellow working people throughout the

Province of British Columbia, to advance their cause because the trade

union movement, most of all, knows full well that as the unemployment

ranks get greater their power and their standard of living is in danger

of going down and down…Their standard of living will go down and let

me tell you, Mr. Speaker, I think we should give people credit for

assisting the unemployed to make this Government realize what is really

going on in the Province of British Columbia.

There is nothing in the Speech about the unemployment situation,

except a couple of words and they were innocuous. Our unemployment has

gone to 12 per cent in British Columbia, but I'll deal more with

unemployment later on. I just wanted, at this time, to make my position

clear in

[ Page 148 ]

regards to the right of people to demonstrate

peacefully in a democratic country. This Government should focus their

attention on why that parade was brought about rather than just on the

small group that created the ruckus in the House here. I think this

Government should take careful cognizance of their waste of public

money while people go hungry. I think they should examine their

conscience and, when I listen to the Honourable Minister of Agriculture

state that there should be no limits, practically, the way he spoke on

the travelling expenses of Cabinet Ministers, that they should be

allowed to have a safari any place around the world and spend as much

money as they like, I don't think as Cabinet Ministers you were elected

to travel all over the world continuously, or to take a whole Cabinet

over to Japan while people are going hungry. When the Honourable

Minister of Trade and Industry can spend $10,000 or $11,000 on

travelling expenses alone, I think it is time that the Premier should

call a halt to some of this.

AN HON. MEMBER: He could get a steam bath on Hastings Street.

MR. NIMSICK: Even the Premier didn't spend quite as much as

the Minister of Industry and he was a close second. When I first came

to this House, the travelling expenses of the Government was a little

modest in those days and they worried about these expenditures but

today, "easy come, easy go," and the expenditures of the taxpayers'

money goes along as if the Government were a drunken sailor or

something. The Government spends money outside of British Columbia in

other ways. The money that was spent in Japan for Expo, I doubt very

much whether it was necessary, especially when there is so much needed

to be done in British Columbia. Then at Christmas, or the first of

January, we put a float in the Rose Bowl Parade, I want to say it was a

beautiful float, a very beautiful float, but I don't think it gave too

much work to British Columbians. It probably gave work to people in the

United States. Cypress Bowl is another waste of money by this

Government. These are the things that the Government should bring out

in their Throne Speech. They said nothing about Cypress Bowl in the

Throne Speech and about the mistake that they made. When the Honourable

the Minister of Lands and Forests gets up and makes his announcement

that Cypress Bowl is going to be a park operated by this Government and

he does it quite openly as if it were something wonderful, I agree that

it is high time. I think that the Government should hang their head in

shame for what has gone on in Cypress Bowl. I can't speak any plainer

than the editorial in the Vancouver Sun

and I quote, "Nothing better illustrates the shambles the Provincial

Government has made of its administration of Cypress Bowl than the

widespread relief which greeted the news that it was taking over its

development. Only a public whipped submissive by its seven incredible

years of sell out, betrayal, deceit and bungling could see virtue in

their public money being pledged to rest with public land."

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The honourable Member cannot say

indirectly what he cannot say directly and I ask him to withdraw the

word, "deceit."

MR. NIMSICK: I'm reading, I'm not…

MR. SPEAKER: I know what you're doing, but you are doing

indirectly what you cannot do directly and you must not read items that

are against the Parliamentary rules of this House and you know that

quite well. I ask you to withdraw the word, "deceit."

MR. NIMSICK: All right, I delete the word, "deceit" … "and

bungling could see virtue in their public money being pledged direct to

public land which their Government permitted to be privately raped and

plundered." That's exactly what they did.

MR. SPEAKER: Now, the honourable Member is taking advantage

of the rules. It's not possible to pick up any sort of reading material

and read it when the parliamentary language in that material is wrong.

The word, "rape," is also out of order and I ask you to withdraw it.

MR. NIMSICK: Well…

MR. SPEAKER: The newspaper may impute all the improper

motives that it cares to, but honourable Members may not impute

improper motives to others in this Chamber. I ask you to withdraw the

inference of imputation of improper motives.

MR. NIMSICK: But when was…

MR. SPEAKER: I'm not asking for an argument. I'm asking for a withdrawal.

MR. NIMSICK: When was this word ruled out?

MR. SPEAKER: I'm asking the honourable Member to withdraw.

MR. NIMSICK: I've heard that word used over there many times.

MR. SPEAKER: For the final time, I'm asking the honourable Member to withdraw.

MR. NIMSICK: I'll withdraw the word, "rape," if that's the case…

MR. SPEAKER: Very well, proceed.

MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Speaker, I think this Government should have

hung its head in shame because this Government is guilty, guilty for

five or six years that they knew about this going on in Cypress Bowl.

If calling you guilty is unparliamentary, then you are guilty. I think

that the Government should make a study of these unnecessary

expenditures. The Government sets up a surplus and they rave about it

year after year. They say it is a surplus for a rainy day, while people

are crying for things to be done, hospitals to be built, housing to be

built. This is the rainy day and why didn't the Government use the

surplus last year to solve some of these problems?

Now, Mr. Speaker, I'm going to deal on some issues of my own riding.

I'm sorry that some of the Ministers aren't in who I'm going to speak

to, but they can read Hansard afterwards. My riding, Mr. Speaker, is

quite a large riding. It's had some very unfortunate happenings there

lately and I'm sure that all the Members of this House will sympathize

with the people who lost their loved ones in the two accidents, the

railroad accident and the steel mill accident in Kimberley and

[ Page 149 ]

in the Crowsnest. The fire at the school in

Kimberley was a sort of a tragedy to both the students and the people.

It was fortunate that it was only a material loss, that there were no

students in the school at the time that the fire happened. But these

are the things that we cannot predict.

I was fortunate enough to tour through all the schools in the

Fernie, Cranbrook and Kimberley areas last year and one of the finest

schools I found was the one that was built back in, I believe, 1909

about fifty years old or sixty and, it's still in better looking shape

than many of the schools that have been built since. I'm just wondering

whether the people back in those days didn't look ahead with a greater

permanency than we look ahead today, because many of our schools today

are built out of frame materials and when it comes to a fire they can

burn pretty easily. Now if we're going to use this material, I just

wonder if it isn't time that we didn't think about having a sprinkler

system in these schools to prevent them from burning, because it's

definitely a tragedy when a school like that, the size of the Selkirk

High School, goes up in flames. Yet these other older schools seem to

stand. In the city of Rossland we've got a brick school there. We've

got brick schools in Cranbrook and they seem to stand for any length of

time. They don't seem to have the casualties among those schools that

they have among the schools that were built later on.

Our area has been one of the fastest expanding areas, I would say if

I were like the rest of the Members, I would say, in the world. From

Fernie to the Alberta border if it had been a brand new area it would

not have expanded to a greater extent. This Government has not

recognized the fact that there has been an expansion taking place in

that area (interruption) .

That's right. Kaiser and Cominco and different ones, but this

Government hasn't considered the needs of an expanding area such as

that and have not made any effort to assist the people up there to

handle this fast expansion to keep on top of it. One of the questions

that we've got to…one of the problems that the people have got is in

regards to hospitals. Hospitals are a crying need in this area and what

is this Government doing about it? In 1967, there was a Minister at

that time, who was the Honourable Member for Nelson-Creston, he sent in

two key men from the B.C. Hospital Insurance Service to visit the area

and to find out what they needed. This is what was told to the Chairman

of the Hospital Board, at that time, Mr. Phillips, and I quote: "The

Minister told me he had read a lot of pertinent material regarding our

situation," said Board Chairman Phillips, "and assured me he would not

give us the run around. We are most happy with the decision to send

these men in." That was back in 1967. Here it is 1971 and the hospital

isn't even off the ground yet. It hasn't even started to be built.

The Mayor of Fernie wrote to the Honourable the Minister sometime

ago and this is what he said, and I quote: "The concern and welfare of

our local area residents with regard to our hospital facilities demand

that I do so. There is no point in elaborating on the fact that our

need for a new facility is immediate and pressing and that a crisis

situation exists, whereby our facilities are taxed beyond limit and we

have no room should an unexpected emergency situation arise. The

fact-finding team from BCHIS in their fact-finding report stated that

Fernie's need is immediate. We have the necessary requirements as to

land, financing and architect approval verbally. Our holdup is with the

BCHIS officialdom over approval of the functional plan and formal

architect approval." Following that letter, I sent a letter to the

Minister: "The Fernie Hospital at the present time is overcrowded.

