1972 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 29th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 1972

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 469 ]

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

Prayers.

MR SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Burnaby-North.

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby-North): Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Once again I would like to thank the Honourable Premier for the very

delightful Valentine gift of flowers. Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Saanich and the Islands.

MR. J.D. TISDALLE (Saanich and the Islands): I would like the

Members of the Legislature to welcome a group of students from Salt

Spring Island and especially all of the other Gulf Islands where they

attend a high school on Salt Spring Island. There's 47 in the gallery

with their teachers and we welcome the Grade 11 students.

Introduction of bills.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE VANCOUVER CHARTER

Mr. Vogel on behalf of Mr. Merilees moves introduction and first reading of

Bill No. 50 intituled

An Act to Amend the Vancouver Charter .

Motion approved. Bill No. 50 read a first time and referred to the

select standing committee on standing orders and private bills.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

TRINITY JUNIOR COLLEGE ACT

Mr. Vogel moves introduction and first reading of Bill No. 51 intituled

An Act to Amend the Trinity Junior College Act.

Motion approved. Bill No. 51 read a first time and referred to the

select standing committee on standing orders and private bills.

Orders of the day.

ON THE BUDGET

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Minister of Public Works.

HON. W.N. CHANT (Minister of Public Works): Mr. Speaker, it

is indeed a pleasure to rise on this occasion and participate in the

budget debate, particularly in view of the fact that this is the 19th

year I have had the privilege of representing the City of Victoria in

this Legislature. Some come and some go — some of us stay here quite a

while.

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to represent the City of

Victoria because I say without hesitation, it is one of the finest and

I am sure the best places in all of Canada in which to live.

AN HON. MEMBER: Have you ever heard of Kamloops?

HON. MR CHANT: Kamloops is their dry arid region. Those who

like it are welcome to it. Victoria, like many other centres in British

Columbia, has grown and expanded tremendously in recent years and like

other cities it also has growing pains and some problems and this will

always be the case because it is a part of life.

The fact is, if it wasn't for the fact that there are problems to be

dealt with, there wouldn't be any of us in the House. There would be no

need of us being here. If everything was in perfect order and life ran

smoothly, what would be the purpose or point of having a government?

Governments are elected to govern and are elected to make decisions.

It does not become organisations here in the province or out of it to

declare that because a government makes a regulation that they have the

right to confront the government and say "you don't dare do this". This

is a condition that is developing in the world today and I am just

making this comment extemporaneously, but this condition and the

continuation of it throughout the western world will lead to

revolution. Law and order must prevail — otherwise anarchy, following

which comes dictatorship.

This is the sequence of events in history and it will be in our own

experience because democracy can only live and survive — live, move and

have its being — when individuals will accept responsibility without

having the police or others breathing down his neck, and obey the laws.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I will now move on.

First of all, I've been interested in listening of course, to the

remarks of the Honourable Opposition Members, in the N.D.P. But in

listening to their comments, I found nothing new.

The concept is as old as human history and they have nothing new or

modern to offer for this modern age. The gist of their proposition is

spend more and tax less, destroy the profit incentive.

Social Credit tries to run the affairs of the country so people can

run their own business. Not run it for them. But the N.D.P.

super-planner Socialists, they have the idea they can run everybody's

business and of course in the end result run it into the ground. Which

there are all too many examples of throughout the country.

Also, they make numbers of comments in regard to mining and some

royalties. Surely it's a nice thing to collect royalties when world

markets will permit prices so that royalties can be charged. But we

live in a highly competitive world and prices must meet competition.

I glean from their remarks that they would forgo the millions of

dollars in revenues from coal mining and other mining in this province

for the sake of collecting a few thousand dollars of royalties and kill

the goose that lay the golden egg.

This is the policy that they propound, the policies they would like;

to see mining companies run into the ground so that they can take them

over and run them. And our friends — I call everyone in this

Legislature a friend, and I think we all are, we have differences of

opinion — but the leader of the Liberal Opposition, as usual, brought

forth what he calls a budget. There's no use in going into a lot of

foolish details about it such as he propounded, but in sizing up and

summing it up, I called it a kind of kid's budget, that spends

everything as fast as you can, as fast as you get it. Saturday night

rich, Monday morning broke.

Yes, and many criticisms also of some of our perpetual

[ Page 470 ]

funds. The perpetual funds are a great blessing, a

double blessing. First of all they accomplish a great deal of

construction which is an asset and a remaining asset and they will have

a continuing earning power in the future which will be a tremendous

help to many people and in many fields of endeavour and need.

They are not something that is here and gone tomorrow. We've had

certain experience with the federal government on some occasions where

they have said: "Yes, we'll help you out and we'll pay certain costs

for vocational schools et cetera". Then all of a sudden they back out

of the picture. Here today and gone tomorrow.

Perpetual funds are a recycling of the funds loaned to the people in the economy

of British Columbia and are a fundamentally good sound Social Credit economic

concept.

AN HON. MEMBER: Make $300 and pay the gross.

HON. MR. CHANT: He thought a lot more things than you ever did.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR CHANT: Yes, debt and more debt. Their counterparts

down in Ottawa are leading Canada in every case into turmoil, national

and international, and I don't think anyone can see the light of day

out of it, let alone they themselves. I don't like to think of Canada

becoming a French-oriented-Socialist-Communist-tainted-republic. I've

no liking for it at all.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR CHANT: Yes and a lot more. Now, Mr. Speaker, a

certain Honourable Member in the House has moved about quite a lot. In

fact after he heard the budget he said that it left him speechless, but

apparently he made quite a rapid recovery, being a doctor possibly he

found a wonderful medicine of some kind that's good internally,

externally and eternally or something of this kind.

But nevertheless he apparently pulled himself out of the valley of despair and came forth with some enunciations such as he has.

First of all, he said, it's a completely new ball game. New ball

game! Well, I've lived a little longer than he has and I've seen

politicians come and go and governments come and go, federal and

otherwise.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR CHANT: I quite well remember when R.V. Bennett came

across Canada and said how he was going to blast his way into the

markets of the world. What he was going to do. Along comes our friend

Diefenbaker, a great man in his day and way, but if the jaw bone could

win and get the work of the country done he would certainly have it all

done also.

I want to just say, Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Member in bringing

forth the policies that he has enunciated, is nothing more nor less

than the old bag of Conservative jelly-beans, a big jaw-bone exercise.

I recommend that before he wants to be recognised as a leader of a

party in this House that he be elected by that party in his

constituency. Otherwise, Mr. Speaker, claiming himself to be the leader

of a party in this House and not elected as such, it reminds me very

much of the fellow that was telling people: "You know," he says, "I'm

half married." "Oh," he said, "how so?" "Well," he said, "I have my own

consent."

The electorate have not approved the Hon. Member, and until they do,

I think he'd have been much wiser to have sat as an independent which

he could more properly have done. Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR CHANT: I have another rather interesting happening in

our capital city. A recent fledgling has been elected to public office,

political fledgling, and has taken it upon himself to criticise the

government and its record.

He thinks because he's been suddenly elected to office that he has

become very knowledgeable in public affairs. I'm not claiming the man

is not a fine man or knowledgeable man and so forth, but it is one

thing to have knowledge and it is another thing to have intelligence.

Even Solomon had enough sense to tell you that, and a whole lot more.

Of course, I refer, Mr. Speaker, to His Worship the recently elected

Mayor of Victoria. But I trust that his recent success at the polls as

Mayor hasn't gone to his head. I would simply like to advise him that

pride may puff a man up but it won't prop him up. (Laughter).

Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, this gentleman as reported by the Press

has stated that the Greater Victoria M.L.A.'s have accomplished nothing

during their terms of office.

Now either he speaks from ignorance or disregard for the truth — take your choice. Because this cannot be backed up by facts and just

because certain individuals may not make a great noise about everything

they do doesn't say that they're not working.

After all, Mr. Speaker, the machines that accomplish the most work

usually run quietly. And if a barrel is full of accomplishments it

doesn't make nearly as much noise when you move it about.

Well, Mr. Speaker, the fact is that as a government and M.L.A.'s we

work as a team. We don't try to go out and clothe ourselves with a lot

of honour and glory — that "I'm the great, I am, I am, I am." Oh no,

this is not our policy, nor is it a proper policy nor is it a proper

attitude for an elected representative. After all, we should be humble

in our representation.

In fact I would say that the opposite is the case, Mr. Speaker. The

Members of the Greater Victoria area have a record of achievements of

which to be extremely proud and we share the credit one with another.

No one trying to take it all on himself at all.

Because a government is a government, it's a team and whenever, if

you've noticed in an orchestra, the leader leads, each person doesn't

take his own horn and toot his own notes. This doesn't work and it

doesn't work in life, neither does it in football, neither does it in

hockey or anything else. We work as a team and we will continue to work

as a team, Mr. Speaker, and we'll succeed in doing so.

But, Mr. Speaker, I'm sorry to say this but I think our detractors

have degraded themselves and their creditability to a low level when

they have resorted to such false allegations.

Now I'm just going to take a little time, and let's take a look at the record. Quite a long record, it may take a little time.

These are accomplishments in the City of Victoria and the Greater Victoria area.

The first I will mention is Government House. I think

[ Page 471 ]

quite a number of the Members here remember when we

had the bad experience of the old Government House being burned, caught

fire, and we had to build a new Government House which we did. I think

it's a credit to the province and certainly has served a very necessary

and useful function in our way of government and life.

Then also, Mr. Speaker, there are the Law Courts in Victoria. I well

remember an Honourable Liberal Member saying when we started on that:

"Oh, it will never be anything more than a hole in the ground". Of

course, they're crepe hangers from beginning to last. They said the

P.G.E. would never succeed and a whole lot of other things as well.

There's the Law Courts. And I want to say that was a building that

was put up at extremely low cost considering the quality of the

building.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. CHANT: Yes. And furthermore the same Honourable

Member has written to me since complimenting me on it. Yes, we

constructed that building, and building costs were lower at that time

but we got extremely good values. It cost the taxpayers of this

province in the neighbourhood of $14 a square foot. This is a fact.

Now, along with that also, doing nothing for the City of Victoria,

there was the old Law Courts or what's known as Bastion Square. I

recall, Mr. Speaker, when the City of Victoria were putting an addition

on to their Municipal Hall and also renovating the old hall they were

desperately in need of some space.

I obtained for them an excellent deal for the old Bastion Square

Court House, which they're now the proud possessors of. I'm very

pleased that the City of Victoria has it and is making good use of it.

There's also the purchasing of the Gordon Head University campus

site. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that some of us that proposed this,

we met with very, very strong and at times vicious opposition on what

was then Victoria College becoming a university and moving out to the

Gordon Head campus, the now campus site. General Pearkes was then the

Minister of Defence and myself and others through him obtained that at

a very reasonable price.

I will say, Mr. Speaker, but I say also God bless them, but there

were some of the people that strenuously and viciously opposed that

move who later tried to cloak themselves with the honour and glory of

having proposed it.

I'll say that the Members and the M.L.A.'s of the Greater Victoria

area with the help and assistance of the government it became an

accomplished fact.

What about the Provincial Museum and Heritage Court? And the

Carillon Tower? Yes, the good Dutch people in British Columbia have

donated the bells for the Carillon, but the Department of Public Works

designed and built the tower as well as the museum and the archives and

the curatorial buildings. Now I think it is a very creditable result.

