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)

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 1972

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 237 ]

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Delta.

MR. R. WENMAN (Delta): Mr. Speaker, I would ask Hon. Members

to welcome a group of students and their teachers from Delta Secondary

School the home of theSun Gods in sunny Tsawwassen and Ladner.

Introduction of bills.

FIRST READINGS

The following bills were introduced, read a first time, and ordered

to be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the first

sitting after today:

Bill No. 4 intituled

An Act to Amend the Conditional Sales Act, 1961 .

Bill No. 5 intituled

An Act to Amend the Bills of Sale Act, 1961 .

Bill No. 6 intituled

An Act to Amend the Assignment of Book Accounts Act, 1961 .

Orders of the day.

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Minister of Agriculture.

HON. C.M. SHELFORD (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, I

don't intend to speak on the Department of Agriculture today, but

mainly on our aid fund agriculturally in world disasters.

But to start off with Mr. Speaker, you know the farmers are quite a

persistent lot and finally after many years we finally grew an apple to

show the consumers the producer's share of it. Notice that?

When we get this apple developed, anyone buying apples in the chain

stores or anywhere else will know that the producer's share is this

amount.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is the red part the producer's share?

HON. MR. SHELFORD: No, it certainly isn't. The red is not the producer's share. The other

part is.

Mr. Speaker, before I start, I would first of all like to recognise

a good friend of mine who happens to be sitting in the gallery today — Mr. Bill Hobson, who was my campaign manager in 1953. I think the

interesting part about this — and the Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests

and Water Resources, though he's not here — would be interested in

this, is the fact that he helped me explain the Ralston formula in 1953

at an election rally. I am very glad my friend from North Vancouver

with all the tapes, wasn't there that day to record this performance.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. SHELFORD: I always enjoy the Member from

Cowichan-Malahat, when he spoke yesterday, because he's always so

consistent in his inconsistency. When he was a leader, he used to say

that the Premier would say something and then all of the Ministers

would parrot the same remarks.

Yesterday, he said it was quite different, that the Ministers were

saying things that were different to what the Premier was saying. It is

quite interesting to hear him speak two ways like that at the same time.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. SHELFORD: I suppose, of course, those fellows across there find it kind of difficult to recognise that this is a truly democratic party.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. SHELFORD: It was better before you went up.

I was interested in the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition on

the Speech from the Throne, when he said it was like a small town's

annual report. I would say that we have got some mighty fine small

towns in this province, and I would say.…

AN HON. MEMBER: He's a city slicker. He's insulted every one.

HON. MR. SHELFORD: I would say that if you really think that

bigness is best, I think all of us will agree and I would think it's

likely a good lesson to every one of us, because from here on we're

going up. This is the example of the complex at Houston.

Interjections by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. SHELFORD: Yes, I think you can say that.

It certainly wasn't our bad management. It was just plain poor

company management. I think it's a good thing that the Minister has

control of these resources so that the only way to go is up and we will

come out with a very good complex in the Houston Valley area.

So that my friend Ray doesn't think that all is bad, I would like to

present him with a photograph for his archives, just to show him that

there has been progress in this area over the years. I think this is

one of the few pictures of its time where a dog team is hauling out

logs on in 1918. I would like to present it to Ray because I'm quite

sure some of the modern loggers would like to see how it was carried on

in those days.

I listened with interest to the N.D.P.'s sudden interest in

relations with the U.S. You know this really tickles me. On their trip

to Olympia, and I would say this was a complete about turn over the

years.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh no, only a make believe.

HON. MR. SHELFORD: I would like to point out that quite a

number of years back, before the Hon. Member was here, I believe, I

took the forestry committee down to the State of Washington and Oregon

and the strange thing was that there was only one N.D.P. member that

would come along. I think the Honourable Minister of Municipal Affairs

remembers it and certainly the Hon. Member from Powell

[ Page 238 ]

River. Our lady Minister went on this trip and the

only N.D.P. member that came along was the then Member for Nanaimo,

Dave Stupich.

AN HON. MEMBER: I wasn't invited.

HON. MR. SHELFORD: All the forestry committee were invited, we knew you didn't know what a tree looked like.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

AN HON. MEMBER: Were you a Boy Scout?

HON. MR. SHELFORD: Then for your group to go on and say that

we don't communicate with our neighbours — whether it be the U.S. or

any other country — is as far as I'm concerned just plain stupid or a

lack of knowledge of current affairs. When I was first appointed

Minister I made a tour of farm operations in the State of Washington.

The tour was sponsored by the State Department of Agriculture along

with federal officials and I must say it was very worth while.

Only last summer, the B.C. Department of Agriculture hosted the

annual convention of the W.A.S.D.A. group — which is Western

Association of State Department of Agriculture — and also the

M.A.S.D.A. group — nice names, Mid-Western Association of State

Department of Agriculture. We are now honorary members of these groups

because we find it helpful to all of us to exchange ideas from here and

across the line. Remember that Hawaii and Alaska also belong to this

group.

I have invitations to attend their convention in Florida last fall

and I must say that I'd have been there if the federal government

hadn't been messing around with small elimination programmes.

All nations were invited to this conference, including mainland

China. But there was a lack of national interest — naturally these

countries felt "Well now, a province," they don't quite understand that

provincial governments do have conferences such as this. But if there

had been national interest, there is no doubt quite a number would have

come.

The only ones that indicated interest, if enough would have come,

were Japan, Fiji and Peru. They were very interested in coming. The

main reason Fiji was interested was because we have given quite a bit

of aid to Fiji through our various funds.

Twenty-three secretaries of agriculture, equivalent to Ministers

here, from various states in the U.S. came to British Columbia and

stayed here for four days exchanging ideas with our department. We

exchanged back and forth every day practically, at least every week, on

something to do with ideas between the various administrations.

I must say that their ideas on marketing were extremely interesting.

They had just returned from a trip to Tokyo where they had an

agricultural fair and there was a complete combined operation — the

federal government of the U.S., the state governments, processors,

wholesalers and such like.

It was so successful that they sold $2 million of agricultural

products right on the floor of the fair and they took orders for $16

million worth of agricultural products while they were there.

It was quite interesting to notice the pictures taken by this group

of the agricultural fair. They had little Japanese girls passing out

chicken and such like and they had the big banners up there "U.S.

Department of Agriculture" and the fellow who took the pictures only

had the last letters of the banner but the pretty girl was right in the

centre of his picture.

This idea of getting all groups together will certainly help in the

idea of setting up an advisory food council — to get team work between

the various groups of processors, wholesalers, exporters et cetera.

Because we can't get into exporting unless we can get quality control

and continuity of supply. That's one of the reasons why it disturbs me

so much to see our ports tied up because we lose markets that we will

never get back and I think it's about time we sat up and recognised

that in the transportation field, unless we want to commit economic

suicide, we should find better ways of solving our differences or we

will go down as a nation.

We hosted several conventions in British Columbia this year with U.S. groups and others that were interested to come in.

For instance, the annual Christmas Tree Convention was held in

British Columbia with delegates from all over the U.S., and the

Florists' Convention, and I would say in total over half a dozen were

held this year.

I can't understand the concern on the opposite side of the House

that we're not communicating with the people in all countries whenever

possible. We met over 100 Japanese businessmen, as my friend from the

Peace River knows, this summer.

We have many people in Japan we can contact at a moment's notice and

one of them made three trips this year back to take a look at the

possibilities of agriculture in the Peace River region and other parts

of the province. I think good things will come.

The personal approach is far better than the letter. This is what we hope to do more of in the future.

It is a pleasure to have an opportunity to say a few words here in

this debate especially on the work done in regard to agricultural aid

and developing countries and World Disaster Fund. I would say, Mr.

Speaker, that not enough has been said about these funds in my opinion.

Of all the numerous good programmes carried out by this government — such as our highways, ferries, power, railways, health education et

cetera — these programmes are the best of all. I'd like to point out — and I don't think you'll stand up too long and deny this — that once

these initial funds are set up the programmes carry on without cost to

the taxpayer and with many benefits. No one can deny that. I couldn't

hope to outline all of the benefits in a one hour speech by any means.

There's the first citizens' fund administered by my friend the

Minister of Municipal Affairs — $25 million which helps thousands of

Indians a year and has approximately $1,875,000 in interest to spend

each year. Now this is the first time, and I repeat this is the first

time, the Indian people have ever had a meaningful programme where they

could call for assistance that means something to the average Indian.

The federal policy of Indian affairs for the last 100 years has

helped the bureaucrat in the department a lot more than it helped the

Indian himself, and the cost of administration has been excessive,

whereas under this fund administered in this province the

administration is practically nil.

In fact if all moneys spent by the Indian Affairs Department over

the year had been placed in a fund such as this the Indians and Eskimos

would be very well off today.

There's still a lot of fuzzy thinking going on in Ottawa and

elsewhere that an improved economic climate which everyone is looking

forward to will necessarily mean the Indian and Eskimo problem will be

solved. Nothing can be further from the truth. A completely new

approach is needed

[ Page 239 ]

and I hope those Members are listening, Mr.

Speaker, this is fairly close to home. A completely new approach is

needed and is the reason for a special interest in the cooperative

proposal at Fort Simpson where the Indians will own and manage their

own operation.

In other words, we will be helping them to help themselves — a desirable feature I would say in any government-run programme.

At the present time we're awaiting as you know, federal approval and

we hope it comes through early. I would say it is a must if the Indians

are to have any faith left in the federal administration. In fact, even

now in this particular case it is up to the federal government at this

time.

If anything happens to stop this programme it will reflect on all

governments in Canada, including ourselves, and we can't afford to let

something like this drop, or no wonder the Indians lose faith in us.

For this reason we have to do everything possible to make sure that

once the Indians have spent years of planning and preparation that

their plans are not scuttled by any group.

We have other programmes that are a story in themselves and no doubt will be told by other Ministers.

Major disaster fund — $25 million and again the interest of

$1,800,000 a year. Physical fitness and amateur sports — $10 million or

$750,000 to spend on young people. Is there anywhere else where young

athletes can come and get support like here in British Columbia? I

don't know of any.