They've got beds in the halls and all over to try and handle the

situation." I explained this to the Honourable the Minister in the

letter that I sent to him, and I quote: "Since Fernie has expanded so

much during the last couple of years the availability of space in the

hospital has become desperate. Maybe you have taken that old-time

attitude that if they have got along so far they should be able to go

on for a while yet. But I assure you that this is not the case. They

have to put beds in every available space and if there were a bad

accident in the mine, lives may be lost due to lack of space." The

Minister acknowledged my letter, but that was all he did. I don't think

that the Government should opt out of their responsibility in this

area. The fact-finding committee that went in there made a statement

that Fernie had the top priority, the top priority for hospital

building. They recommended that the Invermere Hospital didn't need any

more money than the Regional Hospital Board had recommended to them,

and if any hospital were to get anything it should be Fernie, due to

the fact that it had had a 30 per cent increase in its population since

the previous year. To their consternation, we found that, and it was

found out through the press, that the Invermere Hospital got an extra

$350,000 for the hospital, contrary to the recommendation of either the

fact-finding committee or the Regional Hospital Board. Now, how do you

expect to get along with a Hospital Board, when you discriminate

between one area of the hospital district and another? That is the

truth, because I sent in a letter to the Minister and he said that,

"Well, Fernie couldn't get any more." I hate like the dickens to think

it was political discrimination in regards to this situation. I appeal

to the Minister that the Fernie Hospital should be gone ahead with as

quickly as possible and to have the construction commenced this year,

otherwise we're just going from bad to worse and we've got

another…No, it's easy for the Government to sit on their fat majority.

We've got another problem in the same area and that's Sparwood.

There's a hospital in Michel that has been there for many years. It

hasn't been given much recognition but it has served the people of the

Michel-Natal area for all these years and served them well. Now, there

is a rumour that they're going to phase out the hospital at Michel and,

in its place, they're going to put a diagnostic centre or a first aid

centre. Now, I'm sure, that the Honourable the Minister doesn't quite

understand the geographical situation in that area. Sparwood itself is

20 miles from Fernie. The Kaiser operations are about seven or eight

miles from that to the top of the mine. Thirty-five miles beyond is

Fording. There's a new townsite being built at Fording and beyond that

again Scurry-Rainbow. There are all indications that their development

will go ahead. Now I'm sure that any one of these Members will say that

55 miles or more is too far from the main centre of hospitalization

because you're going to have, this year, around five thousand people in

that area and they've got to be served by a hospital. I have a letter

from a Mrs. Gwen Wright, who is still heading the move for a hospital

in the Sparwood area and I must say she is doing a yeoman's job of it.

A yeowoman's job, eh? She wrote to the Honourable the Minister of

Health and Hospital Insurance and laid out before him the reasons why

she thought there should be a hospital built at Sparwood, and I'd like

to read you one of her letters. "Dear Sir." This is what she wrote the

Honourable the Minister of Health. "As a citizen of Sparwood I am very

concerned. Our small hospital at Michel is going to be phased out in

the very near future. We in the district want and need a 75-bed

hospital. Don't say I don't

[ Page 150 ]

know what I'm talking about, as I do. Fernie is in

the process of getting a hospital which they need but that will only

cover their needs. We need a larger hospital. This is where the work

and money are and also the population growth. With other companies such

as Cominco coming into the Elk Valley, our population will increase

even more." This is quite so, and they carried on quite a campaign. The

local union sent this letter to the Honourable the Minister: "The

proposed hospital in Fernie to replace the buildings in Michel and

Fernie will increase the present accommodation by about 10 beds. This

is not sufficient as they are largely overcrowded. If the present

building cannot service our needs, a few extra beds will not suffice

for the future. Complete consideration should be given to the expansion

of this area and the distance involved. A new coal mine should become

operational in 1971 in the Fording River. Scurry-Rainbow, about 40

miles north of Sparwood, has possibilities. Crowsnest Industries have

been prospecting in Lime Creek. These areas are all north of Sparwood.

A hospital is required in Sparwood, or something within this

industrialized area, because it is too much to suggest that the new

hospital in Fernie would give adequate service to the combined areas."

The Minister replied to Mrs. Wright's letter, stating that there would

be some kind of a diagnostic centre or a first aid centre in that area.

Now we realize that a first aid centre may be all right, if you're in

close proximity to a hospital but not in this case. Then an editorial

came out. Word has been received this week that an organization has

been set up to help Mrs. Wright in her campaign. They have organized a

campaign and here's a letter to the editor and I quote: "In my

estimation the Honourable Ralph Loftmark must think that we up here are

a bunch of dum-dums regarding our hospital situation. This is not a

laughing matter, you are going to read and hear hospital, hospital,

hospital, for months to come."

Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the people in that area are quite

a group of determined people and there is no question about it but this

Government is going to hear a great deal about the needs for a hospital

in the Sparwood area. They are coal miners, most of them, in that area

and they will not be satisfied with taking no for an answer. If we are

going to operate, as a Government, for the common good of the people of

British Columbia we have got to put a hospital in the Elk Valley to

serve the Fording River development and the Kaiser development.

Now, dealing with B.C. Hydro, I sympathize with the Honourable

Member for New Westminster when he speaks about the takeover of the

electric distribution in New Westminster. We have had the same

situation in our area, where the B.C. Hydro has taken over the

distribution system in Kimberley, Cranbrook and Fernie. They have found

out that they couldn't actually take it over yet, they only leased it.

I understand that there's supposed to be some legislation coming before

this House to give them the authority to take it over. Either that, or

maybe they didn't have enough money, so, by leasing it, they wouldn't

have to pay for the operation right away. When we took over the Peace

River from Wenner-Gren, we paid them right away. But I'm afraid this

Government is going to be slow in paying for the abrogation of the

rights of the local government. All this is being done in the greed of

this Government to get more money to pay for their Columbia give-away.

In that greed, they even upped the charges to the Old Folks' Home in

Cranbrook. The Senior Citizens' Home in Cranbrook was paying on a

residential rate and I've got bills here that show the last bill they

received from the city of Cranbrook was $63.60. The first bill they

received from B.C. Hydro was $185.33. Now, when we're going to take it

out of the Senior Citizens' Homes in order to try and get a little

extra money to pay for the other dams, I think it is rather a serious

situation. These Old Folks' Homes are nonprofit organizations and,

according to the

schedule of rates by the B.C. Hydro, even a motel

that's got a central distribution centre can be held on a residential

rate. I took this matter up with them at, I believe it was Kelowna, no

Vernon, B.C., but they would not break down. I think all the Senior

Citizens' Homes, if they can be given a little break by treating them

on a residential rate by the B.C. Hydro, then that should be done. To

take away this right after taking over the distribution centre, was

highly unpleasant and unfair to these people. I want to urge the

Honourable Minister of Recreation and Conservation, who is on that

Board, to take a good look at his rate

schedule to see if he cannot

give the Senior Citizens' Homes a little break in this regard.

I'd like to deal with the Kootenay-Elk Railway. It is very amusing

to me to hear Members of this Government speak out of both sides of

their mouth at once. They talk about providing jobs to the people of

British Columbia and, on the other hand, they do everything they can to

give away the jobs of the people of British Columbia (interruption) .

To give away the jobs of the people of British Columbia. You're a

fine one, Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Member for Columbia is a fine one

to talk. He puts me in mind of the fellow who was running for office

down in the States. He was a Member of the Government and, when the

election came up, they were passing a bill dealing with squirrel

shooting. There was a lot of people for this bill and a lot of people

against it. When he went before the hustings, his campaign manager was

worried about him, Mr. Speaker, but he said, "I'll handle it." When he

was asked the question about the squirrel shooting bill, what did he

say? He said, "Many of my friends are in favour of the bill and many of

my friends are against it and, you know me, I stand with my friends."