Mr. Speaker, in this last year, there has been as far as I am aware a

million or more people visit that museum this year. Greater than any

other Museum in the whole of Canada, the attendance.

Also Glendale Hospital, another multi-million dollar project. Not

quite one of the number, Mr. Speaker, that when this was opened some of

the news media didn't even mention it.

You'd have thought it wasn't anything more than somebody had built a

home and opened it, I mean a private home. So these are the means by

which they tried to play down the accomplishments and what has been

done for the City of Victoria or in the City of Victoria.

Then there is Helmcken House, a very interesting house with a lot of

historical tradition. Yes, Mr. Speaker, we spent $30,000 or $35,000 to

rebuild that house and bring it up-to-date so that it will be a place

of interest and historical significance for generations to come.

Ever hear of the Point Ellice Bridge? Yes, it goes back a few years

when His Worship, Mr. Scurrah, was the Mayor of Victoria and the

government very kindly gave me a $100,000 cheque to present to them on

the opening of that bridge, to help defray the costs of that bridge.

AN HON. MEMBER: You mean the taxpayers gave it.

HON. MR CHANT: Never mind, you're the taxpayer and we're all

taxpayers and that's why we don't take all the credit. They know where

the money's well spent.

Also, Mr. Speaker, there's a vocational school and we're also

enlarging that at the present time by adding to its cafeteria

facilities, et cetera. This is a great asset to the Greater Victoria

area.

There is also started and under construction at the present time out

in the same vicinity a 150-bed nursing home for elderly citizens. This

is presently under construction, Mr. Speaker.

Then there is the Capital Improvement District Commission. This is

going back a few years. I remember having with a delegation attended in

council chambers — this was before I was a Minister — and asking the

government to institute a fund for the Capital Improvement District

Commission and it's been in operation ever since and millions of

dollars have been spent on improving and beautifying the Greater

Victoria area and the capital City of Victoria.

Is this what they call doing nothing? Well, let's go on. There's

also the Thunderbird Park, what we call the smokehouse there and the

place where the Indians meet and hold their pow-wows. If you go down

and take a look around, you'll see it there, and we're going to improve

it some more this year and bring it up to better standards and the area

around it.

There's also in back of the Parliament Buildings a lovely fountain

that has the eagle, the bear, the raven, and the wolf as emblems of

Indian lore and their culture, emblematic of them, at the back of the

buildings here, a lovely little fountain which we built also.

Then just to the west we have the centennial grounds and fountain

that was built also and constructed for the pleasure of the people and

the tourists coming to Victoria.

Also at the present time, Mr. Speaker, we have reserved an area,

which we hope to enlarge out in the Burnside-Admiral Roads area and

which I have suggested that it be called the Major Comfort Homes Park

and we reserved a certain area there and we hope to be able to add more

to it and it certainly will be a great service and help and, I believe,

a pleasure to the people in that area.

It will be an area in the neighbourhood of 50 acres and it's a very suitable area with a little stream running through it.

Also, Mr. Speaker, just recently to provide facilities for the

various departments of government for material headquarters, et cetera,

we purchased what was known as the Hudson's Bay Warehouse in the City

of Victoria and it's under renovation at the present time as

headquarters for

[ Page 472 ]

materials and carpenter shops, and forestry and

recreation and conservation. There's four-and-a-half acres of land and

about an acre-and-a-half of warehouse building — one of the best

warehouses and most substantial you'll find anywhere in British

Columbia.

We've been busy through the years as occasion arises purchasing

properties throughout the precinct area. This has gone on continuously

and is still in process.

Mr. Speaker, I think we can quite properly speak of the ferries. I

well remember when C.P.R. employees went on strike, Black Ball was

apparently proceeding to do the same. The then Honourable Member for

Nanaimo, Mr. Westwood, and myself, we took a very active

part in

getting the Black Ball ferries to continue to operate under the Civil Defence Act .

Furthermore, following that, Mr. Speaker, there have been the

ferries that have been built and operating between Swartz Bay and

Tsawwassen now for a number of years which people take for granted, but

which I well remember we debated back and forth in cabinet on many

occasions wondering about the advisability.

We approached the C.P.R. and the Northern Navigation and others to

see if they would build ferries and operate them. The answer was no. We

said we'd build the approaches and the wharves if they would build and

operate them. They said no. So we had to proceed to do it. We proceeded

with considerable temerity to do it, we weren't experienced in the

field but we proceeded to do it.

Now I want to say, Mr. Speaker, it's one of the most outstanding

successes in North America in that type of service, if not the most

outstanding. And I'm sure that the people of Greater Victoria

appreciate it.

Or there is also the highway leading out there, and the up-island

highway. You know, to get out of the city here, at one time, you had to

wiggle around like this out through Langford and all over the place

almost like a snake trail. Later on, there was the highway built out by

Thetis Lake Park and Goldstream and up that way. Yes, we were all a

part of that, also.

Then there is also out on the University Campus what's known as the

Science Building, it's now called the Elliott Building. I am told by

certain people at the University it's one of the best, if not the best,

planned and best constructed buildings on the whole university site. I

want to say, Mr. Speaker, that my department people or the department

people of the Public Works, our department, they planned and

constructed it.

It's an extremely intricate building and with very few extras. They

had plenty of time to work on it and it's a very satisfactory building.

Yes, it is a very nice building.

Also, Mr. Speaker, the Department of Public Works passes on plans

for elder citizens' homes. Now this has been a programme that has been

going on for years. The funds are provided through the Provincial

Secretary's office. There are millions of dollars have been provided in

this manner — outright grants, 33 1/3 per cent, now 35 per cent. No

loans, like the federal government gives them, and charges them

interest forever and a day afterwards. We give an outright grant to

them. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I'm sure we can take a great deal of

pride in participating in these projects also.

And, furthermore I'm quite sure that in the not far distant future

or at the present time under study are programmes for improved and

extended administrative facilities in the government area in Victoria

Now this will give you an outline of some of the things that have been done in the greater Victoria area.

I haven't referred to other parts of the province, Mr. Speaker,

because this is the area of which certain individuals have had the

audacity to say nothing has been done. Because we haven't been out

there crying to high heavens, "look how great, great, great I am."

We've been busy getting on with the job.

Mr. Speaker, in these fields of expenditure there's no exact figure

but I know in what I've mentioned there's well over $70 million been

spent in these fields and this doesn't include contributions to

hospitals, schools, et cetera. Not at all, this is entirely separate

from that.

So, Mr. Speaker, to say that nothing has been done in the Greater

Victoria area — I would venture to say that, relatively speaking, no

place in the whole of Canada has had more done than the City of

Victoria in the same given length of times.

As one of the Members…

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you favouring one city over the others?

HON. MR CHANT: No, I haven't favoured one city over another.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's why Victoria is the capital.

HON. MR CHANT: Victoria City is the capital.

AN HON. MEMBER: Go on back to Lillooet.

HON. MR. CHANT: You've said so many foolish things, Mr.

Member, we can't pay any attention to what you say. Now, Mr. Speaker, I

would just like to say in summing this up a little, that the Honourable

Mayor would be very wise to attend to his own knitting, and not all of

a sudden just because he gets into office realise there are public

problems, and then he wants to throw them all on the government door

step and say: "Come and solve these for me please."

AN HON. MEMBER: He doesn't even say please.

HON. MR CHANT: Oh, well I'll give him credit for saying that

anyway. I wonder if the Honourable Mayor realises the provincial grant

given toward the Ocean Cement acquisition and which my colleague

attended many meetings to promote it also. I wonder if he does. I think

his worship would be well to give consideration to the fact while he

gives lip service to protection of environment — and at the same time

selling cars as fast as he can, the greatest pollutant there is — to

prove he's sincere, he might try improving on automotive and industrial

pollution. So I'll leave that, Mr. Speaker, now I'll go on to other

matters.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR CHANT: This is my speech and I don't need any help

from you to make one at all. You make so many bum ones I wouldn't want

to be part of it. Your assistance is not appreciated at all.

Mr. Speaker, speaking of the Department of Public Works I'm pleased

to report a very sizable increase on projects under way, as well as

projects out to tender. Our division has been extremely busy, in fact I

can say really overloaded. It's been an extremely busy year. It shows a

total of 104 major

[ Page 473 ]

projects have been or are being called for tender.

And there are also 100 informal contracts. These are smaller contracts

that are done under maintenance.

Our construction in the maintenance division was awarded 133

contracts to date. This is by a do-nothing government of course, as

some people say, Mr. Speaker. Just listen. Our activities in this field

alone amount to over $12 million in this present year.

The department has been extremely busy in this past year. Our

increased volume of work has created a programme of works projects

which has assisted in promoting a greatly increased amount of

employment in the Province of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, if there is any field of endeavour that gives a high

percentage of employment with a dollar spent I think the field of

construction and building and particularly renovation spends a greater

percentage of the dollar on labour than practically any other form of

employment or projects of undertaking in the whole province.

Yes, we have something to show for an asset for the generations to

come. In this budget, Mr. Speaker, there are several commitments which

will not only reinforce this government's determination to create more

jobs, for those who seek one, but it will greatly add to the financial

resources available to make this end possible and we look forward to an

even busier year ahead of us than that which has just passed.

Now, Mr. Speaker I know the time is slipping by quite quickly. There

are a multitude of other things that one could discuss, but I intend to

give those who follow me a fair opportunity also and therefore, Mr.

Speaker, I am going to conclude my remarks.

The budget which we have under consideration is the best budget ever

brought down in this province. It's a budget to be proud of. More

Social Credit in it than you've ever dreamed of. It's a real Social

Credit Budget. It brings to the people the results they want in the

management of their affairs. And when they vote they so recognise.

First of all it's a balanced budget, that's a Social Credit budget.

It's a liquid budget, that's also a Social Credit budget. It's a social

service budget — $1 billion or more going directly to social services,

that is a Social Credit budget. It's a realistic budget, that is also a

Social Credit budget. And it's a budget that the Opposition would be

very proud to vote for if they had brought it in. But Mr. Speaker…

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR CHANT: Mr. Speaker, if the Honourable leader of the

Liberal Opposition knew half as much about finance as what our

Honourable Minister of Finance does he'd be twice as wise as he is

today, and that adds up to 25 per cent.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR CHANT: Well, it's too bad that it doesn't rub off on some of his relatives.

Mr. Speaker, coming from a Socialist I don't think he knows what he's talking about.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say that our Minister of Finance is to be

highly commended in presenting a budget to this House without a peer in

North America and I'm sure it will receive unstinting support of this

House.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Kootenay.

MR. L. NIMSICK (Kootenay): Mr. Speaker, Honourable Members, I get up

with little trepidation as to whether I will be able to speak or not. So I'm

going to go right into my speech for fear somebody says I'm out of order. I'll

tell you I want to warn you of one thing that being that I was denied the right

the other night my speech probably will be a little longer than usual.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh. Oh, oh.

MR. NIMSICK: So I hope you will bear with me for that time. I

didn't know that the government considered me such a heavyweight that

they sandwiched me between the two Ministers, and they figure that what

I'm going to say probably warrants an argument from another heavyweight

to follow me.

The speaker that just sat down, I don't know whether he's in the

leadership race or not but I think he came up a few points during his

talk. When he was praising himself and telling you all about what

happened in Victoria and taking credit for it as the M.L.A. along with

a few more M.L.A.'s in Victoria, it made me think of when I did that in

my area and told the people what I had done since I had been in, I was

criticised for it. By that side of the House.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT (Premier): You weren't the government.