We have the cultural fund ably administered by yourself — I don't

think I need tell you about that one, Mr. Speaker. The drug and

alcohol, cigarette prevention and rehabilitation fund.…

AN HON. MEMBER: Well, it's working very well.

HON. MR. SHELFORD: It is, it's working very well and we hear

a very many good things about all of these funds by people that

understand them. Quite a lot don't want to understand them because

they're so good that they think it will be bad politically to

understand them at all.

The one I wish to speak on this afternoon is the agricultural aid

and world disaster fund, a $5 million fund with approximately $375,000

a year to spend. I must say it was my friend from the Salvation Army in

World War II that made me start thinking about helping people.

Certainly I'm very pleased that our Premier saw fit to start these

funds. They were the only people that brought us chocolate bars in

Italy and I'll always remember it. Other groups seemed to want to stay

behind where the shells landed and that didn't do us much good.

Now this comes to a total of $7,500,000 in interest in this fund

alone. This can be spent each year and I hope you will remember this

figure of $7,500,000 because I'll be using it later. A year. That's

right. This goes on forever.

Now it's interesting to note when you're speaking on aid to those

less fortunate that last year $205 billion were spent in the world on

defence. $205 billion.

We all say, "Hell, we really try to help people that are in need"

but only $15 billion was spent on helping people all over the world

compared to 205 for defence. It shows where our priorities really lay.

I think it's very wrong.

I would like to say whether you have likes or dislikes I can

sincerely say that the Premier has shown more compassion to those less

fortunate than anyone I have ever known.

When speaking on the agricultural aid fund I would like to read some

of the remarks received from various agencies this year. I think it's

the only true record — what other people think of us, not we think of

ourselves. Every dollar goes to helping people less fortunate than

ourselves and none of this is used in administration.

AN HON. MEMBER: Looking after yourselves.

HON. MR. SHELFORD: Are you against it? Are you against any of these funds?

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. SHELFORD: Are you against any of these funds? Stand up and say you are against one of them. I dare you to.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. SHELFORD: I challenge you to get up when you speak next and say which of these funds you're against.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're looking after yourselves.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Liberals are against them all. Voted against them all.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. SHELFORD: Now you've had your say I'll go on. From

the Unitarian Service Committee of Canada in their annual review — and

I'd like you to listen then you can comment and say what you're

against.

For the second year the Department of Agriculture, Government of British Columbia.…

I don't know where they get the Department of Agriculture but it is

the Government of British Columbia, this is in their annual report.

"donated a carload of evaporated whole milk

towards our U.S.C. feeding programme of sickly babies under 12 months

of age in Korea and I have no doubt that this wonderful gift saved many

infants whom their mothers could not feed. This item is more precious

than gold. More precious than gold, our Korean Director called this

gift from B.C. and I believe he is right, for I saw mothers walking

miles to the distribution centre to get this monthly supply."

I have a couple pictures here, Mr. Premier. It shows B.C. milk and

you'll notice the babies are fat now. Also this is plywood to house the

aid in — you can keep that — aid in Pakistan.

From the Unitarian Service letter dated December 20 on our Pakistani

refugees aid — and I want you to understand that over and above what I

mentioned this afternoon there was $100,000 donated by the Government

of British Columbia in aid to refugees. I quote from the Unitarian

Services letter:

"You will be impressed to hear that the grant

from your British Columbia Government now amounting to $40,000 equals

that of C.I.D.A. on behalf of our federal authorities."

From UNICEF of Canada letter dated December 14:

"The Canadian UNICEF Committee is most

grateful to the B.C. Government for its generous donation of $35,000 to

provide water facilities in the India-Pakistan area."

[ Page 240 ]

And remember there were 8 million unfortunate

people crowded into a one bunch and there was no way you can help in

the field of aid until you have water. This is what we thought we could

do something about.

As soon as the details of this project are finalised we will send you the information.

You and the B.C. Government set an example for the rest of us in Canada to follow and we thank you most sincerely.

From World Vision of Canada, letter dated November 25:

To see this positive action taken by

the Provincial Government of British Columbia is a tremendous

encouragement to all members of World Vision and I'm sure to those of

British Columbia who give their substance to help those less fortunate.

Truly, this is God-honouring and such action does not go unnoticed.

To bring you up to date, I would like to give you the following

information from our report: The total expenditure since the

establishment of the fund — and remember it took some time to get

connections here and there in various places of the world and we now

have connections all over and many good friends in all parts — the

total expenditure has been $489,591.91. Not only helping those in need

in other countries, which we can't forget with a clear conscience — we

also helped our farmers here in British Columbia by sending over

powdered milk, skim milk, apple juice and various other things. Again

if anyone wants to stand up and say this is wrong, I'd like to see it

here this afternoon.

Disbursement of these funds since April, 1969, has been made in 38 separate transactions which can be categorised as follows:

Medical materials and foodstuffs — $225,756. Educational grants — these are grants to help young people learn how to help themselves, as

I pointed out earlier and I think this has been very successful but we

hope to increase the amount that will be spent in this regard. We have

a case in the Cameroons I mentioned before that we're very proud of

because from our funds we supplied livestock — even a tractor — and

they went into this scheme with such enthusiasm that today they're

supplying poultry, pigs et cetera to many parts of Africa from the

little start we gave them in the Cameroons. You know this is a very

interesting country, and the women's lib groups will no doubt be

interested in this. It's the only place in the world where they have a

whole Women's Institute in the one family. The fellow's got about eight

wives and they all belong to the Women's Institute. (Laughter).

Miscellaneous assistance, equipment et cetera — $72,000 for a total

of $489,000 and I might say by this time there are one or two other

grants that are just about ready to go.

Quite a number of these went into South America, a few in Africa and

Asia. On a per capita basis British Columbia contributes more than any

place in the world aiding others. Now I think we can be very proud of

this not just as a government but every citizen of British Columbia.

Even the Opposition I think should be proud of this.

Another thing I would like to point out and a lot of people get

carried away and in a world of fog. That is the fact they claim that

there is a shortage of food in the world and always will be. This is

not correct.

There is no question the world is capable of producing six times as

much food as there is at the present time. It's only a matter of

distribution. We haven't had good Ministers of Finance all over the

world that can find ways to move a product from one place to another.

It's as simple as that.

In India — a friend from the Bank of India that I met not too long

ago that's coming out here this summer to find out how you run British

Columbia — says that if a little place like British Columbia can run

affairs so well there surely must be something to Social Credit.

He will be here, according to his letter last week, he will be here

sometime this summer. We certainly welcome him to British Columbia when

he comes. Like we do everyone else. We're not anti-anyone. We like to

be friends with all.

As I mentioned before, we don't say enough about this type of a fund

and I think it's about time that we did so that more people realise

what's going on, because after all it's their money and they have a

right to know that is being done.

Believe me, I'm certainly very proud of what's been done of these

funds and we sit spending money sometimes for several hours, and the

first citizen's fund is certainly very well spent.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT (Minister of Finance): Without any interference from the Treasury Board.

HON. MR. SHELFORD: Yes, yes, that's what I like, Mr. Premier.

(Laughter). I'll mention that later in just in a minute. But I would

say this indicates in a very small way the administration of these

funds is real Social Credit in a farmer's language. Which I suggest

that we use more so that everyone can understand what we are talking

about.

It was interesting at the last federal-provincial conference, we

were asking for a study to be made by an economist and I said: "When

this study is completed I would hope that the main point of the study

will be on less than 12 pages, and the rest will be for reference

material." And the Minister, Bill Stewart from Ontario said: "I've been

waiting for 10 years to hear someone say that and I'm all for it,

because we get these long reports of 800 or 1,000 pages that fog the

issue so bad that everyone throws up their hands and says, 'I guess

there wasn't a solution in the first place'." Now, this is not

something we should be doing.

AN HON. MEMBER: It may not have been buried then, but it's buried now.

HON. MR. SHELFORD: It's buried now. It might not have been before.

Using the accumulation of capital to give benefits to people forever

without taxation I think this is a very fine principle and I think

others should listen. You're talking about simple statements to keep it

so that everyone can understand. I guess Sir Winston Churchill was a

master at this. I remember when I was overseas at the end of the last

war he was speaking in a pub in London.

I didn't think he'd go to a pub, but he liked them apparently. He

said: "Never pass one by because you might never get another chance."

But, he used to say: "If the average fellow in the pub can't

understand what you're talking about don't say it at all." And I think

some of our economists sometimes could take this advice. Because I

don't think we, or they know what they're talking about either.

But I would say, what could be better than funds such as I've

mentioned? But I would like the N.D.P. and the Liberals and the

Conservatives to stand up and say what is wrong with this type of a

fund, and which ones they'd get rid of. Do you find programmes like

this in the Conservative provinces of

[ Page 241 ]

Alberta, Ontario, and New Brunswick?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No, no.

HON. MR. SHELFORD: You certainly don't. Do you find them in the Liberal Provinces of Quebec, Nova Scotia or Prince Edward Island?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No.

HON. MR. SHELFORD: Do you find them in the N.D.P. provinces of Saskatchewan and Manitoba?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No.

HON. MR. SHELFORD: And you don't find them in Ottawa either.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No, no way.

HON. MR. SHELFORD: You'd better join, too.

AN HON. MEMBER: I'm leaving, I'm leaving.…

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. SHELFORD:

Now what do we see in the Liberal, Conservative and N.D.P. provinces?

We see a policy of "spending everything in good times, and borrowing

besides." So with the programme put in by the taxpayers not only do

they have to pay for the programmes, but they have to pay on the

interest also.

AN HON. MEMBER: Two or three times.

HON. MR. SHELFORD: Several, yes. Between these two methods

that I've mentioned which is funny money — it certainly isn't the

Social Credit suggestion. I would say that the other three parties stay

in power by misleading the public with double talk on what they are

about to do. You get off the real issue facing this nation which is

purely economic, and I think you'll agree when you get off into double

talk — that you're going to do this for the pensioners, you're going to

do this for something else, and something else — you don't say where

the money is going to come from.

Unless you have solved the problem of economics, you'll be just

talking, which might sound real good but that's all it'll do for the

average person of this nation.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. SHELFORD: …accumulated capital to work for

people instead of people working for capital, most programmes in Canada

could be carried out by setting up such funds that have been set up in

this province.