That's exactly how the Honourable Member for the Columbia River riding

and the Honourable Member for Revelstoke-Slocan …

Throughout the Kootenays there has been quite an active campaign in

regards to this Kootenay and Elk Railway. There is the resolution from

the Kootenay Boundary municipalities asking that the railway not go

ahead. Certainly, it says here — the Kootenay and the Columbia Shuswap

Regional District have a resolution in also — that, "My Board of

Directors, therefore, has been more than a little dismayed by knowing

there has been an application filed by the Burlington Northern and

Kootenay and Elk Railways for a franchise to construct a branch line

from the East Kootenay coalfields in order to transport Canadian coal

to a Canadian seaport over an American route. My Board has passed the

resolution which urges all Members of Parliament and all Members of the

to firmly support the principle that Canadian coal should be

transported on Canadian railway lines by Canadian train crews between

the Kaiser coal operation and the East Kootenay and Roberts Bank

superport." The Chamber of Commerce in Trail also supported the

resolution not wanting them to be allowed to go ahead with the

railroad. Our friend from Revelstoke-Slocan last year brought up in

this House about the number of jobs that was going to be produced and

this is what he said, "As Members are aware, the CPR is putting huge

unitrains into service to haul coal. These trains will consist of 88

cars, each with a capacity of 105 tons. They will be both loaded and

unloaded automatically while on the move, without the cars being

[ Page 151 ]

uncoupled. By 1972, three trains will be in service

delivering eight million tons of coal a year and taking only 72 hours

to make the round trip…." and he goes on to tell about how many jobs

are going to be provided.

I'm hopeful, Mr. Speaker, that all this coal will move over an

all-Canadian route. Now, you can't have it both ways because, later on,

I notice that in the Revelstoke Review they were reporting on a speech that was in the Grand Forks Gazette . The Grand Forks Gazette thinks and I quote, " The Grand Forks Gazette

thinks M.L.A. Burt Campbell showed blatant arrogance when he refused to

support the City Council, Chamber of Commerce and railway unions in

their opposition to the Kootenay and Elk Lake rail application." Then

you come along, later on, and you said that you wanted to take over the

railroad. But you weren't going to take them over under public

ownership. You were going to take them over and turn them over to some,

I guess, some Social Credit group that you've got in the Province that

wants a plum. You said you weren't going to take them over as public

ownership. All these things… (interruption) . Well, here it is, "Take-over of Railway Lines Advocated by Social Credit M.L.A." Take-over of railway lines.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I don't know how we can have it every way. The

honourable Member said, "Oh," he said, "'this Burlington Northern

Railway application only deals with shipping coal to the United

States," but he must never have read their application, because their

application definitely states that they want to haul coal to Roberts

Bank. I'd like to read here from this brochure that was sent to

everybody in the House, Kootenay and Elk Railway .

"The Kootenay and Elk Railway has made a binding commitment," it says,

"to the Government of British Columbia to move all of its offshore coal

exports to the port of Roberts Bank near Vancouver. The coal will

originate in Canada and be shipped from a Canadian port. The Provincial

Government controls the status of the Kootenay and Elk through the Railway Act

and must approve all haulage contracts." That means shipments to Japan,

shipments to any place outside of our coastline, but the honourable

Member says that this isn't going to be so and that the Government had

made an agreement with them that they would only haul coal for the

United States.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who's he trying to kid?

MR. NIMSICK: This is to me a rather ridiculous situation. The

Honourable Minister of Mines, too, comes out and says he's in favour of

shipping coal down to the United States. It isn't only coal, it's going

to be coal and lumber and other things that will go through that port.

It's the thin edge of the wedge, because it will develop that we'll

maybe ship our wheat down to the United States. For the honourable

Member to state that we need competition from American railways when we

start, as Canadians, to use an American private industry to beat our

own industry over the head, there's something wrong with us. You

wouldn't find that in the United States. "You're not a very good

Canadian," Mr. Speaker, I'd like to say to him when he takes that

attitude.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about the people in Revelstoke? You're against the people you represent.

MR. NIMSICK: He is selling jobs and he is jeopardizing the

jobs of many Canadians by advocating the building of the Kootenay-Elk

Railway. Even if the railway going through Revelstoke couldn't handle

the total amount, we've got other alternatives. We can build the Kettle

Valley Railway up again and if they got stuck there's always the

outlet. If you want to take something down to ship to the United States

they can go down through… (interruption) yes,

they've got railways down there. I'd like the honourable Member to go

to Revelstoke and I would take him on in a debate in Revelstoke in

regard to the Kootenay and Elk Railway. I'd take you on, too, Mr.

Member for Columbia. I'll take you both on at the same time and right

in Revelstoke and you can…You come right to Fernie and do it. I'm

not… (interruption) right is right, but you'll have to let me go to Revelstoke, too, with you. You won't say anything about that or Invermere.

AN HON. MEMBER: They don't even know his name in Revelstoke.

Who's the M.L.A. for Revelstoke? Stand up. Fight for the workers in

Revelstoke…. Send them a flag they don't see the Member.

MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Speaker, I urge this Government to withdraw

their support of the building of the Kootenay and Elk Railway. Fifteen

hundred jobs — what are you going to make? Fifteen hundred jobs to

build a railway. How long would that last? (Interruption.)

Mr. Speaker, we can handle all the coal, if necessary. If we can't

handle the coal and all our exports by Canadian carrier, there's

something wrong with us. There's something wrong with Canadians if

we've got to use the American railways to transport our raw materials

for export. The United States has got exactly the same situation in

shipping from one port to another, they've got the Jones Act . They won't allow a foreign carrier to carry their goods from one port in the United States to another.

AN HON. MEMBER: They're anti-Canadians.

MR. NIMSICK: Why should we allow it to be done?

AN HON. MEMBER: Americans are anti-Canadian with the Jones Act, you know that.

MR. NIMSICK: So, let's protect the jobs that we have got.

We're suggesting that we pay big subsidies to encourage jobs throughout

the Province. Now, here are jobs that are all ready set up. Let's not

jeopardize them and throw them down the drain.

Mr. Speaker, now I'm going to get back to the problem that is

worrying so many people throughout the Province and that is the

unemployment situation in the Province of British Columbia and in

Canada as a whole. It has reached 756,000 and this figure has been kept

down on us for sometime now by the machinations of the Federal

Government. The Federal Government sent a directive out to their

manpower outfits or their unemployment outfits and this is what the

directive said: "Ottawa sent out a directive to the regional

departmental offices instructing them to keep quiet about unemployment

figures." They're finding it impossible under pressure to hush them up

and then put the best possible face on the unhappy jobless total. It

sounds to me like the Throne Speech that we had here last Thursday. It

sounds to me like…and the news came out the other day that we had 12

per cent jobless in British Columbia, which to me is a Provincial

disgrace. When I listened to the Honourable the Minister of Agriculture

talking about assisting nations all around the world, he should have

had one there, at least, to

[ Page 152 ]

assist the unemployed or the people in need in

Canada. That's what he should have had. Anybody can put on a good face

by acting the big fellow outside of the country but, unless they look

after their own people, as well, then they're failing in their duties

as a Government.

AN HON. MEMBER: Haynes should resign for suppressing those figures.

MR. NIMSICK: Unemployment is not a problem that was with us

just yesterday. Unemployment has been an almost perpetual problem, with

its certain rise and falls. I'd like to quote…because I think we've

come around just about a complete circle. If it weren't for

unemployment insurance, old age pensions and social welfare today, we'd

be right back in the position we were in in the '30's. Right back into

that position. Unemployment insurance and social welfare are big

business today and while many people criticize it and many business

people and Boards of Trade, nevertheless, in many of these communities

if it weren't for that payroll coming in every month it would be a

pretty tough time. When I say it's a complete circle, I'd like to read

this letter that was in the Province

on January 26: "Reading and hearing about high unemployment makes me

feel as though I am watching an old movie, since I went through all of

this in the '30's, when I was lucky if I worked six months a year.

There was no unemployment insurance then. Politicians then said almost

exactly what they are saying today. Those in opposition attack the

Government and the Government assured everybody that steps were being

taken, etc. Somebody said that prosperity was just around the corner,

nobody ever found the comer. In point of fact neither the Conservative

Government of R.B. Bennett nor the Liberal Government of MacKenzie King

ever did solve unemployment. Strangely enough it was solved by a

foreigner who never even saw Canada. His name was Adolf Hitler." When

you listen on television and see our Honourable Minister of

Rehabilitation quoting or talking down East at a Welfare Conference and

trying to have welfare money tax free for income tax purposes, I just

wonder how hypocritical we can be.

When anybody can say that the people on welfare today, with their

welfare rates, when they're not getting sufficient to live on properly,

that they should be paying income tax as well. I don't know what kind

of a man he is and I'm sure that the Honourable the Premier and the

rest of you wouldn't agree with him in this regard. In 1932, the

old-line Party was talking exactly the same as you people are talking.

The people were saying the same things as they are saying today. At

that time, they said the unemployed were derelicts, lazy loafers, they

wouldn't work and all the nasty things they could about them. Today,

you are blaming it on the trade unions, you're blaming it on strikes.