MR. NIMSICK: You're not going to tell me, Mr. Premier, that

only the government Members get anything in regards to their area. I'm

not that naive. When the Honourable the Minister spoke about mining and

royalties, and then he spoke about believing in free enterprise and

competition, I'd like to ask him if he believes that a business should

be able to run a popcorn stand you must pay for the corn before you can

pop the corn. And I say that in the mining industry, a mining industry

cannot run without the ore — and of course they can run far better if

they can get the ore for nothing. And that's exactly what they're doing

in the Province of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to deal with one question in regards to

talking about a balanced budget, and no debt. We heard last week that

the consumer of electricity in this province pays 34 cents of every $1

— 34 cents of every $1 for interest, interest to the debt.

Sure, this government backs that debt. They put it up in a little area then they say it isn't their debt at all.

But it's the responsibility of this government and I'd like to ask

the Honourable Premier through you, Mr. Speaker, who pays Hydro in this

position of high-priced power? Who gave away the opportunity of British

Columbia to enjoy cheap power? None other than a so-called financial

genius, the Honourable the Premier.

Many people talk about the Honourable Premier as the financial

genius in this province. This is the financial genius that brought

high-priced power to the Province of British Columbia.

I wonder if you remember…and I don't think that he'd like to

reminisce about this great edifice the Columbia River Treaty and what

he did about it.

Well, remember that picture when he signed the treaty and told what

a wonderful treaty it was. I wonder if he remembers the Press report.

And I'd like to read some of it to

[ Page 474 ]

you. January 22, 1964. Mr. Speaker, it says:

Today Premier W.A.C. Bennett released the new details regarding

the Columbia River treaty. Great benefits to Canada and the United States from

the development of the Columbia River will result from the agreement announced

today by the Government of British Columbia, Canada, and the United States.

The United States has agreed to make payments…

Now get this…

to British Columbia which are equivalent to $501 million.

And

today that has proven absolutely false in the Province of British Columbia.

When the period of dam construction is finished in return for

these payments British Columbia will construct three large storage dams at Duncan,

Arrow Lake and Mica. 274.8 million for the Canadian entitlement to its half

share of the increased power generation in the United States, which has been

sold for 30 years.

They sold that power for 30 years, Mr. Speaker. And the Premier made that great announcement:

this payment is to be made on October 1, 1964, the expected date

of exchange of ratification, $12 million on completion of the Duncan project,

$56.3 million on completion of the Arrow project and $1.3 million on completion

of the Mica in 1973. The United States payment for power and flood control compounded

at 5 per cent will have a total value of $501 million by 1973 when the three

dams are completed.

In December 1970 we only had $10 million of that so-called $501

million left. How can you compound the interest to 1973 on something

that you have already spent? You compounded the total construction

costs of the dam invested. Invested? You borrowed money against it to

build the dam.

including full compensation for all persons affected…

Mr. Premier I wish you'd give recognition to the fact you and I came

in this House about the same time, and I wish you would stay for a few

minutes to hear what I've got to say.

Surplus revenue of $53 million will therefore

be available for application against the cost of the Mica generators.

$53 million — full compensation for all persons affected.

Even the farmers down in their little area where

they're clearing out for the Libby dam can't get a settlement. You have

taken people's rights to their business away with that dam and you've

no compensation for them, and this I think is ridiculous when you make

an announcement like this.

Total amounts received from the United States will pay all costs of the storage dams as they occur.

Now, don't forget that the total cost are to pay for the storage

dams as they occur, and don't tell me that money can be invested and

also spent.

Pay about half of the capital costs of the

generators at Mica. The arrangement ensures that the storage projects

in Canada will be debt-free at the end of the 30-year saving.

And that's the great announcement made that January. What has

happened since that time? Money received from the United States — and

this was in answer to a question last year on the order paper — the

original amount $273,000, flood control benefits $68,000, additional

benefits $4,489,000, interest $94 million. A total of $441,380,000.

Extended to December 31, 1970 $452 million, leaving in the kitty $10

million. This was December 30, 1970.

We were supposed to have, according to the financial genius — and

this is a story of a financial genius that people were talking about — $53 million in the kitty in 1973, to pay half the costs of the

generators.

The government were supposed to have $53 million in the kitty in

1973 to pay half the costs of the generators at Mica. His estimates in

this case were just as far out as his estimate in the budget from year

to year.

What the government received from the Americans was payment for our

half of the downstream benefits, for 30 years — and this did not

complete the two dams let alone Mica.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. NIMSICK: Finished nothing! There was all the $10 million

and that included all the interest that you made. And then December 31,

1970 the dam had to be built to produce the downstream benefits.

Originally we were to have delivered back to British Columbia our half

of the downstream benefits. But we sold them for something like 3 mils

per KW. You can't tell me you got 5 mils when the money is spent long

before that time. The taxpayers are picking up the balance in increased

electric costs.

In addition the taxpayers out of consolidated revenue have got to clear the pondage area for the Libby dam, move the railroad…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. NIMSICK: Listen, when they made the big announcement

about the Columbia River treaty it was a big affair, it was going to be

great for Canada. It wasn't going to cost the people of Canada or

British Columbia anything except half the cost of the two generators — machining Mica — that was all that was supposed to cost us. And this is

what came up. In addition the taxpayers out of consolidated revenue

have got to clear the pondage area for Libby, move the railroad, build

bridges and destroy the potential of 18,000 acres of land.

This is the result of negotiations by a financial genius. If we had cleared

the Duncan Lake, Mica and Libby like we should have, or they had promised to

do, it would have cost a great deal more. If we had recompensed those people

flooded and others who have lost their livelihood from the changes, it would

have cost much more. We are paying dearly for the wild dreams of a financial

genius. When we look back and read the story it reads like a wild night followed

by a dream.

AN HON. MEMBER: A nightmare.

MR. NIMSICK: A real nightmare. There is nothing done in

regards to providing for the wildlife of the East Kootenay area. To

take up that bottom land that you flooded in the Libby area.

Here's what the Premier said in his speech in Prince George and I'd like to just quote it to you.

"By selling this surplus Columbia power at 5 mils here

is what we can do: we can build High Arrow, we can build Duncan, we can

build Mica, we can install the generators in Mica and other points in

British Columbia to produce over 2 million horse power, all at no cost

to Canada."

All at no cost to Canada! That, my friends, was the real meaning of

cheap power because nothing is cheaper than something that is free.

Further, I quote:

"I would like to make one more point. British Columbia

will not use any of the proceeds from the sale of the surplus Columbia

power to build a Peace River

[ Page 475 ]

project. Every penny we earn from the sale of this power will

be spent for the construction of dams, generation facilities, transmission lines

within the Columbia River system."

It's going to take a couple of $100 million more of the taxpayers'

money to fulfil the requirements of the treaty. Now, who got the 1 mil

power? In one area the Premier stated in regards to the Fulton plan

that it meant 1 mil power for the United States and 4 mil power for

British Columbia and jobs in the United States. "The Bennett B.C. plan

calls for an average of 3 mil power for the U.S. and 2 million

horsepower of no mil power." No mil power.

AN HON. MEMBER: No power?

MR. NIMSICK: " …and no mil power for British Columbia and new

B.C. industries and jobs." Where are they? At that time I asked why

there wasn't provision made in the treaty for the escalating of prices

and this is what I quote from my speech: "I see no safeguards in the

treaty to protect us against inflation of costs with the result that

the dam could cost us much more than anticipated."

Now, they might come back, Mr. Speaker, they might come back and say

that: "Oh, the federal government didn't put an escalating clause in."

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. NIMSICK: But I asked this, prior to that and the

following year the statement was made that the federal government did

not put an escalating clause in. It was the duty of the Hon. the

financial genius of this province. It was his duty to ask for this

protection. He was the one that went down to the federal government and

practically strong-armed them — and I don't give much credit to the

Liberal government at Ottawa that they could be strong-armed by a

financial genius. But that's exactly what he did. He strong-armed them

into giving him the right to sell the downstream benefits. I asked too

at that time about bringing power back to the East Kootenay and

developing industry in that area. This is what I asked: "Will this

government promise that the downstream benefits derived in British

Columbia from the Libby dam will be used to compensate the East

Kootenay in setting up a rehabilitation fund to develop other areas for

the loss of this winter range and to develop sites? Will this

government promise that these downstream benefits will be made

available to the East Kootenay when needed?"

Now you're crying about power. You're crying about building the

Moran dam to have more power because you haven't got enough power.

We're buying power from the United States in the East Kootenay now to

develop the area. Why didn't we do it with the cheapest power that we

could have got?

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. NIMSICK: Who got the 1 mil power and who got the 4-plus

mil power? Not British Columbia but the United States got it — a

fraction of a cent. Because from the water storage, they're multiplying

the electricity, by five times. Which Canada does not share in. They

are increasing the amount of power. This is the result of the

negotiations of that financial genius, the Premier, that you have been

eulogising day after day all during this debate.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. NIMSICK: I'd say that the Hon. the Premier after a fiasco

like this on the people of British Columbia, Mr. Speaker, that the

Premier shouldn't think about an election — he should be resigning his

position as both Premier and as Minister of Finance in this province.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. NIMSICK: That's exactly what he should be doing because

it'll go down in history as the biggest disaster in British Columbia.

The biggest disaster in British Columbia, when you're paying 34 cents

out of every $1 of the consumers of electricity for interest, so that

we can finance this fiasco, that's exactly what we're doing. I know

that those Members don't like to hear about it. I know they don't like

to reminisce about finding out about what these financial geniuses do.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. NIMSICK: Now, Mr. Speaker, I'm going to come to another

question that the Hon. the Minister of Lands and Forests (Hon. Mr.

Williston) is interested in.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. NIMSICK: Those Members hope it won't remind them of how

the government sold out the downstream benefits to the United States

and got $274 million for it with a total of interest and everything — and it's all gone, and we've got to take $200 million out of taxpayers'

pocket.

Now whether you take it in cost of electricity or any other way,

nevertheless you're taking it out of the taxpayers' pocket because you

made a bad deal. A bad deal, why didn't that government let the United

States assist in building the dams? We'd have got our downstream

benefits back. They sold it for 30 years — at a flat price for 30

years. Now if that's good financing, I don't know anything about

financing at all then.

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. NIMSICK: For 30 years. Why didn't they increase the price at least over the years?

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. NIMSICK: No. They're building plants in the United States with the downstream benefits and they're making jobs in the United States…

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. NIMSICK: It's all "the United States" and forget about

British Columbia. Their main effort at that time was that they had to

get back at the federal government for the simple reason that they

refused them the right to build the Kaiser dam originally and they had

to get back at them. They got back at them in spite of the fact that

they sold British Columbia out.

Now, I'd like to deal with another problem and that is pollution.

The future of the people of British Columbia and of Canada and probably

of the world I think is around

[ Page 476 ]

pollution. Whether we're going to control pollution or not.

You know, we've had a talk-fest, Mr. Speaker, on pollution for quite

a few years now. It's all of 10 years since we were talking about it

and even brought a bill in this House first about pollution. We have

been talking — the professors at the university and the high men in the

federal government and in this government and our fine research men and

everything — we've been talking about pollution. They tell us all the

time that if we keep on the way we're going we're going to end up in

oblivion. That's what they tell us, and it's not too many years.