I'd like to see the Department of Agriculture set up that way, Mr. Premier, so we could work this on interest alone.

AN HON. MEMBER: Go tell that to the farmers.

HON. MR. SHELFORD: I say if you want me to tell it to the

farmers, I have, and they agreed. You go out and peddle your line to

the farmers and tell them that you're going to solve it without

economic change and they'll throw you clear through the door.

AN HON. MEMBER: We'll tell them, we'll tell them.

HON. MR. SHELFORD: I think in some ways it is unfortunate

that our Premier wasn't sent to Ottawa about 20 years ago…don't

be too hasty, he's done a fine job here. But the real problems that are

to be solved will have to be solved on a national scale. And if he'd

have been there 20 years ago you'd seen many programmes funded in this

way by now.

Instead of the taxpayer paying out over $2 billion in interest to

the financial interests before any programmes go ahead it would be the

other way around. And if the average person really understood the

Ottawa policies none of these parties would be there two days. It is

unfortunate that they don't understand that there's no real change

being recommended in the federal field at this time. I spent some time

in the House this last summer listening to see if someone was getting

to grips with the real problems facing this nation, and they're not.

I think it's very unfortunate that none of the three parties are

coming to grips with this type of a situation because it'll make a

farce out of the next federal election.

Take for example national housing. I think this is just one item — the home-owners of Canada, the average person getting married and

trying to start a new home.

Since World War II we have borrowed $31,727,836 from C.M.H.C. Not

from the federal government, the federal government was only good

enough to guarantee any loss.

Fortunately the loss wasn't quite as bad as some people might think

it would be. In fact the people who borrowed this amount, paid back, if

you figure it out, at 9 ½ per cent which some people might argue is

too high. But anyway there's a lot of things that you could add to

bring it up to this total. Of 9 ½ per cent on an average interest they

not only paid back the $31 billion over 20 years, but approximately $66

billion. Now, if you take this on a 30-year mortgage rate.…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. SHELFORD: You're not coming to grips with this.

There's not one Socialist member in Ottawa that's ever stood up that

I've heard that has come to grips with this issue. And you know it. I

think you should hide your head in shame.

It comes to $94 billion that would be paid back. Now just think if

our Premier would have this kind of money to set up for programmes and

for people. That's really what it's all about.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. SHELFORD: You haven't said anything about how you're

going to solve this, my friend. You sit back and say, "I'm going to

give this, and I'm going to give that and I'll pick it off trees."

Think again about the $100 million set up by us, and the $7,500,000

available at no cost for the programmes after the initial funding.

AN HON. MEMBER: You get it off trees…in B.C.

HON. MR. SHELFORD: You do not get it off trees in

[ Page 242 ]

B.C. We should, the way you stand up sometimes and start talking

about spending. You're like the foggy economist I was just talking

about. Think what could be done with even a fund of $50 billion which

could have been accumulated under housing over these years.

This is the only government that has faced up to this issue within

our limited jurisdictions. Because it is quite limited when you get on

a provincial state. And it certainly is tempting sometimes to say "I'll

go on to Ottawa." The power of accumulated capital over the lives of

the average person is disgraceful when it's done in this manner. This

is the only real issue that our national politicians should solve. And

yet our friend, Mr. Speaker — and you know him too in the Skeena

Riding, he deals with culverts and bridges and never gets to the real

issue facing this nation which is economics. Even the Port of Prince

Rupert should come in his priority far ahead of what he's dabbling in

at the present time.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. SHELFORD: I'm saying what we did here and what we

could do if we had the funds that they have in Ottawa. I'm glad you

smile when you say it. Because you know you're wrong.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. SHELFORD: I would challenge the Hon. Leader — either

himself, the Liberals, or the Conservatives to stand up and defend the

economic policy that he's preaching in Ottawa at the present time. His

party.

AN HON. MEMBER: Waffle, waffle, waffle.…

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. SHELFORD: I would say that it's about time that all

people in the Western world took a look at the programmes for people — which these programmes that I've mentioned are, because the benefits

all go to people. Not like Indian Affairs go to administration and

other things.

Programmes for people without taxation by the government once

they're set up, and I think this is very important because it goes on

and on and on after we're gone. If this province is unfortunate enough

to have you in next time I would say that you wouldn't have nerve, even

though you say they're bad, to throw them out.

You wouldn't throw them out, you wouldn't throw them out and you

know you wouldn't. We don't want to get side-tracked on the issues that

you deal with.…

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. SHELFORD: Arguments about hospitals, schools, and

such like. Because the real issue — and we want to get back to it — the

real issue is economic and make no mistake. I just wish you would

accept this too. Because some of your Members that I met recently, they

accept it. And you sit here and make fun of the real problem facing

this nation and you don't want to get at it.

There's no question in these funds this government is a

trail-blazer, because there's no one else, not followers like other

parties. Believe me we will blaze many more trails that will be in the

history book of tomorrow.

The greatest challenge of the day is how to get the abundance we

produce and the capabilities of what we can produce into the hands of

all people. I think that should be our goal and what we're trying to

achieve in our limited jurisdiction. Then we will really have a truly

just society that our friend the Prime Minister talked about at the

last election.

I hope the next speaker will stand up and say he's against all these funds as his election campaign.…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. SHELFORD: I'll chip in for his travel expenses if he'll come up north because we like him up there.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the second Member for Vancouver East.

MR. R.A. WILLIAMS (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, you know in

the days when I was first in this House, when the Honourable Member for

Omineca was not in the cabinet, I rather enjoyed hearing that honest

voice from the backwoods in the north.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. R.A. WILLIAMS: I don't dispute that Mr. Member, but what

I miss now compared to what I used to hear in '66 and prior to that

before I was in the House is the kind of fighting for the people of the

north, for the average person, that people had come to expect from him.

We no longer hear from the Hon. Member on the question of low-cost

gasoline for the people in the north. We no longer hear from the

Minister with respect to public car insurance for the people all over

the province.

Instead, what we get from the Minister is the kind of line that has

been fed to everybody in the cabinet by the Premier — and that is to

use the stale old attack on Ottawa as a way out in any problem in

British Columbia. And the man that used to be a summer rebel is now in

winter pasture here in Victoria. (Laughter).

I find it rather hard to accept some of the bland statements from

this new Minister. Quotes like this, Mr. Speaker, that really do take

guts in a cabinet with lots of guts of that kind, he says: "The Premier

has shown more compassion than anyone I've ever known for helping those

less fortunate than himself."

He can say that, and you can cheer him on and there are people in

this province on marginal sub-assistance wages, on widows' pensions,

with Workmen's Compensation Board on disabled allowances and the like.

And he says that that man is the most compassionate he's ever met? What

an empty world you live in, my friend.

The person that has stood up and fought for these people year in and

year out, in this Legislature for two decades is the Member from

Kootenay (Mr. Nimsick), and he made it clear during this throne debate

once again.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Contain yourselves, ladies. Try to be good.

MR. R.A. WILLIAMS: Instead, what we've got from this man from

Omineca, Mr. Speaker, is the kind of partisan garbage about the N.D.P.,

about the Liberals, about the

[ Page 243 ]

political parties, rather than the kind of voice we now hear from the backbenches.

As we've heard from the Honourable Member for the South Peace (Mr.

Marshall) talking about the pockets of poverty in the north, with

people on welfare raising their young people and educating them and

then finding there's no jobs for them, the real voice from the North is

still coming from the backbenches — not from the cabinet.

A simple comment really, is all that the Minister's speech deserves,

Mr. Speaker. And I ask him this question: If he and his government are

all that good, how come we've got all the problems that we have in

British Columbia?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. R.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I have a few random notes here that I did want to refer to.

I wanted to mainly today talk about the parliamentary process in

British Columbia. Those that are bored maybe should leave now since the

parliamentary process really hasn't got the attention it deserves from

this government.

Yet what's happened to the parliamentary process in British Columbia

when history is being recorded will be this, will be the area that the

Social Credit and the Bennett years will be most noted for. More than

all the roads because they're almost forgotten now. More than the dams

and all of the things the Premier and the government like to talk about.

The great impact that the Member from South Okanagan in his years in this House has had will be one — the parliamentary process.

The points that have been made in these debates during the throne

speech that in my own judgment were the most worthwhile were the

statements by Members that were the least reported Members in this

House.

I refer to the Hon. Member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Lorimer), the

Hon. Member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Clark) and in some

respects the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mr. Strachan). Their

complaints were simple and clear, Mr. Speaker. All of them said that

nothing more clearly shows the contempt for this House than the Speech

from the Throne itself does.

In the Speech from the Throne, as they have indicated — and I'm

unfairly trying to paraphrase some of them — didn't state a philosophy,

didn't put forth a set of goals as a necessary preliminary to the

budget.

Instead there was a kind of thumbing one's nose at the institution.

It wouldn't be fair, though, to say that the attitude towards the

Speech from the Throne itself is the only example of the arrogance and

the lack of care for the parliamentary process itself. There are

countless examples, Mr. Speaker, of the arrogance of age and the

arrogance of excessive power. They abound.

The Member for Burnaby-Willingdon referred to some of the examples

of arrogance that we've seen in this House. They bear repeating Mr.

Speaker.

He referred to the Assessment Equalisation Act of last year. Some of

you might recall that the Premier announced in September, 1970 that the

laws of the land were going to be changed, that there was going to be a

10 per cent limitation on increases in assessment.

It was, incidentally, a move that would again help the privileged few — not anything new in this province.

He directed his staff to advise all of the assessors in this

province to meet the requirements of a law that didn't exist. There was

a law already passed, Mr. Speaker. Passed by this parliament and one

that I believe the civil servants of this province were bound to

uphold. They were bound to uphold those laws until this parliament met

again.

But instead, letters went out from civil servants on the basis of

the decree of the Premier. That's the kind of attitude that there is

towards parliament on the part of the Premier. There's never any

apologies for it, Mr. Speaker, and if there were great urgency one

might excuse some of it. But it's all part of what might really be

called a Louis XIV complex that has set in in this government.