In that day, there were very few trade unions that had any real

strength because bargaining rights were still a thing to be fought for.

Some of you might remember those days when H.H. Stevens had his little

booklet out about the sweatshop conditions in Canada, and how the

business people who were making fancy profits were taking advantage of

the workers. Why were they taking advantage of the workers? Because

they weren't organized and that's why Franklin D. Roosevelt brought in

and advocated organization among the workers to try and stop this

sweatshop labour that was going on. Don't tell me that we have changed

a bit from that day. The people that own and control the production of

industry today would be just as useless as they were back in those days

if it weren't for the organization and the bargaining power, the

collective efforts, of the working people to try and hold their

standard of living. It was the trade union movement that fought against

child labour, that fought against those sweatshop conditions, that

fought for holidays with pay, shorter hours, overtime pay, all the

things that everyone of us here have benefited from and now you've got

the crass arrogance to say the trade union movement is the cause of our

unemployment. The crass arrogance.

To blame the trade union movement, to blame strikes for the

unemployment situation, when you know yourselves that the unemployment

situation goes far deeper than that. You've got to change your thinking

completely if we're going to proceed at any time to solve the problems

of unemployment. You still think that unemployed people should have no

rights. It's easy to think that, when we live in a comfortable status,

when we're sure of our meals every day, when we can enjoy all the good

things that our society can give us. This happened back in the '30's,

too; the people had little concern for the unemployed. I was always

interested in politics from the time I was at school and when I saw the

situation of the unemployed I jumped onto the political stage. There

were only two parties at that time, one was the Liberal and the other

Conservative and I studied them. I thought the Liberals were out to

solve the problems of the people, I thought they wanted to solve them.

So I joined the Liberals, sure I did, and I was vice president of the

Liberal Party in Rossland and I was appointed as a delegate to the

convention in Vancouver. At the first meeting I went to, I took a list

of resolutions and I've still got them. They must have thought I was

just a young punk because I'm telling you they were pretty

revolutionary.

Mr. Speaker, before we went to that convention in Vancouver, we had

a meeting in Trail and all the old Liberal heelers were there. They

were going to the convention along with me. I was the only young one in

the whole group and I said to them, "How about us drawing up some

resolutions so that we will have something to bite our teeth into when

we get to Vancouver?" One of the top men there, God bless him, he's

dead now, Link Tyson, he said, "Oh, there'll be lots of resolutions

there. We don't have to worry." I said, "How about more wages and

shorter hours to get rid of these relief camps?" The men were out in

relief camps by the hundreds working for 20 cents a day, 20 cents a

day. Link Tyson said to me, "The trouble with the workers is they want

too much today; they want a washing machine and a radio." This was from

people I thought were going to try to solve the peoples' problems. He

said, "We should be back to nine hours a day and a dollar a day like we

used to be, we'd be better off." Skinner, the insurance man, said to

me, "Why, I'd be glad to go out and work for 20 cents a day in the

relief camp if I had nothing else to do." Now, this is exactly the

thinking of the people of that time. The rest of the people were

looking up to them to solve their problems and I immediately told him

that I was shocked and I handed in my resignation. I announced to them

that there'd be another party in the field by the next election and we

went out and organized the first CCF Club, because during our

organization, the CCF was formed in Regina. It set up the Regina

Manifesto and we organized the first CCF Club in Rossland and, I

suppose in all of Canada. My opinion hasn't changed since then because

the situation is coming full circle, full circle.

Then we went on through the '30's. Roosevelt got a little spurt

going, then it went down in '37. In '39, the War came and all these

people that wouldn't work, who were derelicts

[ Page 153 ]

and all the rest, we found jobs for them and we had

full employment and we put price controls on. Then came '45 with a

shortage of goods, and who wanted to take the price controls off? It

was the business world in Canada that wanted to take the price controls

off — the same people that wouldn't accept 5 per cent limitation on

their profit for armament contracts. They went on strike. We never hear

about that now. That was in 1939, when MacKenzie King said they'd only

give them 5 per cent profit. They went on strike and they had to take

the lid off. This was a National emergency; the workers were willing to

freeze wages and they did. We went along into '45. Big business was

able to force the Government to take off the price control. We went

along to '52 and another crisis came up. Unemployment started to rise

again. The only thing that took us out of that was the Korean War.

Well, '51 and '52 there was another unemployment situation problem

coming up, so the Korean War started and it took us out of it again for

a while (interruption) .

The only escape hatch the capitalist system has had over the years

has been war. A war has been the escape hatch each time they came into

a real tough situation. It's a little bit dangerous, today. In 1961, we

had another unemployment crisis when Diefenbaker got thrown out. 1968,

it started in again even with practically a full-scale war with

Vietnam. That's what solved it in '61. We're still in trouble and

serious trouble. In serious trouble at the present time. How long do we

have to go through these periods of crisis? How long should the people

put up with it in a country as rich and as wealthy as Canada? 756,000

unemployed in Canada, 99,000 in British Columbia, over 100,000 on

welfare. This has to be carried by the people that are working, this

load has to be carried by the producers. How long will they put up with

it? I don't know. It's easy to have whipping boys such as the Federal

Government and blame them for the unemployment situation and say that

you're lily-white, but the Provincial Government has got to carry some

responsibility, too, because the Honourable the Premier contributed to

the unemployment situation last year when he stated that, at the

beginning of this year, there were 1,100 vacancies in the Civil

Service. Last summer, I had to write to the Department of Finance

because the help situation in the Government office in Cranbrook was

down to two people. Now, you can talk as you like but that's not

contributing to employment.

It's easy, now, to come out just before the Session starts and say,

"I've given orders to go ahead with the 1,100 vacancies to be filled."

But on April 15, you'll probably come out with another directive

telling Them no more vacancies are to be filled. So that we would keep

quiet during the Session. He did it with the schools, he'll do it with

the Civil Service. When you do such a thing as that you're contributing

to the unemployment problem in the Province. It's not the good life

that he went around preaching during 1968, when he showed the pictures

in Cranbrook about the good life and took all the credit for the jobs

that were made in British Columbia. As soon as there are no jobs he

shifts the blame to Ottawa. Ships the blame to Ottawa and he opts out

of his responsibility towards the people of British Columbia. This, to

me, is not good enough, because we're creating a very serious problem.

When we look at it in a mercenary way, 99,000 unemployed in British

Columbia, 99,000 man-days production lost, every day that they are

idle. I hear people worry about the people that are out on strike and

about the man-days lost, but what about the man-days lost on the

unemployed? When you carry it out into hospitals and schools, just

think of what it is doing and that it is all going to waste. What is it

doing in the moral sense, when 45 per cent of the unemployed are under

25 years of age? Many of them never had a job, probably all of them

never had a steady job. What's it doing in human degradation and the

waste of human values? We, in our Party, say that of all the people,

young people should not be denied the right to make their contribution

to society. If you deny the young people that right, it's a

condemnation of the system that we operate under, because it's when

those young people get out of school that they've got the initiative

and the drive that they've pictured in their schools — the great future

ahead of them — and then we drive them from one place to the other to

no jobs. What do we do to them? We crush the very initiative out of

them and we destroy them. What are we going to do? We're going to build

up a

section of our society that will be no good for anyone if we

continue this type of operating our economic system. We haven't got any

room for drones in our society. There's plenty to be done and if there

isn't sufficient, if there's too many men for what we've got to do,

then we must cut back on the hours of labour. We must cut down the work

week and we must cut back on the pension age. There's no reason in the

world why miners should have to work down underground in a mine in the

most dangerous job in the Province until they are 65 years old. No

reason at all. Right now they should have the right to take their

pension at 55. We've got men going to work at 65 and 70 years old while

their young sons of 20 and 25 are lying at home in bed and can't find a

job. Is this the kind of society that you people want? We, in the New

Democratic Party, say it is not the type of society we want. If anybody

is going to be idle in our society and enjoy the privileges of

recreation and freedom from making their contribution to society, they

should be the older people. As quickly as we can produce enough for

everybody, the pension age should be cut back accordingly, so that

people would be free then to look after themselves. Not free on a

pittance of a pension or a pittance of a welfare grant, but free on a

full standard of living to the full extent that the country can afford

to give them. Not the type of income that our Honourable Minister of

Rehabilitation would advocate under social welfare because the little

pittance that he's giving to the welfare worker now, he wants to take

some of it back in income tax. The gall some people have.