I noticed here in the Vancouver Sun — this was put in here in

1967, but it was a column 75 years ago, that's before the turn of the

century — and I'd like to quote.

Before the Royal Commission investigating the Fraser

River fisheries it was suggested offal from the Stevenson and New

Westminster canneries be made into fertilizer to prevent it polluting

the river.

That's over 75 years ago, about 80 years ago now — 80 years ago they

were warned about this pollution and ever since that time we've been

talking and talking and talking, promising, and promising and promising.

We didn't heed them at that time, and we didn't and we're not

heeding them at this time. We have got to do something about it. We've

got to get some action. Warning is not going to do the job.

I've been 27 years living in the area of the East Kootenay and when

I came there in 1945, the Kootenay River was clear — even Mark Creek, I

used to take my friends down to see the Mark Creek Falls and they were

a beautiful sight, until they built the fertilizer plant at Kimberley.

Then the black cloud came over the falls and we never took anybody down

there after that.

It almost looked like what that news reporter said a few years ago

"the land of the purple waters". Mark Creek got completely polluted,

St. Mary's River got polluted, it runs into the Kootenay River. We

built the pulp mill at Skookumchuck. We're polluting the Kootenay River

now from the pulp mills.

The coal mines are operating and we're allowing the coal mines to pollute the Elk River all in the one area.

As I look at the Gazette

each week, there are applications in there to further pollute. There's

applications in there to have the previous application added to. Never

once do I see where an application has been revoked. But we must face

the facts, Mr. Speaker, that if we are going to continue to give the

right to pollute and keep adding to that pollution as each industry

comes in that it isn't going to be long before the waters will not be

fit for anybody — because when you pollute a small stream you also

pollute a large stream.

The pollution control board — this government talks about what a

wonderful job they're doing on the pollution control board. I look at

the pollution control board as a bureau for issuing licences to pollute

Buttle Lake, Fort Hardy, over in Nelson, dumping…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. NIMSICK: You're only dancing on a picket fence right now,

whether it's the board or whether it's the committee they're all the

same. I say that they're all in the bag. It's an area for issuing

permits to pollute.

When you see headlines such as "We Are Killing St. Mary's" "Kootenay

Marks Creek dead." "Action Demanded on Pollution." "Live Up to Election

Promises, Health Boards tell Bennett."

Bennett promised during the last election campaign

that his government would strive to clear the air, purify the water,

and protect the soil of the province on pollution.

The current pollution. He said there would be time limits set and all the rest of it. Talk, promises, promises.

Then we come to these different places and all of them are of the

same nature. "Kootenay, murky, bad odour, almost covered with a scum of

bubbles. Major East Kootenay River seen as sewers." This is the report

from the pollution committee of the southeastern municipalities.

Major East Kootenay River Seen as Sewers. A charge

that the Kootenay and Elk Rivers among others in their present state

are of absolutely no value to man except as sewers, was made in Grand

Forks at the Association of Kootenay and Boundary Municipalities

meeting in Grand Forks by Kimberley Alderman James Ogilvie, Chairman of

the A.K.B.M. pollution control committee.

The Regional District of East Kootenay — these districts that the

Hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Campbell) talks so

praisingly about — he doesn't give them any power. When there is an

application to pollute a river, that application, Mr. Speaker, goes

before the regional district asking if it would infringe upon their

area. What do they tell them? "R.D.E.K. told no interest, can't object

to pollution control board permits." I'd like to quote. The specific

application over which the correspondence arose was by F Coal company

for a sewage treatment system for the Village of Elkford.

The R.D.E.K. on advice of its pollution consultants

objected to the application on the basis that the lagoon should be

large enough to avoid any discharge into the Elk river during the

winter months. It said that new installations should be required to

meet the higher standards if existing systems are expected to be

upgraded to the highest standards.

This was the R.D.E.K. taking an active part. The pollution control

board said they had no right to say anything in regard to the

application.

They are running into other difficulties, to the regional districts.

I think the regional districts, and I know that the regional districts,

in my opinion has been that they have been a buck-passing area for the

provincial government, to do jobs that they don't like to handle

themselves.

But in this case I want to say that their regional district has

taken their responsibility very serious, very serious and they've gone

out to the extent of even hiring somebody to investigate so that they

can make a comment on application with some basis of fact.

But the pollution control board now says they have no right to take

that action. "In answer to a letter from the regional district

pollution consultants about the state of surface water within the

district, W.N. Venables, director of the B.C. pollution control branch

had indicated that he would not be willing to make his branch's

information available to R.D.E.K."

The monitoring that you take of those rivers over there, why aren't

they available to the regional district? Why aren't they made public

and available to anybody that wishes to see them?

I went into the office of the pollution control board in Cranbrook

and I asked for these monitoring records. They told me I had to go to

the Minister to find out if I could get them, or to the chairman of the

board.

[ Page 477 ]

I quote further:

Decision to commission a survey of the available data on quality

of the lakes and rivers and the lakes of the East Kootenay was made in 1970

by the R.D.E.K. board who felt that they would not be properly representing

the people of the regional district if they were to let applications for permits

to discharge effluents pass without knowing whether or not the board should

object, as they can under the Pollution Control Act .

This is what an editorial says:

Pollution Control of Parks. The Kaiser and its pollution issue

isn't really clear yet. But so far few people are to be congratulated for their

concern and efficiency.

By April 6, when he was confronted with the story gathered by Malcolm Turnbull of the Province about Kaiser's pollution in the Michel Creek and the Elk River, Venables was saying to the Province :

There is nothing the pollution control branch can do about effluent

spills at the East Kootenay coal operations of Kaiser resources. There's just

not enough power in the present legislation for the pollution control branch

to force Kaiser to clear up their pollution problem.

That was said by Venables.

If by April 6 — this is 1971 — the Pollution Control Act

says, "any company that was not prior to January 1, 1970, discharging

effluents, sewage or other waste materials on, in or under any land or

into any water without a permit" — and that includes Kaiser's Elkview

Plant and its hydraulic coal mining experiment in Natal — "shall not

discharge sewerage or other waste material on, in or under any land or

into any water without a permit," from a director. The time set is on

and after January 1, 1970.

When the Regional District of East Kootenay questioned Mr. Venables

as to why the two operations were allowed to proceed without permit it

received no answer. It did receive the copy of a letter to Kaiser which

told Kaiser that the R.D.E.K. was dissatisfied and would Kaiser please

take steps to bring its operations within law. That was very early this

year. I further quote:

Pollution of the Elk River. Regional

biologist R.B. Hyndersack has been quite straightforward in his warning

that something must be done or there is doubt that the river can be

saved. However, his Minister, Honourable Kenneth Kiernan, says that it

is extremely difficult to set up a case under the fisheries legislation

and he thinks that control if it does not come from the pollution

control board, must come from the mines department under the recent

amendment covering reclamation.

And they go on…

in the field of theatre farce is considered far from tragedy.

In government the distinction is not so clear.

And we go on with this, into the question in regard to this

conference that's coming off, this mining conference that's coming off

this spring in Cranbrook. I think it's coming off in different parts of

the province.

The R.D.E.K. wanted to put a brief into this conference. They were

told only a technical brief would be accepted. You're not going to get

technical briefs from the lay people throughout this province. You've

got access to all the technical knowledge that you probably need right

now. If we're going to have a hearing why don't we make it open? I

think it's time, Mr. Speaker, that we've got to draw the line and say

"no more permits to pollute our waters".

To continue giving permits to pollute, to certain levels, spells

disaster because if you keep on giving them it is eventually going to

be 100 per cent. It may start out that you can get away with it. But

eventually — and each industry that comes along and asks to pollute

they'll use the other industry as their background and they'll want to

pollute too.

AN HON. MEMBER: But people have to work.

MR. NIMSICK: It's all very well, Mr. Speaker, to pass the

buck to the people. But you can't tell me that Mark Creek, that St.

Mary's River, that the Kootenay River, that the Elk River is being

polluted by people.

Kimberley cleaned up their pollution, but these industries, every week there are new applications in the Gazette

asking for further pollution of the rivers. I say that we should say to

these industries that we must recycle the water that's being used, not

run-off from one pond to another and then finally into the stream. One

pond to another and then back through the plant again — that's the way

we should be handling the water situation.

I don't think these tailing ponds that are built up like the one

around Salmo are nice things to look at. Or around Princeton, these

huge tailing ponds. And sometimes those tailing ponds break away as

they did in Kimberley, and pollute the whole river. This is what

happens. I say that it is time to say to those industries that "you've

got to recycle".

The tailings could be run into different places and moved by trucks

and shovels because the tailings once it's dry, it's not hard to

handle. But to build up these huge mountains of tailings to me is a

rather ridiculous situation.

I say that it's time that this government now quit the talking about

pollution. Quit the promising what they're going to do about pollution

and let's do something about it. Maybe the air may be a little bit more

difficult to handle but let me tell you that can be handled too. But I

say we got to make a start. Let's make it on water and let's say "no

more applications to pollute water in the Province of British

Columbia". Whether it's by people or whether it's by anybody else.

Another problem, and I'm glad the Hon. the Minister of Education

(Hon. Mr. Brothers) is in at this time. This is in regards to the

vocational school in Cranbrook, the need for a vocational school in the

East Kootenays. This area is a fast growing area, 11,200 square miles.

It covers up into the Columbia riding — my friend, the Minister of

Labour's riding — down into my friend the Minister of Highways's

riding, and all my riding. It covers them all.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's not riding, he's sitting. He's never ridden in his life.

MR. NIMSICK: Well, he wouldn't know whether he was riding or

sitting, and when you're riding you're sitting so don't try and get

away from the subject.

Golden to Creston and to the Alberta border, we've got a population

of 51,200 people. We had 36,000 in 1966 and it's projected to 93,000 in

1980. Six municipalities, six school districts, Fernie, Cranbrook,

Kimberley, Golden and Creston.

Economic activity — forestry, mining, agriculture, service

industries employing 18,000 people and all the different industries.

These industries would like to have a vocational school in that area,

so the people that are being trained can be trained within the area.

You don't force the students to go to Nelson or to Prince George or

some other place. I don't think it's fair to say to the East Kootenay

that "we're going

[ Page 478 ]

to cut you off at Nelson and float you over to

Alberta" or something. You know, we've got separatists up our way too.

A few years ago they suggested that the East Kootenays should join

Alberta. We've got them up our way, just like the Hon. the Premier is

sometimes talking about separating from the rest of Canada.

HON. MR PETERSON: We never have, we never have.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. NIMSICK: Well, he's trying to indirectly build a fence

around British Columbia because you don't want to recognise anything

that's Canadian in British Columbia.

You don't want to recognise a highway across British Columbia that's

part of the trans-Canada Highway. You don't want to recognise it.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. NIMSICK: Even we've got a problem over there about the time, they want to stay on Alberta time.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. NIMSICK: Don't forget that we've got to fight against

this. You've got a problem in the East Kootenay the same as Canada has

with Quebec.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh, oh!

MR. NIMSICK: I think that you should at least give them equality in their treatment in certain things.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. NIMSICK: I've been your problem for a long time in the

East Kootenays. Don't be too sure, my Hon. good friend, don't be too

sure that you'll get rid of me.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. NIMSICK: My position is a lot surer than yours is as a leadership candidate in the Social Credit party. A lot better than your position.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. NIMSICK: The travelling to other areas is costly. We've

got adult education, 486 students. Graduates from secondary schools

443, that's not counting Golden and Windermere.