I guess that kind of a complex develops and grows after 20 years of

uninterrupted power. It was done again last fall, Mr. Speaker, again by

the Premier with respect to the school finance formula. Again a decree

by the Premier.

That's a complicated area which I don't really choose to go into at

this stage. I think there will be ample opportunity later in the

debate. But nevertheless, the announcement was one made without any

reference to this House. There's a law on the statutes, Mr. Speaker,

that clearly show that the 110 per cent figure in fact is the law of

the land. But it doesn't matter what this parliament does, it seems,

when administrative decrees are in the hands of the Premier.

In fact, again we have senior administrators in the Department of

Education advising the communities of this province that in fact there

is a new law — even though parliament hasn't met. It's that kind of

Louis XIV complex with respect to parliament. The idea of a king in

court that pervades this government, that is infecting the whole

process in British Columbia and having a deep effect improperly on the

civil servants in our employ here in British Columbia.

What does the Minister of Education say just last week? There's a

law on the statute books; was passed a few years ago in this House. He

said that anybody that obeyed that law would be illegal. It would be

illegal if they obeyed the law that this parliament had passed!

That was on January 26 that the Member from Rossland-Trail said that.

It's just like what happened a year ago with respect to the Assessment

Equalisation Act , Mr. Speaker. Clearly contempt for the idea of law.

It's infecting our whole society. From the police to the people in the

streets — society at large.

The plea from the Member from Burnaby-Willingdon, Mr. Speaker, was

to protect and nurture the parliamentary process. A plea to the Premier

to remember that he was after all a custodian of the democratic process

in British Columbia.

I'm sorry the Premier, again, isn't present, Mr. Speaker. That seems

to be common during my talks and I appreciate the compliment. But the

Premier sees governing this province as a kind of chairman of the board

where he has all the proxy votes in his back pocket.

It's clear that the man in power sees himself in almost a divine

right position and he sees not a cabinet around him but rather a court.

When you have that kind of situation in a government, then countless

things happen. People at numerous levels from the cabinet on down try

and second-guess the king. They try and please him.

It shows up in the records of the debate of this House, Mr. Speaker.

It shows up in deletions of the official record of parliament as I see

it. Like for example, on page 766 in the Debates of the Legislative

Assembly of the 2nd Session of the 29th Parliament , it's clear that is

a desire among some to re-write history.

There is the fear somewhere with respect to an honest record. A fear that an honest record might offend the man.

[ Page 244 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Mr. Speaker, under

section 4 of

the standing orders was placed by this House in charge of a verbatim

report of the proceedings of this House. To the best of his ability and

the ability of the staff the record was kept.

I make it clear to all members of this Legislature that at no time

did any member of this Legislature or any civil servant interfere with

those responsibilities of the Speaker. If dishonesty is being levelled

at anyone it's obviously being levelled at Mr. Speaker and at the

Office of Speaker.

I think that the Hon. Member, because of a certain resolution which

appears on the order paper, would be well advised to leave this

section

of his talk and to proceed with other matters at this particular time.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Point of order.

Are you making the decision based on the resolution on the order paper

or some

interpretation which I didn't understand in your preliminary

remarks about the standing orders on the keeping of the records?

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member said that at page 766 in the.

official record of the debates there has been some deletions and

The honesty of keeping an official record.

What I have said is that Mr. Speaker keeps that record. That there

has been no interference by any Member of this Legislature or indeed by

any civil servant so far as the keeping of the record is concerned.

Therefore any indication of dishonesty is being levelled at Mr.

Speaker. I think that a resolution which appears on the order paper

now, under which presumably this matter will be debated, may be a

proper time to talk about it. But I am not accepting at this time an

expression that indicates that I am dishonest or have done anything

dishonest.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, what I wanted to clear up was first

of all the fact that you made a statement, then made a ruling. The

ruling is — and it's an understandable one — that there is a resolution

on the order paper where this can be properly debated.

However, it concerns me, Mr. Speaker, that the Member has not made a

statement of dishonesty in the Speaker's office. He has made a

statement that in his opinion the records are not correct. There has

been a certain body of evidence to that fact. However, the matter will

be discussed under the resolution. But I don't accept the inference

that is being prejudged and the Member has a right in my opinion to his

opinion about the veracity of those records.

MR. SPEAKER: I will ask the Hon. Member to proceed with another part of his speech. I hope that he will concede.

MR. R.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I'm certainly willing to

accept your ruling, however — ah, without any "however." Nevertheless

as the Hon. the Leader of the Opposition says, there is a body of

evidence, and I do recall by my own memory some of the debates. I'll

leave it at that. I'll leave it to that except, Mr. Speaker, to say

that if there's an attendant near by I would appreciate it if this were

returned because I do not want this document.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. R.A. WILLIAMS: I'm sure, Mr. Speaker, that I can continue

my speech without the aid of the Hon. the Attorney General who has

proved again and again that he is totally incapable of giving a speech

in this House without an editing and re-write job from the Premier

himself. It's continually a Charlie McCarthy situation when the

Attorney General gives a speech in this House. But maybe the best

thing, Mr. Speaker, would be to move into a lighter vein.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. R.A. WILLIAMS: I think that the kind of sickness that has

permeated this government and some of their staff is even shown in

small ways, such as on the British Columbia Ferries fleet. Even there,

even there, directives come out from two members of staff in the ferry

fleet who are obviously zealous employees who look at the ads in the

newspaper, who check the magazines for purity of content, before they

can be sold to the public that travels on the ferry fleets in the Gulf

of Georgia.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. R.A. WILLIAMS: There is an official list, Mr. Speaker,

with respect to what can be sold in the newstands on the ferries. A

very short list and it starts with "A" with Air Progress and ends at

"W" with Women's World . The title at the top says "Magazines authorized

for sale on B.C. Ferries, list revised September 23."

It's interesting to note the kind of magazines that aren't allowed,

Mr. Speaker, on the ferry fleets in British Columbia. Well, Playboy

isn't allowed, I guess that's to be expected. Canadian Forum — you

know, that's the one that first published the Grey Report with respect

to the ownership of the Canadian economy — that's not on the official

list. Canadian Dimension , well that's a left-wing magazine out of

Winnipeg, barely has any ads in it — that's not on the list.

What is on the list ranges from Jack and Jill to Stag to Fuddle Duddle .

I no longer buy any of my news or magazine material on the B.C.

Ferries, Mr. Speaker, because most of it doesn't interest me very much.

But I thought when I came over from the mainland this last weekend that

I'd look a little more closely at what was available in fact on the

ferry newstand.

Quite a range. One that has been officially sanctified, Mr. Speaker,

is called Stag magazine. It's probably one of the worst magazines one

could buy on any newstand in my judgment.

AN HON. MEMBER: No liquor ads.

MR. R.A. WILLIAMS: No, it doesn't have any liquor ads, that's

true. The stories range from "The erotic life of a nude model" to "I

never slept with a cop before" and on and on and on. (Laughter).

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. R.A. WILLIAMS: I hesitate to mention it, since my wife is

in the audience, there's even an

article on wife-swapping and telephone

numbers but I'll forget that. There's other magazines that are really

equally as distasteful but they've got official sanction, Mr. Speaker.

For the young, why there's comic books. Like this one, 52 pages for 25

cents. The title is "The Dark Mansion of Forbidden Love."

[ Page 245 ]

That too is available.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. R.A. WILLIAMS: You know, Mr. Speaker, in my own judgment

the empty news racks — and they really are empty when they've got this

stuff in them — on the B.C. Ferries fleet are a constant, ludicrous

reminder of a man that's been in power too long. It's something just as

simple as that, Mr. Speaker, that just may be the undoing of the man

who's been in power for 20 years. The arrogance of retroactive

legislation, the arrogance of records, the arrogance with respect to

the school statutes, the assessment statutes, in a way it can all be

summed up in what's on the newstand on the ferry fleet. The heavy hand

of a man in power too long has clearly had its impact on the Press of

British Columbia. It's had its impact on all members of this

Legislature and its had its imprint on the civil servants. Most of all,

Mr. Speaker, the imprint of the man in power too long has been on the

cabinet itself. Nowhere in the cabinet has the imprint been more

complete than with the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr.

Campbell). I'm sorry to say that he isn't present at the moment.

I'd like to spend some time discussing the Department of Municipal

Affairs and the man who runs it. I'd like to do so for a range of

reasons, my own professional interest is mainly with cities and like

many in my kind of work we thought that when the young schoolteacher

from Comox was appointed as the Minister of Municipal Affairs, that at

last in this important department, we had a reasonable, intelligent and

thoughtful man who could play a worthwhile role and have a fine impact

on the cities of the province.

Instead, we have found in the later Bennett years that the Minister

has more and more been trying to be just a minor image of his boss.

As an aside, I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, that it would be

wrong to say that the Bennett years have been costly only for the

people nearest him in the cabinet. I think they have been costly to us

all. I think they have been costly for myself and I am convinced that

the Legislature too is the poorer because of him. This man that sits

with his back to the Press, failing to hold back the tears when shallow

men sing his praises as the greatest leader in the world, again almost

like a Louis XIV court scene, is the very same man who laughs at

idealism, the same man who scorns involvement of people in the

democratic process, the same man who ridicules almost all expertise and

scholarly analysis. The same man that appeals to the basest in us all,

in British Columbia.

In spite of all this, there is still a handful in this House, like

the Members from Cowichan and Burnaby-Seymour and Burnaby-Willingdon,

who talk about Parliament as it should be. I suggest that these few are

the men least corrupted by this House and this situation.

Back to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, Mr. Speaker. There is a

man who has paid one of the highest prices in this House for his share

of the Bennett years. But to be fair to the Premier and his

cabinet-making role, however, he's generally made sure that he has

surrounded himself with people that had little to give and therefore

had little to lose.

However, like the former Attorney General, Mr. Bonner, the Member

for Comox was an exception to the rule. The difference between the

former Attorney General and the Minister of Municipal Affairs, is that

the former Attorney General knew when to get out before it was too late.

For an able person the price of entry to the Bennett cabinet or

court is an automatic self-destruct mechanism. In the case of the

Member from Comox the device is fully operational.