We've got plenty to do, though, in our country. We've got houses to

build, people are crying for houses in the Province of British

Columbia. Look up your public accounts and see, on housing and urban

renewal, the amount of money that was left unspent at the end of the

last fiscal year…about a million and a half or two million dollars

left unspent. And, Mr. Speaker, they say they can't do anything about

the unemployment situation. When you're taking the bread out of these

childrens' mouths to build up a surplus you are not doing the proper

thing to the people of British Columbia. We've got schools, libraries,

hospitals, parks, all these things, to be developed by the people that

are unemployed today. We can do it, if we want to do it. It will never

get done by you people, by the frying pan calling the kettle black. It

will never be done by that method. By using the Federal Government as a

whipping boy or by using the trade union as a whipping boy you'll not

solve these problems. You've got to get down to it. The unemployment

situation will not go away. You can't wish it away, you can't close

your eyes and wake up and find it gone. No, it won't go away by

focusing attention on the ruckus that went on up there in the

[ Page 154 ]

legislative gallery. We've got to focus attention on the problem itself and get to the roots of the whole problem.

We believe, in the New Democratic Party, that we will have to build a

new social order where production, distribution and exchange will be

the plan for the human needs rather than the making of profit. I thank

you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for South Peace River.

MR. D.A. MARSHALL (South Peace River): Thank you, Mr.

Speaker. I can recall very vividly standing here just a short year ago,

in the imposing dignity of this House, and feeling very prideful and

with a feeling of humility in representing that great constituency of

Peace River South, and I do so again today. It has been a year of

experiences, some of success and some of frustration I must admit and,

also, admittedly, some of failure. While they say that the world was

created in six days, I'm finally realizing that in those days they

didn't have red tape.

Mr. Speaker, this is a particularly auspicious occasion for me for

in the gallery is not only my wife and my parents but they accompany a

very fine lady, a lady I hold in high esteem. She's quick of mind and

light of step, particularly in consideration of our Centennial Year. I

want to point out that she's 94 years young, she's my grandmother.

Mr. Speaker, I stated last year and I'm going to state again, with

confidence and very meaningfully, the seemingly utter lack of

recognition given by the southern part of this population to the

northern ridings in British Columbia. When those engaged in agriculture

ask me why they seem to warrant so little consideration and when I

notice the total absence of publicity in southern newspaper

publications and even our Government magazine, Beautiful British

Columbia , mentioning our great north, and when I see other Provinces'

industrial trade offices endeavouring to assist marketing of our

agricultural products, as I have preached before — something our

Province should have been doing, 1, myself do not feel hurt but I do

get slightly angry.

The Member from Fort George, in speaking in Dawson Creek, said that

he had a plane companion who, after flying over the mountains,

exclaimed with amazement, "My gosh, it's all prairie." This companion

happened to be a prominent British Columbia newspaper publisher, who

had never been to the Peace River country.

We have had many turning-on ceremonies in the Peace River country

that do not seem to bring us much recognition, and I cannot help but

wonder what recognition we might attain should we have a few

turning-off ceremonies. This, of course, we would not do, but with our

somewhat frequent power outages in Dawson Creek, one cannot help but

envisage what publicity we could attain should the power from the

Bennett Dam terminate or the oil flow cease and the natural gas supply

expire. If the supply from the "breadbasket" of British Columbia were

to dwindle, or a cessation of shipment of raw materials which

contribute to making the southern major cities so prosperous were to

occur, perhaps we would get the just reward we so richly deserve (interruption) . You know, Mr. Member, I just want to comment that I can

recall you earlier standing in the House and saying…you know, your

hands were waving and you said, "I don't want to call any Member in

this House a liar because it is not parliamentary language, " but I

would like to say that you, amongst all the Opposition, certainly are

the user of terminological inexactitudes (interruption) . I'm getting to

that, Mr. Member.

We have had many visitors in our Peace country the past year and I

would like to pass on a statement I made following a Dawson Creek

Chamber of Commerce luncheon. In attendance was a very well-known B.C.

hater, the Honourable Arthur Laing. We were both speaking at the same

dinner and in his speech he made passing reference that with the

Bennett Dam we had cut his water off. In speaking, following Mr. Laing,

I apologized for cutting his water off, but pointed out that I was glad

he realized we could.

During this past year, Mr. Speaker, we were very pleased to have the

Member from Coquitlam visit us. He had arranged, which seems very

strange to me in view of some of the innuendos cast in this House,

criticizing people for their Chamber of Commerce attitude, for the

Chamber of Commerce to host an open, public meeting. In any event, the

meeting was duly organized and it was advertised on television and in

the newspaper and I decided that I should go, too, because I remembered

that quotation from Cato that wise men learn more from fools than fools

from the wise. However, there were only seven people who showed up. I

might point out that five of the seven happened to be members of the

hosting Chamber of Commerce and only one of the remaining two was a

socialist. However, it was a lovely luncheon and I am mentioning this,

particularly, because in radio and on television, in his advertising,

he stated that Premier Bennett considered this seat of South Peace

River a safe seat and, consequently, that is why we got nothing

(interruption ). Well, I might partially have agreed with you, Mr.

Member, if you had said we don't get enough, but to say we don't get

anything at all is quite out of line.

Speaking of the Bennett Dam and the level of the Peace River, I want

to state that I am sick and tired of listening to those

negative-thinking people who accuse this Bennett Dam of causing so many

problems. No one in this House is closer to the Peace River Dam than I

am. Our house is situated 860 feet above the Peace River, overlooking

the Clayhurst River Crossing. When I look out and see this river

holding a full-flow, constant level without all the problems of

flooding that we previously encountered, I am indeed grateful that this

dam was built. The many thousands of additional crossings made by

residents of the North Peace and the South Peace — businessmen, farmers

hauling grain, transportation for the oil and gas industry — it is not

only a great advantage to the north of the river citizens but to Dawson

Creek and to the economy of the area generally. Prior to construction

of this dam, no one knew when the ferry would be in operation, because

of rapidly changing water levels, debris, etc., and it was a constant

source of irritation. Those negative-thinking people, many of whom are

also politicians, also forget the tremendous advantage of being able to

construct a step dam to generate much needed power in Alberta.

Shortly after the first visit from the Member of the Opposition, we

had an unfortunate happening with one of our teachers, which resulted

in his dismissal. This situation arose from statements allegedly made

concerning the FLQ situation. The same Member from Coquitlam, this

professional political agitator, then criticized the decision of the

Dawson Creek School Board, a group of people who are of various

political philosophies, but a group that did not play partisan politics

in arriving at this difficult decision. Quoting from the Province ,

Friday, October 23, 1970, the Member, the Leader of the Opposition,

stated he hoped that this was not

an act of hysteria and he considered

this teacher's dismissal, "absolutely incredible." He then called on

[ Page 155 ]

the Minister of Education to launch an immediate probe into the

affair for, he said, "the serenity of the B.C. community." What kind of

serenity do you think your constant agitation contributes to the

Province of British Columbia, Mr. Member? Shortly thereafter, when this

teacher's innermost thoughts were revealed at a rally in Vancouver, the

Member from Burnaby-Edmonds gave support to the School Board's

decision, when, at a rally, and I quote from the Vancouver Sun ,

Monday, November 2, 1970, he said how shocked he was at this teacher's

statements. I give this Member credit for recognizing facts.

Then we heard again of the Leader of the Opposition following a midnight excursion through Chetwynd.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not midnight, my friend.

MR. MARSHALL: Oh, it wasn't midnight. You had your dark

glasses on. He, at that time, made press statements criticizing the

homes in Chetwynd, calling many of them shacks, and I heard him

interject when the Honourable Minister of Agriculture was speaking.

This did not hurt Chetwynd's pride, but it did make them very angry.

Didn't it, Mr. Member? The very capable Mayor of Chetwynd, Mayor Frank

Oberle, attacked these statements and pointed out their advanced

planning and zoning restrictions. I think that this community should be

cited as a criteria for all of us of this Province (interruption) .

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order.

MR. MARSHALL: I think they had seven votes for the NDP there,

yes. The plans of Chetwynd, of course, are to encompass many acres of

land within the city boundaries to assist them in building new homes.

I'll agree with you, Mr. Member, that certainly many of the homes are

not mansions but if you had seen it growing as I have, you'd be perhaps

maybe a little bit more aware of how proud the people in Chetwynd are.