AN HON. MEMBER: More than that.

MR. NIMSICK: We offered a site, we offered the St. Eugene

mission a school where they could have a vocational school. It's

already built for them. Kimberley offered free land, Cranbrook offered

150 acres…

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. NIMSICK: The Manpower Department says that we should have

a school. I'd like to read you a letter from the Manpower Department,

and I quote:

Our office area runs from Creston to the Alberta

border and north to Parsons. In this area we estimate a population of

45,000 and a work force of 18,000, of which some 4,235 are members of

the labour council. During the past 12 months, we have referred a total

of 458 clients to full-time training. Of these some 219 have received

their training in the East Kootenays, in courses of one week duration.

The balance of 239 attended vocational schools in other parts of the

province for periods varying from three weeks to 11 months.

It should be noticed that we are only reporting in

respect of available B.C. vocational department courses and no records

are kept of the many clients who might have been sent to training had

there been a suitable course available or space available in any

existing course.

That's a report from Manpower Department. Then we've got another one here from the Carpenters' Union.

In the past eight years 45 of our members have gone

through the apprenticeship programme with all their training in

Vancouver. If a school was situated in the East Kootenay it would be a

considerable saving to our apprentices.

At the present time, we have 21 apprentices indentured

to the Kootenay district council, carpenters, and woodworkers. We feel

with the amount of construction in this area this figure could double

in the next year or two.

… and so on with the United Steel Workers, transit, housing, right on down

the line. And what happened to the brief that was developed? The Hon. the Minister

of Education said that June 30 was the deadline. They worked hard to get that

brief together, and it was a good brief. The Hon. the Minister, I think, said

it was. If he said it was, then it should have been a good brief. They presented

it to Mr. White. This is the letter they sent on September 13 after sending

in the brief a few months earlier:

On June 22 of this year, myself and the members of our

committee made a presentation to Mr. J.S. White, Superintendent of

Technical Vocational services for the Province of British Columbia,

outlining what we considered was the feasibility of a technical

vocational school here in the East Kootenay. Since that time we have

not heard back from any member of the department regarding our

proposals and we are curious as to whether any progress has been made

in reviewing the report and whether the department is in a position to

reach a decision on whether the East Kootenay does qualify for a

vocational school.

Then a reply was sent back to Mr. Ron Powell, chairman of the East

Kootenay vocational school committee and it says in that — this is from

the Hon. the Minister:

I wish to advise that the report will in due course be

studied carefully by me and my colleagues in terms of need, priority,

finances, et cetera.

This was October 14, and the Minister asked for a deadline in June

and he hasn't even read the report yet. On November 26, a letter was

sent to the Hon. Minister of Education and I quote from it:

You may recall and I am sure Mr. White will recall

that our committee was given a deadline of June 22 to prepare an

in-depth report on the feasibility of a vocational school in this area.

The area has offered to purchase and donate land to the

Crown-provincial for a provincial vocational training school. This is

still very much a part of our agreement. But the problem does exist

that due to the rapid expansion of the area any one or all of these

[ Page 479 ]

favoured sites may be sold at any given time.

Then we come to January 18 — from June 22 to January 18, Mr. Speaker

— and this is from the Hon. Minister of Education and this is what he

states:

(

a) A feasibility study had been made which would justify the building of such a school now or in the future.

(

b) Heavy financial demands and prior

commitments in the field of adult education have been met. These prior

commitments must take precedence over any new scheme presented to the

government for implementation and further

(

c) The

schedule of priorities and new

construction in the adult education field have been met, enabling the

government to consider the proposition and make a wise decision on the

merits of a provincial vocational school in the East Kootenays.

For the above reasons I am not prepared at

the present time to commit my government to a promise that a provincial

vocational school will be built in the immediate future. To do so would

trigger the responsible municipalities and/or city to option the

selective property for eventual purchase and turn-over to

Crown-provincial. Therefore until our priorities have been fairly dealt

with the matter must rest where it is for the present.

That's a letter from the Hon. the Minister. This took him over six

months. The reply doesn't indicate that the brief was ever read, Mr.

Speaker, it doesn't indicate it. I don't think you need to read the

brief to realise that the East Kootenay is entitled to a vocational

school which you state. But when you say you haven't got the finances,

I looked up the public accounts of 1970-71 and I find $5 million

unexpended in the vocational schools, capital expenditures. Then I

looked up the nine months that end December 31, 1971 — $15 million was

allotted, and do you know how much was spent, Mr. Speaker? — $3,364,000

out of $15 million; $11,600,000 was unexpended and a lot of the money

that we could spend on these schools are federal money too.

We're not satisfied, Mr. Minister, with the excuse of heavy

financial demands because the money — this Legislature allotted that

money for vocational building and you haven't used it. Now, how can you

say that due to heavy financial strain you cannot build a vocational

school or equip a vocational school? Because if you took over the St.

Eugene Mission school all you'd have to do would be equipping it.

Sacrificing the education of our young people to fatten the surplus.

You admit there is need so let's get on with the job. It's cases like

this that creates people howling about the treatment that they're

getting in the East Kootenays and I think the East Kootenay needs a

vocational school now, Mr. Minister, not at some time in the future. So

get off the fat surplus and give the East Kootenays their just demands.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to deal with a subject that the

Honourable Minister of Labour mentioned in his speech the other day. He

didn't give us any details about what he is going to do but he touched

on it. The Honourable Minister of Labour said that there are amendments

coming in to the Workmen's Compensation Act at this session. I'm all for it.

But in the first place in 1968 when we went over the Act as it is

today, they promised at that time that from time to time a standing

committee of this House would review the Workmen's Compensation Act .

And I don't think that the Honourable Minister of Labour should take it

upon himself to decide what's good and what's bad in the compensation

Act. I think it should be turned over to the standing committee on

labour to review it once more.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. NIMSICK: The answer is no. You're going against the very

commitment that was made in 1968. There was a promise there that it

would be turned over to a committee from time to time rather than a

Royal Commission. That was exactly what the promise was. So, in that

case, if they're not going to go to a committee I'll have to take up

your time and give the Honourable Minister of Labour, through you, Mr.

Speaker, what is needed in the Workmen's Compensation Act in order to solve some of the problems.

Section 6, sub-section 1, the waiting period. At. the present time a

person gets injured, he's got to wait for three days. And included in

those waiting days are days that he usually doesn't work, even a

statutory holiday where in most cases he's gets paid for if he is

working. They make him wait three days over and above these holidays.

This is one that I think should be wiped out altogether.

Section 6, sub-section 4. "If the injury does not disable the

workman longer than the period of" — this is the one I've been speaking

of — "three days exclusive of any day upon which the workman would not

in the usual course of his employment have worked from earning full

wages at the work at which he was employed, no compensation other than

medical aid shall be payable under this part." I think that should be

changed.

Sub-section 4. "In cases where the injury was caused by accident

where the accident arose out of the employment, unless the contrary is

shown it shall be presumed that it occurred in the course of the

employment" and "where the accident occurred in the course of the

employment unless the contrary is shown it shall be presumed that it

arose out of employment."

Now, I know, Mr. Speaker, that I think the intention of this clause

was that the responsibility of proving the case was to be on the

employer and the Workmen's Compensation Board. But in many cases this

has been changed around to mean that the worker is responsible.

In sub-section 5, where the personal injury or disease is

superimposed on an already existing disability — I hope the Hon.

Minister is taking down notes, because I think that it might assist him…

AN HON. MEMBER: He needs all the help he can get.

MR. NIMSICK: If he's not

going to bring it up to a committee then this is only a bunch of

eyewash that they're giving the public when he brought up that the

other day…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. NIMSICK: Yes, I was. That's all it is. "Where the

personal injury or disease is superimposed on an already existing

disability compensation shall be allowed only for such proportion of

the disability that exists following the personal injury or disease

that may reasonably be attributed to such personal injury or disease.

The measure of the disability attributable to such personal injury or

disease shall prima facie be the amount of the difference between the

workman's disability before and the disability after."

Now in many cases a person gets injured, Mr. Speaker, and when the

case reoccurs maybe two or three years later, they find some other

thing to prevent him from reopening the case. In spite of the fact that

sometimes a doctor, most times a doctor, will say as well that it dates

back to the injury. This

[ Page 480 ]

is not in my estimation the proper policy.

I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Labour didn't see fit

to stay in. He doesn't want to turn this over to the committee on

labour and yet he doesn't want to stay in the House to listen to some

suggestions that are being made from this side of the House.

AN HON. MEMBER: All he'd talk about was Vallieres…

MR. NIMSICK:

Section 7. "Where a workman suffers from an industrial

disease and is thereby disabled from earning full wages at work at which he

was employed, compensation is payable under this part as if the disease were

a personal injury arising out of and in the course of that employment."

Now I've got cases where a person has been injured by an industrial

disease. We'll take chromate poisoning. I've got one fellow especially

who was injured in 1941. He got dermatitis from chromate poisoning. He

could never go back on his own job again. At his age, he was unable to

get any job that would pay him that kind of a wage.

Now if this Act was lived up to according to the way it is written

that I would say, he should be paid the difference between what he was

getting and what he is getting. Either that or he should be getting a

disability pension.

But he's getting neither. They say "you're fit for light work or fit

for some other duties" and I've seen this in umpteen cases and they'll

cut off compensation. And yet right in the Act it tells you straight

that they'll pay the difference between what he was making and what he

is able to make.

Now I want to ask, Mr. Speaker, I hope somebody over there will take

down this, this is a

section that should be strengthened so that if it

intends that a man should receive the difference in wages that it

should be in the Act and stipulated as such.

This conflict with

section 28 of the Act, it doesn't conflict with

it, but it runs parallel with it, and I quote:

section 28, sub-section

1 "Where temporary partial disability results from the injury the

compensation shall be in periodical payments to the injured workman

equal an amount to 75 per centum of the difference between the average

earnings of the workman before the injury and the average amount which

he is earning or he is able to earn in some suitable employment or

business after the injury and shall be payable only so long as the

disability lasts."

I say that there are cases after cases where people are unable to go

back to their own jobs, earning a lot less money, and the compensation

board is evading their responsibility in regards to this Act. I don't

know why they're doing it and I take it that they're doing it on

instructions from this government, because they are creatures of this

government. I'm not blaming them, I'm blaming this government. If it's

not the intention of the Act all the Attorney General has to do is to

inform them of that

interpretation.

Noise is another question that should be carefully investigated.

Deafness. They'll compensate for deafness according to the percentage

of hearing that you've lost but they don't compensate the worker for

all the other things that happen from that deafness. His social life is

injured from that deafness and I think there should be some way of

compensating an individual for the cross that he has got to bear

throughout his lifetime.

Silicosis is one of the questions. Men are declared 100 per cent

silicosic, they received 100 per cent pension. Those men to all intents

and purposes as far as going on, they are dead. And they'll receive

compensation as long as they live. Their wives stand by and watch them

suffer, watch them be short of breath, can't climb a stair, can't do

anything but the wives have got to look after them.

And then because they die of some other disease such as carcinoma of

the lung or heart disease or even get run down by a car the

compensation board says "Well, that finishes the wife." And I think

this is wrong. The wife should receive on any of these 100 per cent

disability pensions, when that person dies, the wife should receive the

compensation pension just as if that man was killed at the time that he

got the whole pension. This is the way you've got to look at it.