There are three main examples that I want to point to that showed

the Minister's development along the self-destruct route, Mr. Speaker.

One is the Minister's latest speech with respect to the Gulf Islands.

The second is the Minister's intervention in the Mount Kobau area in

the south Okanagan and the third is the Dufferin fiasco in the Kamloops

area.

First, I would like to make it clear that there were a few things

that I had hoped and expected in the early years in the activities of

the Minister of Municipal Affairs, in an age when cities are of the

utmost importance.

Cities are the habitat of almost all our people and I hoped that he

would face up to some of the challenges that do exist with respect to

cities. I hoped that the Minister of Municipal Affairs would at least

avoid the mistakes we had seen in the lower mainland and avoid having

them repeated again and again in the major regional cities of the

interior.

I had hoped that he would deal with the important questions like the

preservation of farm land on the edge of cities, Mr. Speaker.

I hoped that he would fight for equity with respect to local tax

policies between communities and I hoped that he would fight to see

that the tax burden at the local level shifted to where it in fact

belonged.

I hoped that he would end all free-loader enclave municipalities in the Province of British Columbia.

I hoped that he'd reform big city government in the lower mainland

and give power to the neighbourhoods in the form of a ward system of

some kind.

I had hoped that he would see to it that we avoided the freeway trap that other major cities of North America have fallen into.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, there was hardly any of this. Instead in

many of these areas, rather than in giving leadership, the Minister

chose to sit on the sidelines. The Minister chose instead to give the

Bronx cheer to those who in fact were leading at the municipal level.

He did it again in his speech of last week. He attacked planners — fair game I guess — he said they were planning for Forest Lawn in one

breath and then said they were building a bridge system through the

Gulf Islands in another.

In sham concern he said: "I'll not sign a bylaw that is not drawn in

the spirit of participation with the public." Then, as a case in point,

he referred to the latest publication of the planning staff of the

capital region district here in Victoria, a publication entitled, "Gulf

Island Options."

But he didn't name it as such, Mr. Speaker, he pulled only one page

out of context from that report and dealt with option "A" in that

report. We didn't see the full report when the Minister spoke.

You know, it's a big report and it's a worthwhile one. There are 24

pages in that report, all that the House was shown was one page. One

page. There was no reference to capital region itself, no reference to

the fact that there were 24 pages. Just dealing with one of the pages.

What was in the rest of the paper? I think the House should hear

something about what was in the rest of this 24-page document or

tabloid, Mr. Speaker, because it's important to all of British Columbia.

It dealt with the future of the Gulf Islands in a serious way and it

didn't talk down to the people who lived there. It talked about the

range of choices that in fact they as citizens

[ Page 246 ]

in the Gulf Islands faced. It asked them for responses. It asked

them for answers. It's a fine piece of work, Mr. Speaker, by capable

professional people and by responsible local leaders throughout the

Victoria and Gulf Islands area.

He dealt with option "A" which was in the first

section and

entitled, Highways and Bridges. He didn't deal, though, with option

"B". Option "B" is another option for the Gulf Islands — and again a

map and a description, pictures, the works — that envisions limiting

growth on the Gulf Islands in a very definite way. It envisioned having

major conservation areas so that some of the finest parts of the

Islands would be preserved. That was option "B".

Then there was option "C" which was major parks and that, Mr.

Speaker, which the Minister never mentioned in his talk to this House,

proposed 45 square miles of parkland, public parkland, in the Gulf

Islands.

It suggested that seven islands in their entirety should become

public parks — Sidney Island, James Island, Brethour Island, Prevost

Island, Secretary Island, Samuel Island and Curlew Island, should all

be public parks.

It established a price for that parkland of some 38 square miles for

purchase of about $15 million, and pointed out that there was in fact

45 square miles proposed but the remaining seven square miles was in

fact already public land.

In a later section, Mr. Speaker, page 10, there is a questionnaire

asking for the attitudes of all of the people in the Gulf Islands and

the owners in the Gulf Islands, the residents in the Gulf Islands, how

they felt about all of these issues and the options.

A few of them have made it clear. The interesting thing will be when

all of the data is in, when the people have mailed their returns, then

we will know what the attitude is in the islands.

The fascinating thing is, Mr. Speaker, that they actually even

conducted a public opinion survey at an earlier stage, prior to all

this work. That's noted, and for the Minister's benefit — since he

seems to be a chronic skimmer — page 11 covers some of the existing

attitudes with respect to the question of preservation of open space on

the Gulf Islands. It's very clear what existing attitudes are with

respect to preserving the open space in the islands.

How did the various communities in the capital region feel about

sending out this report, Mr. Speaker? How did the members from Salt

Spring, from Saanich, from Langford, from the outer Gulf Islands, from

Metchosin, from Victoria, from Esquimalt, from View Royal, from North

Saanich, from Central Saanich — how did the local community leaders

feel about this? They were unanimous. They were unanimous.

AN HON. MEMBER: Twenty-one to 14.

MR. R.A. WILLIAMS: No, that was with an amendment. They were unanimous. Again you had better do your homework.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. R.A. WILLIAMS: With an amendment. They were unanimous.

The other interesting thing, Mr. Speaker, is that they even invited

the Member from Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Tisdalle) to take

part in

their whole afternoon discussion and they had absolutely no negative

comments whatsoever from the Member of this Legislature for Saanich and

the Islands. What about option "A" which was the only option that the

Minister chose to talk about? The Honourable the Minister didn't even

tell us all about option "A" and I'm not really surprised. He showed us

only one page in 24 but he only gave us a part of that page, because

where did this crazy idea for a bridge and free-way system across the

islands come from anyway?

Where did it come from? It says here in the first paragraph on

option "A". "A 1967 study prepared by the provincial government at a

cost of $80,000 suggests that ferry volumes may make it necessary to

construct a 90-mile system of highways and floating bridges to link the

Saanich Peninsula with Galiano Island."

No wonder the Minister didn't choose to tell us even what was fully

on the one page that he showed us in this report. That was a secret

report, Mr. Speaker, a secret report prepared for this government and

was made abundantly clear in this tabloid that went out to the people

in the islands, that this proposal for a free-way system through the

Gulf Islands was not in fact endorsed by the capital region or its

staff at all.

The Minister, Mr. Speaker, chose to say none of that. The easy way

was to attack the planner because an attack on planners is what would

appeal to those who are uninformed and what appeals to the uninformed

in British Columbia is what leadership is all about in the Bennett

years.

There is even an additional option in this report — and I don't

apologise for spending this length of time on the Gulf Islands because

I think they are significant to all of British Columbia — there is an

option "D". There is an option "D", Mr. Speaker, which is blank and

it's on the back side of the questionnaire. It suggests that if there

is any comment or proposals, people in the Gulf Islands can actually

draw on the map itself and send a map in to the regional district.

Option "D", your own option for the Gulf Islands for the people who

live there.

You know this kind of action by the capital region is a genuinely

unprecedented case of planning and public involvement, not only in

British Columbia, but it's an unprecedented involvement of all of the

people in an area that's unprecedented for this country.

For a government that is interested in superlatives, I suggest that

this report, Mr. Speaker, deserves praise. It didn't deserve the snide

out-of-context comments that it got from the Minister of Municipal

Affairs.

I expect that the responses from the islands will flow into the

capital region district and I expect that the people of the islands, on

the basis of just public interest, public questioning to date, I expect

the people of the islands will opt for some kind of variation of option

"C", the major park proposal for the islands.

If that's the case, then there should be some leadership from the

Minister of Municipal Affairs for a change. There should be some

leadership from this government to see to it that 45 square miles of

the Gulf Islands are in fact preserved in perpetuity for all of the

people of British Columbia.

And that $50 million cost for 45 square miles, Mr. Speaker, is the

best investment that that Minister of this government could make in

this or any other year.

I think it would be worthwhile looking at another example of the

Minister on his self-destruct route and this time it's in another

regional district. It is in the Okanagan.

The regional district of Okanagan-Similkameen, a region that

stretches from Anarchist Mountain on the easterly side of the Okanagan

trench to Manning Park, has a good local board, Mr. Speaker, with

people elected from communities

[ Page 247 ]

like Cawston, and Okanagan Falls and the range of communities in the

area. They've got a good small local professional staff as well Mr.

Speaker. They prepared a bylaw in the Okanagan-Similkameen regional

district and it was a bylaw to regulate and control new development. It

was a bylaw to preserve some of the wilderness areas that existed

within the region.

One particular area that was included was the area in the southern

part of the region where they had proposed a forestry-grazing category

for the land involved. One of the reasons they proposed forestry and

grazing and limited subdivision developments was that it was already an

existing forestry and grazing area — forestry and grazing is the

dominant use in the area now, Mr. Speaker.

But it was something else, too. It was land that was in the vicinity

of Mount Kobau, and Mount Kobau as most people here know this is the

site of what might be or what could be the most important observatory

site on this continent. The people in the region held public hearings

with respect to that bylaw and the proposed zoning category. The

directors in that region from Anarchist to Cawston to Manning Park

supported the concept of limited development in the area near Mount

Kobau.

The board had considered alternatives, Mr. Speaker. They've heard

the requests of two private developers in the White lake area near

Mount Kobau and despite the opposition of the two developers that

regional district decided the best course of action for the region was

to limit development in the area and to limit subdivisions to five or

10-acre parcels. It was reasonable progressive local leadership and it

was reasonable really, Mr. Speaker, because after all pleas had been

made to the small regional districts from as far away as London and

around the world with respect to the Mount Kobau site.

At any rate, Sir Bernard Lovell said this, from Jodrell Bank in

Britain. He said: "For the sake of international science, I urge you to

protect the site." And Sir Martin Ryan commented "local development

would be disastrous for Canada's status in world astronomy."

What happened, Mr. Speaker? The Minister decided to overrule the

board of directors and he decided to overrule the Canadian scientific

community and the world scientific community. He didn't even involve,

Mr. Speaker, the environmental and land use committee which they

occasionally refer to. Rather, he favoured looking after the

investments concern of two companies, Gabriola Wildwood Estates Ltd.,

and St. Andrews By The Lakes Estates Ltd.