I might mention, too, that if this Member wishes to be a snob, if he

had taken the time to look, there are many homes in Chetwynd equal to

his own, if he had taken the time to look. A socialist snob, I think

that's a good twist. Mayor Oberle also sent a wire to Federal NDP

Leader, Tommy Douglas, who was visiting the South Peace River country

and stated that he need not bother visiting Chetwynd, for if he did, he

must be ready to suffer the consequences (interruption) .

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order.

MR. MARSHALL: We didn't hear that. It must have been the Leader of the Liberals.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Will the Member address the Chair?

MR. MARSHALL: I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker. Through you, I would

like to say that I didn't hear very much from the Leader of the

Liberals in Dawson Creek this year, but what else is new? He did

support our desire to have a Courthouse built, along with demands that

abortion clinics be built to solve the unemployment situation

(interruption) .

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order.

MR. MARSHALL: This is akin to closing the barn door after the horse is out.

Mr. Speaker, I would feel most remiss at this point if I didn't

extend my appreciation and thanks to the Members of our Cabinet for

their visits to Peace River South.

The highlight during the past year was the visit of our Leader, the

Member from South Okanagan. This man, the central and most vital head

of our Government, does have the vision and the farsightedness in the

development of the north, as he always has. Without further impediments

placed in his way by the Opposition, he will develop the northern half

of this Province, which offers challenges and imagination that, really,

stagger the imagination. I can express to this Member, the solidarity

felt by the constituents in Peace River South.

While mentioning dismissal of teachers, I want to express praise for

the Cabinet and the Honourable the Attorney-General for the Cabinet

Order passed October 21, which says that school boards, colleges and

universities shall fire any teacher who advocates the policies of the

FLQ or the overthrow of democratically elected Governments by violent

means. It has shown me that our Government is not controlled by

emotionalism and that they use politics to wage war against this new

fanaticism. People must give support to their Governments in order that

decisions can be based, not on politically astute decisions, but on

decisions based on moral issues, illustrating that our Government has

got the guts to stand and wage war on all those who threaten our very

existence. When I see so many in this day and age standing up and so

outrageously declaring that it is their right in our democratic society

to speak out and cause dissent and, sometimes, destruction, under the

guise of the freedom of speech, I'm wondering if, perhaps, we are not

becoming so concerned with our freedom that, in fact, we are going to

lose it. We have fought two World Wars over our freedom and our

God-given free agency, but if those naive people believe that our

freedom, in total, is free without any form of restriction, then I feel

sorry for our country.

We are following trends, such as abandonment of capital punishment,

forced through the Government by emotionalism, and we have witnessed

the political blackmail of our Federal Government by the Province of

Quebec. We have not evolved a just society but are nurturing an unjust

society, because many of the political leaders lack the fortitude to

take issue with all segments of our society that are threatening and

breaking down our freedom.

I am appalled by the stand of the B.C. Teachers' Federation in

calling for immediate repeal of the Provincial Cabinet ruling, and

which promises full legal and financial support. This is

irresponsibility of the highest degree in opposing the firing of

teachers who support a group advocating destruction of orderly

Government by violent means. I commend the Minister in his concern, by

singling out those who have such a great influence by the instruction

of our children. The Quebec Government has ordered an investigation of

their teachers and I might suggest that, in their witch hunt, they are

looking in the wrong corner.

Mr. Speaker, we should also be cautious, while I agree with this

Cabinet ruling, of a spontaneous process that can take place to test us

on how far we will go to give up our freedom. We are unconsciously

developing a class snobbery, sometimes towards students and sometimes

towards teachers, and we look on our students as those enjoying many of

the benefits we did not enjoy. Many of the attitudes are becoming quite

alien to us. A product of an affluent society, a colour culture, a drug

culture, are all becoming quite alien

[ Page 156 ]

to us. Dress styles and hair styles are also alien to the older

adult. They cannot grasp the era of demonstration and of confrontation.

We cannot deny that, in our country, we have high unemployment and

abject poverty, we cannot deny that there is destruction of our

environment and we cannot deny that there is racial discrimination and

we cannot deny that there is a war going on that we all want to see

ended. There seems to me to be no communication any more. Demands,

confrontations, are not the means for change nor do they bring results.

It is a very frustrating experience on both sides.

The Government, however, Mr. Speaker, can no longer remain the

insular structure it seems to have become. We must open a line of

communication through discussion and through transference of

information and be more responsive to public appeal. I feel our

Government, particularly in this Province, is doing a great deal

towards alleviating the many glaring problems in this regard. We have a

great responsibility to restrain radicals in the best interest of the

public, and I am gratified, in one sense, to see how quickly people

will give up their basic freedoms. I find it somewhat frightening,

also, to see how quickly some people emotionally over-react. This

over-reaction can escalate to a point where people will give up all

their freedoms under a dictatorship. Governments should impose

additional laws when they are absolutely necessary, sanely and

rationally keeping the public duly informed to avoid the emotionalistic

pressure placed on them by the public. In turn, I would caution the

Opposition against the use of emotionalism to exploit the given

situation causing upset and irreversible harm and damage to the people

and to the country.

Peace River South was also accorded this year the honour and the

privilege of a visit from the Prime Minister of Canada. I had an

opportunity of speaking to him, along with a fellow group of farmers,

for a considerable length of time.

AN HON. MEMBER: Was it an acting Prime Minister?

MR. MARSHALL: No, this was he, himself, the real one, dressed

in khaki and running shoes. I found him very informal and easy to talk

to. During the conversation, the subject of subsidies was brought up

and, as the Task Force Report on Agriculture had recommended immediate

removal of the Canadian Livestock Feed Board Subsidies, we discussed

this at some length. I, like the Prime Minister, do not support subsidy

programmes but as this was one that we have nurtured for many years,

and as its immediate removal would cause disaster to our farmers, I

endeavoured to get his commitment that it would not be removed until a

suitable alternative could be found. The Prime Minister did make this

commitment and I give him credit for it.

While on the same subject, I pointed out that he did not hesitate to

give a multimillion-dollar subsidy to the textile industry in the

Province of Quebec and, as he does not support subsidies, I found this

strange. "Oh, yes," he said, "but this is a different situation. Even

if we subsidized this industry 100 per cent, we couldn't compete with

textile imports from Hong Kong and Taiwan because of these countries'

lower wage inputs." He said that the subsidy was to be used until such

time as they phased out the textile industry in the Province of Quebec

and absorbed the workers into other segments of society once again

putting them on welfare, hiring social workers to take care of them and

have the middle-class taxpayer pay the tab.

Mr. Speaker, I am appalled with this man's philosophy when he does

not search out and endeavour to find other corrective means to retain

an industry. His same policy applies to our agricultural problems. The

farm problem, which like death and taxes, it seems we always have with

us. The Federal Government up to last year had made many suggestions

for preventing farm surpluses, except that they suggested that they

plow every third farmer under. Now, however, they are suggesting that

every two thirds of the farmers be plowed under. Once again, put them

on welfare, hire more social workers to take care of them and have the

middle-class taxpayer pay the tab. I truly wish this Eastern gentleman

was a Liberal.

Speaking in the famed Mile 0 City of the Alaska Highway, he

concluded by saying, and this is to his credit, that his knowledge of

farm products and farm problems began at Mile 0. I gave him credit for

this statement but I would like to have asked who in his Department

really does understand the farm problems.

The only time the Prime Minister appeared to slightly lose his cool

was when I told him that the Liberal Government's Operation Lift

Programme was a complete failure. Under this so-called assistance to

the agriculture industry, they were to pay $6 an acre to take wheat

into summer fallow and $10 an acre to turn wheat into forage. To the

ordinary layman this appears to be a costly pay-not-to-grow type of

programme. In essence, Mr. Speaker, the Federal Government is

contributing much less in support of the agricultural industry than

they ever have. They have forced the producer to sell at depressed

prices and have made money doing it. I'll tell you how — because of one

small clause in this programme, which states that wheat deliveries in

the new crop year, beginning August 1, will be based on the amount of

acreage a farmer has in summer fallow or in forage, not on what he has

seeded to wheat or as total acreage. Prior to this crop year, farmers

had received $138 million in cash advances for stored grain, which this

year has to be repaid on the basis of 50 per cent of the gross proceeds

from all grain deliveries. This clever scheme they have for raising

money works this way — they have increased sales of what have been

mainly the lower grades, and much of which was traded at lower levels

offering little hope of final payment. In other words, at depressed

prices, they have given the farmer, the producer, enough quota to pay

back the $138 million cash advance, and then they took approximately

the interest from this advance and hope to return a portion of it back

to the farmer through Operation Lift. In its conception, Operation Lift

was the motivating factor, to get the producer to pay back the $138

million for the Federal coffers. A Government that resorts to this type

of extortion, at a time when the industry requires interest and

assistance in order to feed its own coffers, I'm sure it will not be

put back in office next election, at least, by those engaged in

agriculture.