There are the wives that are receiving $146 a month, way below the

poverty level. It's cheaper for industry for a man to be killed

outright than for him to be totally disabled because the pension that a

wife gets has got no relation to the pension that the family would have

got had the breadwinner lived. If the breadwinner is totally disabled

they'll get over $400 a month but if he gets killed outright the wife

has got to drop down to $146 a month.

And I think that one of the amendments that come in this time should

be that the amount that the wife receives should have some relationship

to the amount the family would have received had that man been totally

disabled.

I think children's allowances are too low. I think that in regards

to silicosis. At the present time and if a person doesn't apply five

years after they have been in a mine, then they're out. Silicosis can

show up many years after you've worked under those conditions and I say

this should be wiped out so the person could receive it at any time.

Another point that should be considered is this thing of companies

allowing men or encouraging men to go back to work before they're ready

or encouraging them to go back to work without even taking one

lost-time day so that to protect them from their assessments. And this

is why it is done.

I've seen men walk around on crutches, men brought to the job in

taxi cabs and just report and sent home again just so the assessments

won't be too high. But I saw those same men a few years later when they

had a recurrence of the same accident, when they asked to have the

claim opened up again. The compensation board said: You had no trouble,

you had no lost-time accident at the time that injury occurred."

Now how can you say two years after an injury, that the accident should recur?

AN HON. MEMBER: Exploiter.

MR. NIMSICK: The compensation is paid by the workers of the province. Don't forget that, never forget that for one minute.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. NIMSICK: When you go to bargain for your wages don't

forget all these things come into the cost accounting. So don't tell me

that the worker is not paying his own insurance in regards to

compensation. And the only reason that it isn't done by the company, it

was easier to handle. For a long time they paid half each and it was

easier to handle.

Then there is this question of dependents residing outside Canada.

And I quote: "Where the dependents are residing outside of Canada and

entitled to compensation under A, B,

[ Page 481 ]

C, D of this sub-section the board may award the

dependents such lesser amounts as in the opinion of the board would at

the date of the death maintain them in a like degree of comfort as

dependents of the same class residing in Canada."

Should such a dependent subsequently become resident in Canada, this

means that if a man's got a wife someplace else we've got to decide,

we've got to decide how much it's going to cost that person to live.

That man that was working here is entitled to the same consideration as

if his wife and family lived in this country or stayed in this country

and I don't think just because she moves back — maybe to where her

parents were — that she should be deprived of the full compensation.

If you send them, I suppose, down to South America and some of those

places they've got no compensation and maybe you'll cut it off

altogether. I say that that is wrong. I think if they earned that

compensation here, they should receive it.

Section 28. This is in regard to the disability pension of people

that were hurt years ago. There's quite a number of people yet that

were injured around the 1940's that the minimum they receive is $150

and this is just about the maximum in most cases of those people. I

think that $150 is not right, and that the minimum now should, at

least, go up to $200 because it's definitely far below the poverty

level.

I think that the fishing industry and the farming industry should be added to the

schedule in regards to receiving benefits.

Section 55 is another case where I find that many times the board

uses their discretion but the person applying for a medical appeal

haven't got the opportunity of arguing their case. They get a doctor to

write out a certificate asking for an appeal. The compensation board,

all they need to say is that there is no conflict of opinion in medical

opinion in regard to their case with the board, that the board agrees

there's something wrong with them.

I had one case that went down to Lethbridge, was operated on for one

part of her back and while she was there — and nobody can tell me that

she might not have been injured at the same time — but she had to have

her whole back straightened-out or set. When she came back, the

compensation board said: "Well, we'll go good for the hospital costs on

the one but not on the other." She applied for a medical appeal. She

was turned down. And one of the reasons they said was in the first

place that there was no argument, that they weren't arguing about that

she didn't have a bad back, but that it had nothing to do with the part

of the back that she was being compensated for.

I think

section 55 could be made a lot clearer. I don't think that

when a person makes an appeal through a doctor, gives a certificate

then on such slight pretext they can be denied the right of that

appeal. I notice in this we give the employer also the right to appeal.

We say 90 clear days. In one of these cases 90 days had just passed so

they said that it was a 90-day limitation on it. And I don't think that

the 90-days can create a problem from a medical report. Because you can

argue with the board for 90 days and if it's going to be from one

medical report to the other one then they can say that 90 days is up.

So all these things, I would like to think that the Minister of

Labour would take into consideration when he's bringing in an amendment

on the Workmen's Compensation Act . I feel that the Workmen's Compensation Act

is a very important Act to the people of British Columbia. And when you

amend it let's try and clear up anything that's not working the way it

should be.

One man deciding or one group deciding, I don't think is good

enough. I think we should take this compensation Act to the standing

committee on labour along with amendments suggested by the Minister.

And if there's anything else, recommend them to the Minister. This is

the only thing to do.

Now, we come to a question of the budget. You know…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. NIMSICK: Well, this is the main part of the budget. You

don't have to spend much time on the main part. When I listen to

someone on that side of the House speak about the Premier "the most

compassionate man," you know I really expected that there was going to

be something in the budget which would portray this.

I think that the senior citizens and the mothers with children and

the crippled and physically unfit expected something too. But they

really got something didn't they? They got a big zero from the most

compassionate man.

With great gusto he announced in the budget that he was going to

give $50 extra to those over 65 as a home-owner's grant. I don't know

whether he was thinking of his own taxes or not, because he's going to

get it just as well as the rest. I don't think that it will make any

difference…if he's living in his home he can get it.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. NIMSICK: I wouldn't bet that he wouldn't apply for it.

Not such a financial genius as he is. While this goes to him as well as

to those who have plenty, or mansions, or all of them, it also goes to

those who are receiving $135 a month. And it amounts to $4 extra per

month.

What compassion? These people will be getting $139 per month. But

only those people that own their own homes. There's nothing else in the

budget for these people. And this is that compassion, that the

government shows to the people — that people are first.

What has the government done for the elderly? I'd like to give you a

little history of the old age pensions. Fifty years ago, you know, we

didn't have any pensioners…

AN HON. MEMBER: What about vote 205 and 206?

MR. NIMSICK: I'll come to that.

Fifty years ago without any pensions there was a man in this country

who did have compassion for the people. J.S. Woodward fought for

pensions for the old people, from 1920 to 1926 when Meighen and

Mackenzie King rode into power with the same number of seats. And lo

and behold J.S. Woodward and his compatriot Mr. Heaps held the balance

of power. And there was a letter sent by J.S. Woodward to both Mr.

Meighen and Mr. Mackenzie King stating that their support would go to

the one that would bring in an old age pension Act. Mackenzie King

accepted and in the following year

an Act was brought down. Now, just

to give you an idea, I think, of the thinking of a lot of people on

that side of the House now…

AN HON. MEMBER: They called it a Communist plot.

MR. NIMSICK: …The same kind of thinking that they had back in

those days from the Liberals and the

[ Page 482 ]

Conservatives, and now it's Social Credit too. When

the Act was brought before the House one of the Liberals got up — and

this is right out of Hansard

— he said: "You know I wonder if the Honourable Member that brought

forth this Act" — speaking of Mr. Woodward — "if he considered whether

the children of these aged couldn't look after them. You know it's the

duty of the children to look after their aged parents, and if we give a

pension to these people we'll be taking away this duty of the children."

That's right out of Hansard

Mr. Speaker. Then a Conservative got up and he said: "You know, Mr.

Speaker, it is the duty of the rich to give alms to the poor. And if we

give these people pensions we will be taking away that right of the

rich."

And I'm sure if there was a Social Credit sitting in that House

there would be statements just as ironical as those statements at that

time.

The people — the senior citizens of this province and Canada — can

thank J.S. Woodward for embarking the government on the role of old age

pensions. And since that time there hasn't been anyone that would say,

"cut it down." Especially when it comes to near election time "push it

up," in order to try and win the votes of the senior citizens.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. NIMSICK: I'll tell you a story some day about that too. But I'm not going to take your time today.

Every time an election was coming along they'd up the pension. And

the more elections they had the higher the pension would go. Some of

them $2, some of them $5 some of them $10. But every time a senior

citizen, when there was an election coming along, he could look for an

increase. I don't know how in the Dickens they ever…how this government

missed this in the budget — that they didn't do anything outside of $4

per month for the senior citizen. Almost like the 42 cents that you

were criticising the federal government for. In the same category,

that's about the amount of help you gave senior citizens, and this is

only for the ones that own their own homes.

Senior citizens want comfortable quarters no matter whether it's in

their own home, or whether it's in an apartment building. Many people

when they get older they don't want to be bothered about a home and

looking after the taxes and the insurance and all the rest of it. They

like going into an apartment where somebody else looks after these

things. And they should have the same right as other people.

I think there's a great deal of credit going to the local groups

that build these senior citizens' homes. A great deal of credit to

them. But I don't think I would overload them Mr. Minister.

Actually you know, the operation of the homes without having to

worry about the mortgage and about the cost of construction and

everything. The operation alone done locally, I think, is a big job on

behalf of the citizens of British Columbia. When those Members praise,

and when they talk, and when I listen to the Honourable lady Minister

speak about these senior citizens' homes, and about playing politics

with them, it didn't take this government long to run around to every

senior citizens' home — some of them were built prior to this

government — to tack up a plaque stating how much the provincial

government contributed to the Home.

This is exactly what they did, and if that's not playing politics the Hon. Minister has got to tell me something else.

Because that's the kind of politics I say is wrong. I think that the government…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. NIMSICK: …Listen, I'm talking about those plaques

crediting the provincial government all ways. And you went around and

you placed them up in places that this government had nothing to do

with. So don't tell me anything about that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will the Honourable Member please address the Chair?

MR. NIMSICK: I know, Mr. Speaker. But again I want to give

great credit, Mr. Speaker, to those local groups, that are doing this.

I think one addition that should be made to these senior citizens'

homes. And the local groups have got all they can do to finance just

the bare home itself. I think there should be a hobby shop where a

person at 67 or 70 that's in pretty good shape can go out and do a

little carpenter work, or other things in those homes too. I think that

this government should give more money. I don't think 30 per cent is

enough. If Alberta can contribute the whole amount of the capital

expenditure, so can this government do it as well as Alberta. Alberta

contributes the whole amount of the capital structure, and I think this

government could well do this.

Health care for our senior citizens too. You have been around

advocating special care homes. You know many of our senior citizens

have deteriorated, in the senior citizens' homes, to the point where

they need special care. And this government has failed to provide the

special care that has been necessary in the Province of British

Columbia — that is, intermediate care. It has passed the buck to the

local people to create the initiative to build a hospital — and this is

exactly what it is, because once you get into the area of nursing care,

it's in the hospital area. And this should be operated by the hospital

insurance department of this province.

We should not only have intermediate care, but we should have

extended care for everybody that needs it in this province, and if we

haven't got enough hospital beds, then we should subsidise those

private hospitals to the extent that those people would have the same

right to $1 a day as the ones that are in the extended care units.

I don't think that it's right that we should have a favourite few

people in this province that can go to the extended care units and pay

$1, and to the rest of them they say: "You've got to go over to Vernon

to the old folks' home or go to some private home, and you've got to

pay $500 a month, rather than $1 a day." And this is exactly what

you're doing.