Now, one of those companies, Mr. Speaker, Gabriola Wildwood has

already developed a subdivision, interestingly, in the Gulf Islands on

Gabriola Island.

Some in the House, Mr. Speaker, may recall an

article that was in the Vancouver Sun on December 6, a month or so ago, on page 35 of the Vancouver Sun . The headline was "Gabriola Scheme Misleads" and it shows the scheme.

I suppose one of the reasons they say the scheme misleads, Mr.

Speaker, is that the picture at the top is part of their promotion

leaflet for Gabriola Wildwood Estates and it notes that there is

possible road linkages, possible ferry development, plotted on the map

which really is part of the scheme that was commissioned by the

Department of Highways back in 1967.

The Minister is no doubt aware of that development. I think that it

is generally agreed that it is a poor premature subdivision on Gabriola

Island that has not made good use of the land. That is kind of a

mail-order lot situation which is common to the desert areas in the

south-western part of the United States. So it was easy to get this

kind of information. But because of the Minister's edict there is now

going to be a Gabriola Wildwood, or there can be a Gabriola Wildwood

development near Mount Kobau subject to the conditions of the Municipal

Act , et cetera.

But in the proposal involved in the case of the South Okanagan area

there are some 2,900 lots in total. Some 2,900 lots are in fact

proposed for that area. The first stage that is proposed is 685 lots

and if anybody chooses to look at any of these premature subdivisions

that are blighting substantial chunks of the rural land of British

Columbia now they can do so in the Shuswap and the Okanagan, in the

Gulf Islands and elsewhere. The proposal was for more of the same in

the South Okanagan.

You know, Mr. Speaker, the Minister can talk about professionals and

their inadequacies but what about the local people who know the area

well, the people who have lived there all their lives? How do they feel

about some of these crazy professional ideas? Let's quote them in that

regional district. Alderman Frank Laird of Penticton said the

Minister's decision would affect all regional districts in B.C. and

quoted in the Penticton Herald said:

I think we should give serious consideration to standing up and

letting the authorities in Victoria know what we think. We should under

no circumstances accept a dictate of this nature.

And the dictate, Mr. Speaker, was that all of this area had to be

called a development area under the Municipal Act . They didn't want to

call it a development

area as the Minister proposed. Mayor Seward of Penticton said:

"Campbell's order to change forestry grazing rezoning defeats the idea

of comprehensive regional planning." And another director Clifford

Devine, said that if the province believes that forest grazing areas

and development areas were one and the same then the provincial

government should take over all local administration. Alderman Stan

Spadola of Osoyoos said: "The board should have a full explanation from

the government as to why a change in the zoning has been ordered." And

on and on and on. The attitude on the

part clearly of almost all the

directors is the same.

AN HON. MEMBER: Read my letter.

MR. R.A. WILLIAMS: Let's read a chunk of that letter, Mr.

Speaker. I don't have privy to all the Minister's correspondence but

what the Minister did say in this letter, with respect to the proposed

regulations of this area that were desired by the people that live in

the region and govern the local region, he said this to them: "When

regulations are first introduced in an area some recognition and

consideration should in all fairness be given to the investment

commitments and decisions made in the private sector."

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. R.A. WILLIAMS: The Minister was adamant, Mr. Speaker. He

said there was only one bylaw he would accept and that was his bylaw.

The Minister chose to ignore the world scientific community, he chose

to ignore locally-elected people, he chose to ignore local professional

staff, and he chose to ignore the disaster that already exists on

Gabriola.

Instead the Minister determined by decree — which is common to this government — that a bylaw with

[ Page 248 ]

development areas was what he was going to get.

Even Alderman Pollen, presently Mayor Pollen in Victoria, said this

about these powers of this Minister. On August 12 last year, he said in

the Victoria City Council: "Campbell's power to do this under the

Municipal Act makes the possibility of political patronage extremely

dangerous." That is from former Social Credit candidate.

But the example the Minister chose to point to during his speech,

Mr. Speaker, was a co-op mobile home development in Coquitlam and it

just may have been a case where modification might in fact have been

reasonable. And I say that despite the fact that it was a proposal made

and designed by a Social Credit candidate in the Coquitlam area.

Despite all that I'm sure that there may be some merits to the proposal.

But where the Minister in fact interfered with local regional

government has been in the Mount Kobau case where there was no

justification and where there was an overwhelming case as in the Gulf

Islands situation for supporting local leadership rather than gutting

the sound proposals of the local elected politicians.

I think that any objective analyst, Mr. Speaker, would agree that real leadership from the department was sadly lacking.

We have talked about the lower coast, Mr. Speaker, and the South

Okanagan. Let's see how the Honourable Minister has done in the

Kamloops area. You know Kamloops is the home of his friend, his friend

on his right there…

AN HON. MEMBER: And his rival?

MR. R.A. WILLIAMS: …the flying Minister from Kamloops. Let's

have some background of those Kamloops communities. To begin with let's

talk about Kamloops, at the junction of the Thompson Rivers — the city

of Kamloops, and the former village of North Kamloops and an Indian

Reserve at the junction of three rivers. There were formerly two major

communities — one of them was the old village of North Kamloops and the

former City of Kamloops. The two were amalgamated and that was a major

step forward in the development in the Kamloops community, this major

hub area at the junction of the Thompson Rivers.

A major city that will always be a major city in this province, Mr.

Speaker, it has the two major railways of the province on the Thompson

River, it's a natural distribution point for most of the central

interior. The town, however, has mushroomed — which isn't surprising — and it's grown into the areas of Brocklehurst and Valleyview and Dallas

and Westside, numerous small areas on all sides of the community.

Equally important, there's been major industrial development outside

of the city boundaries Mr. Speaker. The Weyerhauser pulp mill to the

west, there is a major oil refinery and there is a new LaFarge cement

plant to the east.

The early views of the Minister with respect to the developing of

areas outside city boundaries are probably worth reviewing just as the

broad context of the City of Kamloops is worth reviewing, Mr. Speaker.

Because the Minister has talked about the business of extending city

boundaries on numerous occasions in the past.

He talked about it on March 17 in 1967, he talked about "cancerous parochialism." This

was in 1967 however. He said that communities like Abbotsford, Sumas and Matsqui

do not make any sense as separate municipalities in the modern world. And he

said further that North Vancouver district and North Vancouver city should

be amalgamated. He said that Port Coquitlam, Port Moody, Coquitlam and Ioco

should

be brought together as well, that all of these areas in the lower mainland

should be amalgamated.

What are the populations there, Mr. Speaker? North Van. city and

district — what is it? 40,000, 30,000 or something like that. Port

Moody, Port Coquitlam and Coquitlam again with 100,000 stage.

But in the City of Kamloops what are we talking about there, Mr.

Speaker? There are 25,600 people in the City of Kamloops, 3,700 roughly

in Valleyview, 8,500 roughly in Brocklehurst, 850 in Dufferin, 4,000 in

Westside. Altogether including all the unorganised areas something like

50,000 people.

Even in 1968 the Minister had comment. He even attended a meeting of

the Planning Institute of British Columbia up in Parksville, Mr.

Speaker, and at that meeting in Parksville in '67 he said again that

the lower mainland municipalities must amalgamate within two years.

That was the deadline for Port Moody, Coquitlam, North Vancouver,

Abbotsford, Sumas, Matsqui, and so on. He even said it again, Mr.

Speaker, in 1968 in a speech to the Chamber of Commerce. He said: "There

is no hope whatsoever of solving some of our problems that we face if

we do not re-examine political boundaries." He said further there is a

great waste of municipal capital today because of duplications of

services of the next door municipality and this simply means that it

prevents other worthwhile projects from going ahead. No argument. That

was in the early days of the Minister.

In Kamloops however, local people did begin to recognise the serious

problems that they faced in the Kamloops urban area. The city thought

seriously about extending its boundaries and the regional district

tried to deal with some of the problems but clearly it wasn't working

so a hearing was held in the Kamloops area by the Minister in Kamloops

in October, 1970.

Twenty or 25 briefs were submitted to the Minister from places like

Valleyview and Brocklehurst, the City of Kamloops and from many, many

developers — and the loudest of the developers was Charlie Bennett.

Some members in this House may recall Charlie Bennett. He filled the

galleries with his Kamloops faithfuls when the local M.L.A. was under

attack with respect to Del Cielo and related interests in the Kamloops

area. I won't bore the House with the details of that. I think

everybody is familiar with that.

On October 17, 1970, Charlie Bennett of George Field Developments

Ltd. said in a preliminary brief for the Minister: "We've not been able

to get zoning changes to allow for light industrial or C4 zoning and no

zoning permission for residential building. We have been trying to get

the zoning for three years now and the refusals are mainly the result

of the city's objections."

And he said: "The regional district has also refused as well." It's

pretty clear what was bothering Charlie Bennett, Mr. Speaker. He wanted

high value zoning in the Del Cielo area and the regional district

wouldn't give it to him and the city wouldn't give it to him.

The city published its brief on October 22, 1970, Mr. Speaker, and

what they proposed was a rational scheme. They proposed a major new

city that would involve several communities such as Valleyview,

Brocklehurst, Westside, Springhill, Mission Flats, and they proposed

some kind of a ward system at least in the transition period so that

there

[ Page 249 ]

could be local representation.

They pointed out that they did have high taxes in the City of

Kamloops for example, that in the use of the sports arena 50 per cent

of the people that used the recreation facility actually came from

outside the city boundaries. They proposed expanding the boundaries to

take in some of these new major industries — worth in fact $100 million

— on the outskirts of the city so that they would have a decent tax

base for the people of the community. Again, it was good sound local

leadership in the Kamloops area and in fact it was even endorsed by the

Chamber of Commerce. But Charlie Bennett was still speaking out, Mr.

Speaker. On October 28, 1970, he was quoted in the Kamloops Daily

Sentinel :

Mr. Bennett said the City of Kamloops is in the land development business where it doesn't belong and it isn't welcome.

Good heavens! The kind of thing that's being done in Prince George,

the kind of thing that's being done in Saskatoon, the kind of thing

that's being done in Ottawa, in some of the genuinely progressive

communities of this nation.