Mr. Speaker, the 1970 wheat acreage of 12 million acres is far below

the record seeding of 29.6 million acres seeded in 1967, and it is the

smallest acreage seeded since 1914. Since 1914, it is the smallest

wheat acreage we've had in production in Canada. At that time, there

were 9.3 million acres seeded. Fortunately for Canadian grain

producers, they ignored the Ottawa Liberals who advocated cutbacks in

barley to 6 million acres, for if we had cut back below 9 million we

couldn't have even met delivery commitments.

The Federal Government created an atmosphere of doom and gloom, a

panic atmosphere, overburgeoning wheat surpluses, and hastily embarked

on its Lift Programme to force through its quota system, the farmers to

repay at depressed prices the amount of their cash advances. These

[ Page 157 ]

cash advances, at the time they were given, were based on wheat at

$1.60 per bushel and they have to be repaid back with wheat at $1.18

per bushel. Bad advice, short-term programmes, total ignorance of

possible harvest setbacks and the good Lord's own method of controlling

overproduction created a very poor cash position when the Government

operated and brought in their "Rob Peter to pay Paul" syndrome, at a

time when farming, really, could have appeared to be bright.

Mr. Speaker, another typical example of the "Rob Peter to pay Paul"

syndrome of the Federal Government is their grain stabilization plan, a

scheme which all farmers are expected to pay into every year in the

hope that some farmers will benefit in some years. This, like crop

insurance, does nothing to increase an admittedly inadequate net income.

The cost of producing an acre of grain, on the average farm in the

Peace Country, is approximately $19 to $21 per acre, depending on the

size of the farm. In production of barley, for example, even with

higher rates of yield experienced in the South Peace, with Wheat Board

prices of 57 cents per bushel, it is simple bookkeeping to know that,

with final payment on grain apparently a thing of the past, a producer

finds it impossible to show any net profit.

It is my request to our Government that, in the interests of the

whole Province, we do nothing to let the Liberal corporate friends gain

control of agriculture by furthering Federal policy aimed at getting

rid of farmers. Further, Mr. Speaker, I would call on our Government to

stop the misuses of the powers invested in the Canadian Wheat Board by

the Federal Government. I want to deal with these misuses and restate

part of what I presented to the Parliamentary Committee on the Canadian

Constitution. I have already mentioned the blatant misuse of Federal

authority by the implementation of the Federal Government's Operation

Lift Programme, through control by the Canadian Wheat Board. In

listening to Mr. Ronald Cheffins, a University of Victoria political

science professor, who spoke at the Constitutional Conference here in

Victoria, I want to agree with him when he stated that many of our

problems are failing of political will. I have read many of the

transcripts challenging the validity of the Canadian Wheat Board Act .

The Supreme Court usually admits that the act is monopolistic, that it

does infringe on one's civil rights and on one's property rights but,

although it does, it always upholds it on the basis that it is good for

the majority of Canadians. I would ask our Government to be concerned

also for what might be considered to be for the good of the majority of

farmers.

Mr. Speaker, I will endeavour to show that the failing of political

will in administering Canada's Constitution with regard to agricultural

policies as they now exist is not good for the majority of Canadians

because, as we challenge the validity of the Canadian Wheat Board Act,

we infringe on other aspects of the BNA Act .

The Supreme Court always gives citations of previous rulings in

support of decisions, which is past history, a fact I am critical of as

it lacks any farsighted approach to the future and eliminates

innovation. The Supreme Court usually compares the Canadian Grain Act

in the same category as railway and telegraph systems, bringing the Act

under the exclusive jurisdiction of Parliament and impediments in the

way of the use of railways, elevators, etc. can be statutorily placed

by Government, such as a Transport Board or a Wheat Board.

The most recent of the cases challenging the validity of the

Canadian Wheat Board was a case brought last February to the Manitoba

Court of Appeal, after Winnipeg Magistrate John Enns dismissed a case

against an elevator operator, who was charged with accepting overquotas

of grain deliveries. Magistrate Enns ruled that a

section of the Wheat

Board Act , placing grain elevators under Federal jurisdiction, was

unconstitutional under the British North America Act . He said that the

Crown Agency has no right, under present legislation, to specify the

type, amount and timing of farmers' grain deliveries to country

elevators. He stated further that

section 45 of the Wheat Board Act

does contain such a declaration in the generality and, in its wide,

unrestricted application, it fails to constitute a declaration properly

and specifically framed under the

section of the BNA Act. The Supreme

Court, however, reversed Magistrate Enns' decision as, once again, it

was considered to be for the good of the majority of Canadians.

I would like to point out, Mr. Speaker, the dictatorial powers under

the Canadian Wheat Board through the economic policy controls it can

impose. A typical example is the Federal Government's Operation Lift

Programme which I have just related but, in addition, they can dictate

how much you can sell, they can dictate the price you are to receive,

they can dictate when you will sell it and they can dictate the price

you can pay. They can also dictate where in Canada you will sell your

product. This is blatant exploitation of people. It is despotism and it

is completely opposed to the principles of our Constitution.

Another reason why these misuses, under the powers of the Canadian

Wheat Board, are not good for the majority of Canadians, let alone good

for the majority of farmers, is that farmers are important taxpayers.

They are important, both on personal and property income taxes.

Property taxes paid by farmers in 1968 were estimated at $175 million

and I'm using the 1968 figures as that was the last year that farmers

showed a slight profit or, perhaps, even broke even. In addition,

rentals, in cash or in kind, amounted to an estimated $130 million.

Total personal income tax payable by farmers to all levels of

Government was $60.6 million. Average tax paid by all farmers was $500,

the same as the average tax paid by all taxpayers. To plow all but

one-third of these farmers under, put them in unfamiliar urban ghettos,

hire social workers to take care of them and have the middle-class

taxpayer pay the tab, is hardly in the best interests of the majority

of Canadians. I think, though, it does reflect, in part, the Trudeau

Administration policies in halting Canadian progress.

Other misuses, Mr. Speaker, are the Bank of Canada Act , which in its

conception was to regulate credit and currency in the best interest of

the economic life of the Nation. The Canadian Wheat Board, which, in

its conception, was incorporated with the object of orderly marketing

and, by the declaration therein, in the Canadian Grain Act , elevators,

etc., were brought within the same category as railway and telegraph

lines mentioned in

section 92 of the BNA Act . These are the Acts that

are proving to be the agricultural industry's downfall, when we

consider what has happened to orderly marketing and the disappearance

of long-term, low-interest funds required.

Federally, I recommend restructuring of the Canadian Wheat Board,

renaming it the National Agricultural Advisory Council, which, in turn,

would provide necessary liaison with Government. Under this proposed

Act, it should provide for Governor-in-Council appointment of

farmer-elected representatives from each Federal riding in Canada. These

[ Page 158 ]

representatives could then set policy and recommendations by

delegate authority to a five-economic regional structure of the

National Agricultural Advisory Council. Then, for once in Canada, in

compliance with the true intent of the BNA Act, those engaged in

agricultural production would be allowed to manage their own affairs.

At present, we are like the impossible situation of a very thin cow

that is being continuously milked.

Provincially, and I have preached this before, we must set up a

Crown Corporation for those engaged in agriculture to work hand-in-hand

with this National Agricultural Advisory Council. It is most germane to

advocate this Corporation, with the threat posed by the Federal Task

Force on Agriculture recommending the immediate removal of the Canadian

Livestock Feed Board subsidy. Mr. Speaker, upon mentioning a Crown

Corporation, one always asks where the money is to come from. We have

preached before that this would be a self-liquidating expenditure. We

have our own railway and, in the Province of Alberta, they have an

Alberta Wheat Pool, which is our prime mover of grain in Fort St. John

and Dawson Creek, British Columbia. I think B.C. should have its own

Crown-owned B.C. Agency. I know the needs of our livestock producers

within our Province, as well as the needs of our poultry producers.

They must have inputs required for operation as competent and

competitive as do their counterparts in other Provinces and,

particularly, as it applies to grain, they must have continuity of

supply.