Eric Martin when he was Minister of Health in 1957, promised

extended care for everybody in this province. And that's 15 years ago

and you haven't done it yet. The intermediate care should be looked

after by the hospital department too. To put the local people to the

expense of having to have a nurse on 24 hours a day to look after these

people that need special care is not fair to the community. This

government is only trying to evade its responsibility, and with the fat

surpluses that it's got it could have all this done, and the people of

British Columbia — the elderly people of British Columbia — could have

the kind of health care that they need.

[ Page 483 ]

I think that you should bring in free eye-glasses, free teeth, extend the chiropractic

treatment for them that they've been asking for. Free hearing aids under the

medical plan. You say the hearing aids cost $50. The price of one day in a hospital.

Surely we can afford to give them hearing aids to make their life a little more

comfortable? We say that we won't give them hearing aids, we'll only give them

one eye test a year under the medical plan. I know that the younger people can

get more than one abortion a year if they want it.

AN HON. MEMBER: How many a year?

MR. NIMSICK: More than one. That's a fact I've got the

clippings to show it. (Laughter). And if we can do that…and this is all

done under the medical scheme. Let's do something for the elderly

people. Let's give the elderly people the right to hearing aids, the

right to eye-glasses, the right to teeth, let's make their life a

little more comfortable these are the things they need more than

anybody else. And let's do it.

To me the best way to describe the budget is that it was a

"scatter-gun budget." The Premier found he had so much surplus money

and of course like any other company he had to find some place to put

it. A private company, they've either got to put it in share capital or

they have got to pay dividends. And there's one thing sure, that the

government wasn't going to reduce taxes. Because he raised the taxes

last year and this year proved that he didn't need to raise them at all.

He talks about fighting inflation. Raising taxes is inflation, and

there was every evidence that he didn't need to increase taxes and yet

he did. His phobia for surplus led him to a position where he had to

hide the surplus away from the public's eye. So he scatters it into

numerous little piggybanks — you know, all these perpetual funds, all

these little piggy-banks all over the place.

I remember the time we had a game conservation fund when this

government came into power. But it didn't last long, there was plenty

of money in the conservation fund. Then he uses these piggy-banks for

sort of holding funds so the different agencies such as school boards,

and municipalities, hospitals can borrow.

The interest they pay then can be used by the government for a

variety of reasons. This means that the people that pay the taxes that

built up these surpluses, the only benefit they're going to get is out

of the interest on the surpluses.

AN HON. MEMBER: How much do you get for overtime?

MR. NIMSICK: You see, it's all very well for all other levels

of government to put themselves in hock by borrowing, except our

provincial government. It's all very well for the municipalities to

borrow, the Hydro to borrow, the school boards to borrow. We're

encouraging them to borrow. But not the provincial government, no, the

provincial government doesn't do that. The most damning indictment of

this government were the statements made by the Premier when he spoke

in his budget address about the B.C. Medical Plan and I quote:

Over 99 per cent of British Columbia's

population is now voluntarily registered in the plan, with 26 per cent

of the subscribers receiving the low income premium subsidies.

Twenty six per cent of the people making less than $1,000 taxable

income. The Premier states that the "surplus will be built up in good

time to be used in hard times, saving for a rainy day."

"Saving for a rainy day," he says, when we have more than 26 per

cent of our people below the poverty level. In my opinion, this is the rainy

day and some of those surpluses could be used to alleviate the situation. In

addition huge surpluses do not make the unemployed man happy. The Premier suggests

to Ottawa that they should put up a fund from which the municipalities could

borrow money at 2 per cent. With the surplus that B.C. got, why don't they put

up a fund so the municipalities could borrow at 2 per cent? You would never

think that this budget was drawn up by a compassionate man. I find it both cold

and materialistic with very little compassion.

I do not kid myself that this government can solve these problems

under the present economic system. The best I would expect of this, is

enough compassion to lessen the sufferings a little.

Listening to the Premier advocating free trade with the U.S.A. is a

little disturbing, unless we take an entirely new approach to economics

within our own country. At the present time, Canadians depend to a

great extent on exports for their living and if those exports dwindle

or are cut off then the people in Canada depending on the export goods

for their living must go without the goods they produce. This is one of

the most cynical contradictions to good common sense.

If we wish to correct this situation we must get away from the

laisser-faire idea and manage our internal economy by proper planning

so that every citizen will have the right to share in the Canadian

production without depending on what happens in a foreign country. Then

the benefit from our extraction of our natural resources and the

benefits from the exports will go to all the people and not just

profits for a few. I know that the Honourable the Attorney General is

going to follow me and one point I would like to call to his attention

and I hope he speaks on it and that is in regard to the Fred Quilt case.

The Minister announced that a review would be made, I would like to

ask what progress if any has been made. Indians in British Columbia and

across the country are not satisfied with just a review. They want and

demand a full and complete inquiry forthwith.

What about the transcript that was taken on the evidence at this

review? Why is it not made public? Why is it not released? I think it

should be released unless there's something that's being hid.

The transcript of evidence, it should be made public because in many

other cases it's made public and I don't know what the delay is in this

case. I would suggest that in order to satisfy not only the native

Indians throughout the province but I think a lot of other people

throughout the province that we should have a complete inquiry by this

government into the Fred Quilt case. I thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable the Attorney General.

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

listening to the Honourable Member who has just taken his place, I'm

reminded of another session of the Legislature some 16 years ago in

1956 when I was first elected in by-election on January 9 of that year

and then sworn in as a Member of this Legislature while the session was

under way and I was slated to speak on the very same day that I was

[ Page 484 ]

sworn in as a Member.

Preceeding me in that debate was the Honourable Member for Kootenay

and I waited and I waited and I waited and I guess an hour-and-a-half

or two hours later, just like today, I finally got on my feet.

I want to tell you that in those intervening 16 years his terminal

qualities haven't improved one bit and the content hasn't changed that

much either. He was talking about workmen's compensation then. Same

subject and, you know, never prepared — like the N.D.P. Members, always

— never prepared to acknowledge the great progress that has been made.

Never prepared to acknowledge that the legislation which we have in

this province on workmen's compensation today has been adjudged

throughout North America as the best legislation of its time.

So the content hasn't changed. He still comes up with what I can

only regard as the unworkable policies of the N.D.P. Policies that may

sound fine in theory but cannot work in practice. Like the one today of

a person having two abortions in one year. That's the same as all the

rest of the N.D.P. policies. Well the N.D.P. are fine on theory but

awfully short on practical ideas.

I want to acknowledge my gratitude to the Members who are following

me this afternoon — the Honourable Members for Esquimalt, North Peace

River and Alberni — because I'm going to encroach on their time. The

primary reason why I have decided to speak today is the result of

certain comments that were made over the weekend and I want to spend

most of my time this afternoon discussing the matter of provincial and

federal relations and some specific subject matters under that head.

As I say, my presence in this debate today and my comments on that

subject are motivated in large measure by the unprecedented and

unwarranted attack by the Prime Minister of Canada on the Premier of

this province.

Before I get on to that subject, I do want to make a few general

comments on the budget, because in spite of our difficulties, in spite

of the unfair treatment which this province is receiving at the present

time from Ottawa, Mr. Speaker, this province has produced a balanced

budget which is now the subject of debate.

It's a budget which provides for increased amounts of money,

increased expenditure for all of the important public services in this

province. A budget that will provide more jobs. A budget which is now

the subject of debate.

It's a budget which provides for increased amounts of money,

increased expenditure for all of the important public services in this

province. A budget that will provide more jobs. A budget that will

encourage more home ownership in British Columbia. A budget that will

help us maintain the healthiest, natural environment of all the

provinces in Canada or indeed in North America. A people's budget,

because the fiscal policies that are contained in this budget for the

next fiscal year will enable the people of this province to enjoy a

life that is unsurpassed in this nation and the people from across

Canada know this to be true, that's one of the reasons they're flocking

here in unprecedented numbers.

The one item that I want to direct your attention to in particular

at the outset this afternoon is the substantial increase, a 50 per cent

increase, a $5 million increase to the physical fitness and amateur

sports fund. As chairman of the advisory committee on this fund I want

to report briefly on the stewardship of that fund.

The Honourable Member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. Campbell) I think

quite aptly alluded to the motto of this province in describing these

perpetual funds — "Splendour without diminishment." Certainly there is

splendour in the work that is being done and there is no diminishment

because the capital remains intact. The capital fund invested in the

construction of schools in this province leaving the revenue to be

spent for these worthwhile purposes.

What could be more magnificent or have more splendour than helping

young people to maintain sound minds and healthy bodies? That's what

this fund is for. Much better, I suggest, to spend public funds on this

purpose, on these kind of programmes to keep our young people healthy,

to keep them active, to keep them engaged in athletics and physical

fitness programme and it is to spend the money trying to rehabilitate

them from the effects of drugs, of alcohol and other things that abuse

a person's body.

The advent of the fitness and amateur sports fund has opened the

door to a whole new era of sports and physical fitness in this

province. It started in 1969 and we've had a very consistent growth

each year. 1970 first of all: the expenditures there, in 1970, were

$590,950 — all disbursed to various sports governing bodies and

agencies throughout the province as well as some special projects. Then

in 1971 we had a major increase to $735,192 partly due to our

centennial activities and the participation of the sports fund in some

of the athletic programmes.

One of the key programmes that is just coming into effect now, this

year, is a new departure and that is to engage provincial coaches in

different fields. After a great deal of planning, a great deal of

discussion, we started now on an experimental basis and hired the first

provincial coach, I think the first in all Canada in this respect, and

that is a coach for basketball that was hired at the beginning of this

year — a gentleman by the name of Olsen from Prince Rupert who will be

directing and co-ordinating the total programme of coaching throughout

the province.

He was selected for qualities other than just the Scandinavian name, I say to my colleague who is muttering to my left.

The function of a coach in this circumstance, is not only to engage

in the coaching aspect but also to organise and co-ordinate it and to

encourage maximum participation across the province, because really we

want to devote the fund, not only to having our top stars, our athletes

excel in world competition but we want mass participation by all of the

young people and by older people as well. This will be one of the

primary objectives of the coaches that are employed to co-ordinate

clinics and assist in this work throughout the Province of British

Columbia and not just in the lower mainland area where so much of the

concentration normally takes place.

During the Pan-American games last year, both the men's team and the

women's national team, the Canadian teams, had coaches from British

Columbia. So this is one sport in which we are already ranking well in

Canada and you need only look at the high school championships which

will be taking place again this year in March — March 24 next — when

there will be 16 teams competing to know how widespread this sport is

in the schools of our province.

We hope to follow this example, if the experiment is successful, in

hiring other provincial coaches. This is a team sport, of course,

basketball. We are presently advertising for one in individual sports — in track and field, whose duty it will be to co-ordinate activities in

the province in this area. We hope that this will lead to more uniform

training and coaching throughout the Province of British Columbia.

[ Page 485 ]

Another exciting new programme — and I'm not detailing all of the

grants, only to mention a few of the more recent that are just coming

into effect at the present time — one of these is the athletic

scholarships and awards. Because effective this year, and we're just

getting the material out now to the schools at this particular time,

there will be new awards. There will be five Premier's athletic awards

of $1,000 each, 25 British Columbia athletic awards of $500 each

available to anyone attending post-secondary institutions and they are

awarded, of course, for excellence and athletics.

Then we've had one award, one scholarship programme for a number of

years now, that's the Nancy Greene scholarship. These scholarships are

now this year being doubled from five to 10 and the amount of each of

the Nancy Greene scholarships is being increased from $500 to $750.