Mr. Bennett contended that if the Minister

allows zoning requests in one area then his area — that is Bennett's

area — should receive the same approval. Otherwise the Minister's

office is giving patronage to the City of Kamloops and discriminating

against George Field Developments Limited.

He said and it was quoted in the Vancouver Province later, Mr. Speaker. That is Mr. Bennett said:

The Thompson-Nicola regional district has repeatedly refused him

zoning and Kamloops Alderman Romano is regional chairman in the

district, so Bennett said there may be a conflict of interests.

A conflict of interests! This is one time that I'm willing to bow to an expert.

There was a long hearing. The Minister heard various submissions and

what did it produce, Mr. Speaker? It produced a short report a month

later from the Minister. Whose advice did the Minister follow?

Certainly not the city's.

November 24, the Minister turned the city request down to expand its

boundaries. He gave no reason. He had no reference to any of his

earlier speeches, surprisingly, about North Van. city and district.

About Abbotsford, Matsqui, about the Coquitlam — that's from the days

when he used to talk to the planners. Instead he recommended a

committee. He recommended a committee of the regional district to

administer services in the Greater Kamloops area.

What about those fat industries that were being undertaxed, Mr.

Speaker? Those fat industries that could lower the tax payments of

every home-owner in the City of Kamloops? The oil refineries. The

LaFarge cement plant? The Weyerhauser pulp mill.

No, said the Minister, the industries will keep out of the noose of the city. Here's the reason the Minister gave.

The Minister said for the time being the pulp mill and oil refinery

in the area should not be included in any municipality for tax

purposes. But it should be a part of the regional district's tax base.

Kamloops had asked that the pulp mill be brought within the city

boundary.

What the Minister didn't say — and that's always more interesting

than what he does say — is that in fact the industries could support

both the City of Kamloops and the regional district. That's what

happens in many other areas.

It's true to the Bennett years. That misinformation is part of the

game plan. What are the facts, Mr. Speaker? The city's general mil rate

is 22.75 mils in the City of Kamloops now. The regional tax rate is 12 mils. Those industries outside the city

boundaries, those freeloaders on the central community, should be

paying both taxes in the city and in the region. Instead the Minister

chose to give them the 12 mil rate rather than the 22 mil rate. He

decided that those industries deserve half-price taxes and that the

home-owners in the city deserve double taxation.

AN HON. MEMBER: Soak the poor, profit the rich.

MR. R.A. WILLIAMS: And after those specious arguments with

respect to the industries outside the city boundary, Mr. Speaker, the

Minister expressed his concern about the lack of co-ordination in the

Kamloops area. Then he said, he was feeling really gutsy by this stage,

he said that "already a measure of unacceptable ribbon development is

evident along the highways in the Kamloops area." An unacceptable level

of ribbon development. But was he going to let the City of Kamloops

deal with unacceptable ribbon development on the edge of the city? Not

on your life.

Shades of Del Cielo, George Field, Charlie Bennett and all, the

people that were involved in ribbon developments along the highway.

Even in the Bennett years, Mr. Speaker, statements like that take

real guts. Then, Mr. Speaker, the Minister allowed the incorporation of

Valleyview which is to the east, and the incorporation of Brocklehurst

— and so much for the ideas with respect to Port Coquitlam and all the

rest of it.

Clearly, everything the Minister has stood for in earlier years with

respect to rational city government in this province was negotiable.

Then there was a period of consolidation of gains, Mr. Speaker.

Gains by the developers, by the major industries and by the other

freeloaders. The city sat back and consolidated its losses.

Then at the end of the last session of this parliament there was an

announcement. There was a petition to create the new community of

Dufferin and letters patents were granted on March 30, 1971, printed in

the Gazette , May 20, 1971. Letters patent for the District of Dufferin.

Dufferin is an interesting community, Mr. Speaker. Did Charlie

Bennett complain about the creation of Dufferin? Not on your life. What

was the shape of the new municipality? What kind of configuration did

Dufferin have? What kind of planner is this Member from Comox? Well

let's just have a look. Let's look at the kind of planner the Member

from Comox is.

This is the Kamloops area, Mr. Speaker. Everything coloured in

yellow on this map is the present City of Kamloops and it includes the

old city here on the south side of the Thompson and includes the old

big village of North Kamloops. That's all the present City of Kamloops.

Rather than let the city rationally expand its boundaries, he chose to

accept after a suitable length of time.

AN HON. MEMBER: After a vote of the people.

MR. R.A. WILLIAMS: Yes, but only in the immediate area — because this is a boundary game, a numbers game and you move the

boundaries with the numbers you want. That's the name of the game and

the Minister knows it.

The District of Dufferin is everything that's in red. Here is the

Trans-Canada highway leading into Kamloops and here's the highway

leading out to Merritt. Down here is the Thompson. The other red area

is a kind of umbilical cord

[ Page 250 ]

that ties this area to this area. This little red piece that's still

within the district boundaires is simply the C.P.R. railway track.

That's appropriate, Mr. Speaker, because it really was a railway job.

There's no doubt about that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Planner!

MR. R.A. WILLIAMS: When the Minister plays planner it's a kind of snakes and ladders game in which the dice are loaded against the local people.

AN HON. MEMBER: What a headache!

MR. R.A. WILLIAMS: It's interesting, Mr. Speaker, that the

District of Dufferin includes the controversial Del Cielo property. It

includes that property where Mr. Bennett says he had trouble getting

the zoning he wanted from the City of Kamloops. He had trouble getting

it from the regional district. Well, how might he fare in the new

District of Dufferin?

AN HON. MEMBER: What a headache. They should call that state Bufferin. (Laughter).

MR. R.A. WILLIAMS: There's no question. There's no question.

It is a headache and the Minister knows it. It's the gerrymander of the

century in municipal politics in British Columbia. That is a rather

fitting project for the centennial year and the Minister of Municipal

Affairs.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. R.A. WILLIAMS: But beyond including the Del Cielo area in

this district of Dufferin what does it do in addition? What does the

C.P.R. umbilical cord do? What it does in the snakiest boundary

manoeuvre in municipal politics in this province is to cut off the City

of Kamloops from being adjacent to the Weyerhauser pulp mill. It means

that it's the District of Dufferin that's going to be near the pulp

mill, the $100 million tax asset.

AN HON. MEMBER: They'll never get it.

MR. R.A. WILLIAMS: Ha, ha, those are tough words from the

Minister of Municipal Affairs. Tough, tough words from a Minister that

at every stage, at every stage has caved in to the Member from

Kamloops. In the Kamloops area the Member from Kamloops gets what the

Member from Kamloops wants and it has nothing whatsoever to do with the

Minister of Municipal Affairs.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. R.A. WILLIAMS: That gerrymander clearly came before the

cabinet. The two both walked into the cabinet chamber, no doubt, and

discussed their points of view.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. R.A. WILLIAMS: And look what came out. Look what came

out. What came out is what the Member from Kamloops wanted and what the

supporters of the Member from Kamloops wanted. That's what came out of

that cabinet meeting.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that why you're mad at us?

MR. R.A. WILLIAMS: You know, that gerrymander boundary even

takes away the City of Kamloops work yard. The city's own works yard is

in the District of Dufferin.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. R.A. WILLIAMS: And there's a hotel down there in this end,

Mr. Speaker. They put the hotel in Dufferin because there's some tax

value in a hotel and they put the front yard of the hotel in the City

of Kamloops. Kamloops gets the vacant lot in front of the hotel and

Dufferin gets the hotel.

AN HON. MEMBER: Kamloops gets the drunks and the other part sells the beer.

MR. R.A. WILLIAMS: It just may be that the Minister's hand was a little unsteady when these boundaries were drawn.

AN HON. MEMBER: Or tied.

MR. R.A. WILLIAMS: Maybe he got a kind of guiding hand from

the Member from Kamloops and a friend of the Member from Kamloops.

Because after all, the Member from Kamloops, the Hon. Member, is very

good at drawing lines on maps. There's just no question about that — why the former Minister shifted a whole highway to intercept with the

right lines on maps. So the Minister of Municipal Affairs was dealing

with a self-taught expert when he was dealing with the Member from

Kamloops.

There may be a little spirit left in the Minister of Municipal

Affairs. He still has small-scale fights in public with the Member from

Kamloops but in the crunch the boys from Kamloops get what they want.

But just to make it clear, just to make it clear who is boss in the

Kamloops area, they went and named a new mayor for Dufferin. They

appointed a mayor.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's hypocrisy.

MR. R.A. WILLIAMS: And who was it?

AN HON. MEMBER: Who was appointed? Who was appointed?

MR. R.A. WILLIAMS: I presume it was an ministerial appointment.

AN HON. MEMBER: Will you pick his name out of a hat?

MR. R.A. WILLIAMS: The man, of course, was none other than Charlie Bennett. Mayor Charlie Bennett.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. RA. WILLIAMS: And who presented the letters patent to the

new municipality? Why it wasn't the planner over there. It was the

Member from Kamloops.

AN HON. MEMBER: That was fitting.

MR. R.A. WILLIAMS: On that occasion the Member from Kamloops kind of knocked the Minister a little bit but

[ Page 251 ]

only a little bit. The Member from Kamloops presented the letters patent to Mayor Charlie Bennett.

AN HON. MEMBER: "Here, Charlie old pal."

MR. R.A. WILLIAMS: ….and what did the developer, I mean

the mayor, say on that auspicious occasion? Why he said that the city

council there in Dufferin will most likely continue to hold its

meetings in the George Field estate office, "which I have made

available to the council rent free." Rent free! That was a sweet

victory indeed and it was worth $35 a month rent.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's how you beat City Hall…. Take it over…. Never mind the voters.

MR. R.A. WILLIAMS: But at what price? At what price, Mr.

Speaker, was this to the citizens of Kamloops? At what price was all of

this activity to a decent, progressive municipal policy throughout the

province and at what price to the self-esteem of the Minister of

Municipal Affairs? I suggest it was an incredibly high price to the

Minister and to the rest of us. But it's the kind of typical activity

in the later part of the Bennett years in British Columbia. It is

simply the story of a failure. It is the biography of a fake. It is

about the people who are our government — the hollow men on the other

side of the House.