Mr. Speaker, I am becoming increasingly annoyed at the seeming lack

of concern by our Government; also, while I'm criticizing the Federal

Government…. I'm increasingly annoyed at this lack of concern to use

imagination and innovation to assist those engaged in agriculture,

particularly in the Peace River country. We have preached the need for

tax changes. The last four referendums in the Peace were defeated by a

strong opposing campaign by the rural population. We have preached the

need to aid our farmers in diversifying into other types of crop

production. We have preached the need of dealing with the Pacific rim

countries in contractual growing of forage crops, more specifically,

dehydrated alfalfa. This is a crop that can be grown better in the

Peace River country, providing exceptionally high nutritional value,

high protein content and total digestible nutritional values. I would

suggest that we can grow it better on a nonirrigated basis than any

place else in North America. I have preached that we should have

Pacific rim country offices established in Vancouver, an office through

which to market and arrange these contractually growing agreements.

Last year, in the Province of Saskatchewan, large dehydrating plants

were constructed and are operating, providing increasing

diversification to growers. And I cannot help but wonder why, when we

preach and advocate these things, do we have to be last and late,

instead of first and foremost.

To point out the feasibility of my suggestions, I should like to

point out to my fellow colleagues in this House a few statistics about

the Peace River country, as obviously many of them do not appear to be

cognizant of that area. First of all, the climate of the Peace River

country, briefly, is generally described as continental-moderate and is

influenced by the Pacific current systems and the Rocky Mountains.

Yearly precipitation, which is important to this point, is 18 inches

and it is generally well distributed throughout the growing season.

More specifically, to give support to my suggestion of dehydrating

forage crops and the growing of them, is the fact that we can boast a

long-term yearly average of 2,055 hours of bright sunshine, which are

data exceeded only by one other area in this Province. The average

summer temperature is 70 degrees.

It is my sincere hope, Mr. Speaker, that it can be demonstrated to

what degree the agriculture industry should concern itself with the

impact of beef stew that never saw a stockyard, and bacon that never

heard an oink; in short, synthetic foods which even now are spreading

into the United States' supermarkets and larders and which, this year,

the Wall Street Journal recently estimated the value and volume

of the analogues for the year would be $10 million and cited a market

survey showing probable 1980 sales of about $2 billion.

Also, I myself should like to understand why butchers have, all of a

sudden, become magicians producing $1,000 worth of meat from a $400

steer? Why fruit growers in order to get one cent a pound for apples,

have to sell them at 16 cents a pound? Why a hog producer receives $35,

after spending six months raising the animal, which price is multiplied

several times in a matter of a few hours by food chain outlets?

While I seemingly criticize our Federal Government, I mean it as

objective criticism; and no blind allegiance, at least, to my political

philosophy will deter me or be an impediment in the way, to point out

to our Government very constructively the very lack of concern

demonstrated by them and their efforts in endeavouring to alleviate

many of the ills in our agricultural industry.

For the past years, we have preached the needs of not only our

agricultural industry but also the needs of further developing the

northern part of our Province. The need to construct communication

links to provide access to northern natural resources. We said last

year there would be huge demands for our northern oil and natural gas.

We said that the American demands would increase. We said that there

would be a north-south gas pipeline across British Columbia and we

pointed out the development that would take place in our north. We

pointed out that the ' e need was apparent for upgrading the Alaska

Highway and construction of an all-weather highway from Fort Nelson to

Fort Simpson. All that we have said, in the forecasts for American

demands for our oil and natural gas, have all come to pass, and the

lack of necessary prerequisites are not there, such as roads, and we

are too late, perhaps not, necessarily, too late, but certainly not

timely.

Finally, however, a glimmer of hope has appeared on the horizon.

Alaska Senator Mike Gravel's bill, aimed at paving the Alaska Highway,

has passed the United States Senate, the House of Representatives and

has been given the President's signature. It gives President Nixon

authorization to enter into negotiations with the Canadian Government

to pave the Alaska Highway from Dawson Creek to the Alaska border at

Mile 1202.

I wonder, in this House if you, my fellow colleagues, realize the

immense benefits to Canada and to our Province with a communication

link from Vancouver through to Dawson Creek right through to the Arctic

Ocean? I doubt whether some of you really do. We talk about foreign

ownership, yet it takes the United States to make the first

demonstration of a firm interest in sharing the.upgrading of the Alaska

Highway. Our Government and our Federal Government have sat on their

behinds, without the intestinal fortitude demonstrated by our forebears

at the time of this Province's Confederation. This is an equally

important communication link, as was one of the great construction jobs

of all times, when on May 14, 1880, dynamite blasts

[ Page 159 ]

echoed through the Fraser Canyon heralding the driving force of the railway.

We talk about unemployment in our Province. Well, unlike that day of

May 14, 1880, when manpower was so scarce that we had to import Chinese

labour, we have many thousands of men ready, willing and able to work

on a project of equal importance, in this our Centennial Year. I feel

that development, such as I have just described, coupled with the oil

and natural gas boom in our north, will singularly contribute more,

new, additional jobs than will anything else in this Province. Already

new pipeline orders are rapidly grabbing up the available manufacturing

space in Canada's five big-inch diameter steel pipe mills, in diameters

ranging from 20 to 42 inches. Orders for smaller diameter pipe for

transmission and field gathering systems will more than match this

total mileage of the big-inch orders.

I cannot help but think that we are out of touch with the times

sitting down here with the insular atmosphere of this Island. Perhaps,

we would be much better located with our Government, not in Victoria,

but in the central part of our Province.

The Federal Government, which recognized the need for a road from

Fort Nelson to Fort Simpson, began work last year on a portion of the

Fort Simpson–Fort Liard Road in the Northwest Territories. They have

announced, now, that this work will cease, to permit speeding up

construction of the Yukon's Dempster Highway. I cannot help but wonder

whether, if our Government had given a clear indication, through

official channels to the Provincial Government of building a B.C.

portion of this Highway, perhaps we may have been able to took for

completion of this total road this year. Now, the eventual plans will

be to have connections South from McPherson to Fort Simpson,

Yellowknife and Edmonton.

This means transportation for the oil and the gas pipelines now

being projected across the north of the Yukon. In South Peace River,

traditionally the service centre for northern development, while we

recognize the advantages for tourists, by the year 1975, by driving

from Vancouver up the Alaska Highway, and on from Whitehorse to Dawson

City, then over the Dempster to McPherson, connecting there to the

Arctic Ocean, it suffices very little, really, to see the concentrated

efforts of the oil and gas industry drawing on men, supplies and

equipment from Edmonton. I pointed out to our Government last year that

we must have orderly development of our north and, this year, I do so

again and propose the following five-point plan:

(1) A clear proposal

through official channels to the Federal Government, the intention of

the B.C. Government to offer to pay 25 per cent of the initial costs of

upgrading the B.C. portion of the Alaska Highway. A further proposal

that the B.C. Government assume all maintenance costs, upon completion.

(2) I suggest that the Provincial B.C. Government should offer to

negotiate with the Federal Government, once again through official

channels, a cost-sharing programme for completion of the Fort

Nelson–Fort Simpson all-weather highway.

(3) I suggest that we extend

the PGE to Liard to tap the immense timber reserves in that area.

(4) We have to give the encouragement, by our Government, to the oil and

gas industry in exploration and development and service by the

corporate citizens of the north and further encouragement and

assistance, if necessary, for construction of a petro-chemical plant at

Taylor, British Columbia, where there is an abundance of on-site power

for water, raw materials and competent labour.

(5) Take the town of

Mackenzie out of the Fort George riding and have it encompassed by

Peace River South, where we can better serve it, to the general

advantage of both areas.

Mr. Speaker, oil and natural gas exploration should be heartily

endorsed by our Provincial Government and, as I have spent many of my

working years in the natural gas industry, I feel I must take to task

the narrow thinking of many people who condemn exports to the United

States by our petroleum industry. I am amazed at the philosophy of the

NDP, which opposes these additional gas sales. They want to maintain

our resources under the guise of an independent, industrial Canadian

economy. We could do this with all sectors of our Canadian industry. We

could call a halt to increased exports of our wheat, we could sit back

and hoard our supply, but we would be doing it in a state of splendid

isolation and abject poverty. I should like to point out a few facts to

the negative-thinking people who object to selling our natural

resources. They are resources that are very vital to the National

economy and I do not think it's necessary to delve deeply into the fact

that, contrary to public opinion, the foreign-owned companies do not

make all the profits from selling Canadian oil and natural gas. Because

of the dollars spent to find, develop and produce oil and natural gas,

coupled with the billions of dollars in sales, the royalties to

Provincial and Federal Go