This will this year provide for 40 athletic awards and scholarships

available to encourage our young outstanding athletes to enter British

Columbia colleges and universities and to further their scholastic and

athletic careers.

One of the interesting new programmes started this year — swimming.

The Honourable former Leader of the Opposition mentioned swimming.

We've got one that I hope he will try — he still has until June to

qualify in it — and that's swim 25 miles and you have to be medically

fit and I know he's that. He has to be an adult to compete in this one

and he qualifies in that respect so I'll send this over to him, Mr.

Speaker, to the former Leader of the Opposition. By completing this,

and we'll treat him on an honour system to complete accurately the

number of miles or how far he swims each day, then he will be entitled

to some recognition and award on the completion of the project.

I might say that my colleague, the Minister of Lands and Forests and

Water Resources, has already qualified for this one. Run 100 miles — he's already got his. What we're trying to do by these kind of

programmes is to stimulate interest on the part of everyone in our

society. Get everyone jogging, everybody doing their own thing to

improve physical fitness programmes in the province. You can also cycle

or walk and you can still engage in this programme and qualify. When

the people in this province read the achievements of our athletes in

last year's Pan-American games in Columbia, Mr. Speaker, they should

feel extremely proud to have had a part to play in those achievements.

Because of the 45 members of the Canadian track and field team, 19 came

from British Columbia which is the best representation of any province.

I would like to quote just one letter received in respect to the aid

that we offered in that respect, from the president of the British

Columbia

section of the Canada Amateur Swimming Association, and I

quote:

We are proud of our B.C. swimmer's performances at the recent Pan-American Games and we want you to share our feelings.

The letter then went on to show of the five individual gold medals

and one relay gold medal won for the Canadian swimming team, all were

accounted for by British Columbia swimmers. Of the four silver medals

for the relays won, all likewise accounted for by British Columbia

swimmers. The Canadian Golden Girls were our own Leslie Cliff, who won

three gold and one silver, a tremendous achievement, and Donna Marie

Gurr who won three gold and one silver.

The letter then went on to say and I quote.

After returning from Columbia, we sent 12

girls and two boys to the American Nationals in Houston, Texas, which

is considered the top meet in the world except for the Olympics. If a

swimmer makes the finals, he or she is automatically world ranked. At

this meet, Donna Marie Gurr won two silver and Leslie Cliff a silver

and a bronze medal.

The federal fitness fund pays costs of the

international and national competition. But the cost involved in the

training and competition programme is a club or provincial

responsibility, and the B.C. physical fitness and amateur sports fund

must be given credit for a large part of our success. A drawback of the

federal plan is inflexibility in failure to conform to instant needs.

The great advantage of the B.C. fund is the faith that is shown to our

sports governing body. The right of our group to maintain its

self-determination of policy and programme within the broad guidelines

of the fund has kept us ahead of the rest of Canada and most countries

of the world.

Mr. Speaker the next two years are going to be particularly

stimulating for British Columbian athletes. The Winter Olympics in

Sapporo, Japan, which was just completed — we had some competitors

there. I know everyone in British Columbia was extremely proud that

Karen Magnussen won the silver medal — which was Canada's only medal — and I'm looking forward to the opportunity later this week of making a

presentation to her on behalf of the citizens of this province as well.

I'm sure that all of the Members who happened to see the opening

ceremonies on television were extremely proud to see her carrying the

flag as the opening ceremonies got under way.

This is the second consecutive time that a British Columbian's been

given this honour. At Grenoble, France, which was the last one, you

recall that Nancy Greene was the flag-bearer for Canada so I think we

can take some pride in this.

Then this summer the Olympics will be held in Munich. We had the Mayor of Munich

over here this summer promoting the Olympic Games, and I'm sure again British

Columbia will be very well represented in the Canadian team.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's a Socialist…

HON. MR. BENNETT: He's not your type of Socialist, my friend.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Next year, Mr. Speaker, the Canada games

will be held in Burnaby and New Westminster, and this government has

been approached to provide certain grants, and we are providing certain

grants to the Canada summer games, which will provide for the athletes

of the area some permanent dividends in terms of two major sports

facilities. One is the dredging and developing of Burnaby Lake, which

will provide the lower mainland area with an international 2,000 meter

rowing course which will be one of the best in Canada. This is largely

federally-financed, the programme for the Canada games.

We'll also acquire a new 50 metre pool which will be a tremendous assistance to the swimmers in the area.

The opening of the games will take place in the Swanguard Stadium,

which the people of this province made some contribution to as well,

and the stadium will be converted to an all-weather track which will

again serve the future generations in the lower mainland area.

Then in addition to this, of course, we have the continuing festival

of sports which has been such a tremendous success in the province — this year going into the winter areas as well. So all told, Mr.

Speaker, with the advent of this fund in 1969, I suggest that

tremendous progress has been

[ Page 486 ]

made. You're beginning to see the effects now on

amateur sports and athletics and fitness development in the province

and with this increase in the fund that was announced by the Minister

of Finance when he presented his budget, we're assured of a sound base

in which to continue to build our young athletes and encourage all of

them to play as hard as they work, or indeed harder, in the Province of

British Columbia.

Now Mr. Speaker, over this last weekend in his speech to the Ontario

Liberal convention the Prime Minister of Canada is reported as having

called the Premier of this province a "bigot".

Here it is in this morning's paper, the Vancouver Province . "Bennett a Bigot: Trudeau".

The leader of the Liberal Party for this province said the Prime

Minister of Canada was flattering the Premier of this province. No

wonder he isn't in the chamber today. No wonder he isn't in the chamber

today.

Mr. Speaker, this is the most unprecedented, unwarranted attack by

our Prime Minister of this country since confederation. Since

confederation. It should be possible for any province in Canada to

without the Prime Minister of this country resorting to name-calling

and personal abuse.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. PETERSON: If the Prime Minister of Canada has

nothing better to contribute in public life in this country than

profanity, the occasional "fuddle duddle", the shrug of the shoulders,

the smirk on his face, it's time he resigned Mr. Speaker.

One would think at a time in our history when we have 665,000 people

unemployed across this nation, one would think that the Prime Minister

would have some other things to say, and some other things to be

critical of, and be more concerned with his own responsibilities in

Ottawa.

The Member from Kootenay who just took his place had something to

say on highways and I was surprised to hear him take up the cudgel on

behalf of the federal government in this respect, Mr. Speaker. Because

the highway which comes through this area, Mr. Speaker, the southern

trans-provincial, cost not a cent of federal money, and yet he has

nothing to say about that. He only criticises the naming of the

highways here.

The Prime Minister of Canada was skiing in our province recently,

and we're always happy to have him holidaying in our province. But when

he went skiing I'm sure he travelled up over the Upper-Levels Highway,

he would see the great construction programme going on there, millions

and millions and millions of dollars on the continuation of the

Trans-Canada highway to which the federal government are not

contributing one cent, Mr. Speaker. Not one cent.

They started on this policy of contributing to a Trans-Canada

highway, and surely the Second Narrows is a continuation, surely the

Upper Levels is a continuation? Surely the millions and millions of

dollars also being spent on Vancouver Island could be considered a

continuation of the Trans-Canada highway. It is in Eastern Canada — do

you think the federal government doesn't contribute to the highways in

Prince Edward Island?

HON. MR. BENNETT: The full length.

HON. MR. PETERSON: The full length — an island much, much,

much smaller than Vancouver Island. But not a red cent for British

Columbia and Vancouver Island, Mr. Speaker. And they haven't made any

contribution for the last two years. You know, to the best of my

knowledge, Mr. Speaker, Canada is the only country in the world with a

federal system where the national government does not pay anything

towards highways except on the special deals it makes in Quebec and

other provinces in Eastern Canada where they not only build highways

but parking lots as well.

That's the Liberal Policy, and when the federal government is

prepared to change their policy, when they're prepared to drop this

horse-and-buggy policy on highways, then we'll change the sign. Then

we'll change the signs.

Mr. Speaker, the government of this province and the Premier in

particular believe very strongly in the federal system of government.

This has been the theme at all of the conferences we've attended.

It's the most difficult of all systems. But it does give the

constituent parts of this country a unique blend of autonomy and unity.

And it's in keeping with this basic principle, this basic principle of

autonomy and unity, that British Columbia and the government of this

province recognises its right and duty to participate fully in the

federated process even if such participation demands speaking out

against the established programmes that are in operation in this

country.

Surely it should be possible to criticise the bilingual programme in

Canada, without being labelled a "bigot" by the Prime Minister of

Canada. What's so sancrosant about the bilingual programme that we're

not supposed to discuss it or criticise it, Mr. Speaker?

The reason why we have been vocal in regard to this federal policy,

is because the present policy of the Liberal government under the

present Prime Minister's leadership discriminates against the people in

Western Canada. That's why. A newspaper clipping from the Victoria Colonist

of March 10 last quotes the Treasury Board's Charles Drury as saying

that by 1975 the government wants 60 per cent of the top 500 in

departments and agencies to be bilingual. The

article goes on to show

that only 15 per cent of that number are now fluent in both French and

Now the consequence of this drive towards bilingualism tends to

favour the employment and tends to favour the promotion as well of

Francophones, many or most of whom by necessity are bilingual to begin

with.

At the same time it is discriminatory because it closes the door to

and considerably curtails the promotion possibility of those who are

presently in the civil service of this country.

Of all racial origins, the majority of the residents of Western

Canada do not speak French and it is obvious that they are now being

placed in a decided disadvantage in Canada from entry into the civil

service or promotion once they are in the civil service.

At any constitutional conference where the proceedings have been

public, or the question of bilingualism has been discussed, there

hasn't been an occasion where we have not received phone calls from

civil servants in Ottawa complaining on this subject. Complaining

against the attitude against the federal government, Mr. Speaker.

Then, too, it's not just this aspect that we have been critical of.

We're critical of the vast sums of taxpayers' money that are being

wasted. We are critical of the extravagance of the Liberal government

when it comes to this

[ Page 487 ]

question of bilingualism.

And how much more important priorities there are in this country, if

you took a poll in Western Canada — I'm sure as the late Ross Thatcher

of Saskatchewan, if I recall correctly, said: "if we had 100 priorities

in Saskatchewan this would be 101". The last of the list, not only in

the civil service but in other areas, Mr. Speaker, where necessity and

common sense should warrant the expenditure.

For example, I know our judges in this province enjoy going east at

the federal government's expense, to take a course in French — county

court and other levels as well. And yet let's be perfectly frank and

reasonable, they're not going to be conducting trials in French in

British Columbia. But they enjoy it and it's at the taxpayers' expense,

and hardly essential I suggest.

I take exception as well to what I consider to be a useless and

unnecessary expenditure of public funds in the printing of all federal

statutes and regulations in two languages — one column on each page in

one version without getting the other.

I'm not objecting to this being available in both languages so that

those who only speak French have access to the federal statutes and

to tell you that this is a waste of money when you can't get it except

in both languages. That is a terrible squandering of public funds.

One could examine the other programmes, the grants that are made by

the federal government today of which this province gets some, are a

waste of the taxpayers' money of teaching French in Canada today.

It wouldn't be so bad if they confined it — just a waste of the

taxpayers' money within their own government service, Mr. Speaker. But

what do they do? They're determined to spend the money of producers and

manufacturers and those engaged in industry in th