MR. J.D. TISDALLE (Saanich and the Islands): Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: What is your point of order?

MR. TISDALLE: The Hon. the second Member for Vancouver East indicated that the meeting that I attended on November 8.…

MR. BARRETT: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just one moment.

AN HON. MEMBER: We want our point of order, the Hon. Member was speaking.

MR. TISDALLE: He mislead the House and I wanted to correct him.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just one moment. The Hon. Member will proceed with his point of order.

MR. TISDALLE: November 8 — the meeting that was referred to — was not for approval neither had my being there anything to do with

tantamountly approving it. It was just a preview and I wanted the House

to know that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon. Member made his statement.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I want a ruling on whether or not

that statement is going in the records. Because I claim that the Member

was out of order and he wasn't in his seat and he didn't even make a

correct reference to what the Member said. How can he possibly know? I

rise in my seat on a point of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just one moment. The Hon. Leader of the

Opposition is not in order in his contention. The Member has a right to

raise the point.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. BARRETT: No, I want an answer.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just a moment. Just one moment. Any Member has the right to make his statement and the House will accept that.

HON. R.R. LOFFMARK (Minister of Health Services): I would ask

Mr. Speaker to recall that if he rules that because he was out of the

House at the critical time this Member was not able to speak, the

conclusion would be that another Hon. Member could say anything he

liked about a Member as long as the offended Hon. Member was not in the

House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no speaking to the point of order.

MR. B.A. CLARK (North Vancouver–Seymour): Mr. Speaker, you

did not hand down your ruling, thereby denying this House the

opportunity to challenge your ruling, and I suggest that was an error,

Mr. Speaker. If it was a point of order you have the obligation to make

your ruling and you did not do so, but instead allowed the Member to

make his statement which I suggest is most improper.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just one moment. The Member raised a point of order. There was no ruling made.…

AN HON. MEMBER: You made a ruling, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I allowed the Member to raise his point of order, period.

MR. R.M. STRACHAN (Cowichan-Malahat): Mr. Speaker, there is a

overruling point of order that in rising to correct a statement a

Member must not himself make a statement that is untrue and misleads

the House, and that's what that Member did, and that's when he should

have been ruled out of order. And Mr. Speaker, that's why a Member who

was not in the House when the statement was made should not be allowed

to get up and make any reference whatsoever because he has been

misinformed about what was said and the Member in trying to make his

point of order himself misled the House, and misinformed the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The statements have been made. The Honourable second Member for Vancouver South.

MRS. A. KRIPPS (Vancouver South): Mr. Speaker, it is my

honour and pleasure to once again take my place in this debate on the

throne speech, and to represent, along with the Honourable Minister of

Health Services and Hospital Insurance, that great constituency of

Vancouver South.

I would like to add my congratulations to the mover and seconder of

the motion that is now under debate. Both the Honourable Member for

Richmond (Mr. LeCours) and the Honourable Member for Shuswap (Mr.

Jefcoat) deserve top marks for their excellent addresses.

[ Page 252 ]

Congratulations are also in order to the Honourable Member for

Columbia River (Hon. Mr. Chabot) who has been elevated to the Cabinet

with the portfolio of Minister of Labour. He has already gained the

support of both management and labour and he is doing a fantastic job.

I wish him success in all his efforts to maintain stability in the

labour-management field.

And as for the Opposition party well, Mr. Speaker, they are the only

group with Opposition experience. Let's keep them there forever.

Once again they have complained that the throne speech contains very

little information for them. However let us remember that the matter of

debate in a democratic Parliament demands that the Opposition offer

justified criticism, and positive, responsible suggestions for improved

legislation.

Surely the Opposition doesn't expect the government to do the

thinking for them? The government already provides a special research

consultant for the Opposition party in order to facilitate its work, to

present constructive criticism.

If the government were to disclose in the throne speech all of the

avenues of action it intends to take, then the Opposition parties would

complain that the government was making political promises that were

intended to hamper the style of the Opposition parties' contribution to

the debate.

Mr. Speaker, I was particularly pleased to note in the throne

speech that the much-needed Knight Street bridge located in the

Vancouver South constituency is progressing on schedule, and that

hopefully it will be completed by the end of this year.

A very welcome announcement made by the Premier of our province on

June 11 this past year, was the new programme of assistance in the

building of special care homes for the citizens of the province.

I initiated action in this regard in my constituency and I am very

pleased to announce that as soon as the working drawings are approved

by the government the first sod-turning will take place in the southeast

sector of Vancouver South, known as Champlain Heights, where the

Kopernik Foundation, a non-profit organisation, will build a 109-unit

special care home.

A further extension in the form of an 80-unit wing devoted to

special care will also be added to the German-Canadian Benevolent

Society senior citizens home in another area of the Vancouver South

constituency. The Finnish Canadian rest home in still another area of

the constituency is also considering extending its work into the field

of special care.

Building more special care homes will certainly satisfy the long

felt need for boarding house accommodation at reasonable cost for those

of our citizens requiring a limited degree of medical and nursing

supervision in their daily lives.

Mr. Speaker, the financial assistance in the form of a 35 per cent

outright grant from the provincial government is greatly appreciated by

the people of this province.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. KRIPPS: That's right, it's the only level of government

in Canada that pays any outright grants. Let's see if the federal

government could come up with it.

Personally, I don't think we can have a better arrangement than that

of government and community-minded public-spirited citizens working

together, satisfying the need for personal care services for our

elderly.

The membership of non-profit organisations derives a great sense of

pride from its efforts to provide special care homes, to which they

give a real heart and soul, and the community in turn also benefits.

It's wonderful harmonious relationship of government and people working

together.

Mr. Speaker, I noticed this year that in the parliamentary dining

room the air is much more pleasant to breathe and the heavy tobacco

smoke which was prevalent in past years is no longer there. I think

this is commendable! It shows that some of our smokers are at least

considerate of non-smokers.

These smokers are, in fact, being very responsible and are not

denying the privilege of non-smokers to breathe air that is free from

second-hand tobacco smoke.

I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that such responsible action be carried

out voluntarily by the community at large, and places that are open to

the public where smokers and non-smokers congregate should provide

areas for those who wish to choke themselves to death by smoking.

I understand that some of the airlines and several restaurants in Vancouver have already implemented this practice.

I would therefore suggest, Mr. Speaker, that within the realm of our

area of jurisdiction, we set an example to the community and refrain

from smoking in the presence of non-smokers, and this applies to our

caucus room.

Perhaps the Minister of Public Works could allocate a small room

somewhere in the buildings to be designated as a Smoking Room, and

anyone wishing to smoke could do it in peace and quiet, away from us

non-smokers.

Mr. Speaker, another area of concern to me is the image and respect

for that great humanitarian profession, the doctors. They have, and are

providing high quality medical care at a high rate of remuneration for

their services.

From the response to my questionnaire regarding the doctors' desire

to increase their fees, I have received an indication that doctors are

in fact more than adequately remunerated for their services at present,

and that an increase in fees at this time is unjustifiable.

Doctors are human beings too and they can, and some of them in fact

do, make mistakes and send a bill for a job which in fact they did not

perform. Such an instance occurred in our family. The government in

fact paid a doctor who had sent a bill for treatment of my healthy

husband. We did not know the doctor, and yet he was collecting payment

for treatment which in fact he did not render.

There have been other instances and complaints which I have

received, indicating that some of the doctors were in fact taking

advantage of a good medicare programme — one of the best programmes on

the North American continent, thanks to the vision of our government to

provide quality health care services to our people.

However, Mr. Speaker, if we are to maintain this high standard of

health care, we must make every effort to curtail the escalating costs

of this service or we could end up with no service at all.

Let me cite just some of the abuses that have come to my attention this past year.

An elderly couple, for example, on a visit to the doctor's office

were in fact being attended by the doctor, in the same room together. I

guess you could call this "group therapy", and when the doctor sent in

his bill, it was for two separate office visits. I guess the doctor in

question was being efficient with his time, at the expense of the

government who paid the bill for two individual visits rather than one.

Another complaint concerned a patient who happened to

[ Page 253 ]

have met his doctor in the shopping centre. But, let me tell you

that friendly meeting with the doctor — with an exchange of "Hello",

"How are you?" — cost the government money, for the doctor in question

sent a bill in for that service.

People have complained to me that they would have to sit as long as

two hours in the doctor's office. Why would a doctor book so many

appointments if he knows that he cannot see the patient at that time?

Surely he must have an idea of how long it takes to give a general

examination?

On another occasion, it was brought to my attention that the nurse

was relieved that she no longer worked for a certain doctor, because

she could now go to bed with a clear conscience. She was sick and tired

of padding the appointment book for the doctor.

More recently, I completed an investigation after receiving a

complaint verbally and I asked for it to be in writing, which indicated

after my investigation that the doctor in question had overcharged

two-and-a-half times the amount allowed in the fee schedule.

These are some of the complaints that I had. How many are there that may go unnoticed?

MR. DOWDING: What do you do with them?

MRS. KRIPPS: I refer them to the correct department for action.

Mr. Speaker, I am concerned about the fear that the people have

expressed to me in reporting the names of the various doctors. The

people are afraid that they may not receive medical attention. This is

not a healthy situation.

I believe there is too much secrecy about this self-policing system

within the medical profession. It is time the public was made aware of

the urgent need to help us in our efforts to maintain a high-quality

health care programme which the taxpayer can and will support.

If the medical profession, for which I have the greatest respect and

regard, is to maintain the respect of the community, they must do a

better job of policing themselves, and we as a government must make it

more difficult for the doctor to collect payment for services not

rendered. There must be better accountability. Doctors are not

untouchable.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I am appealing to all citizens in the

province to assist the government and the medical profession in their

efforts to clean house and eliminate those who are in fact abusing the

system.

I am asking the public to check their receipts very carefully to

make sure that the payments made on their behalf are in order. And if

for any reason they doubt the expense, please get in touch with your

local member of the legislative assembly and report your concern.

Mr. Speaker, in this legislative assembly the Attorney General

reported that he had urged the federal government to forbid the sale of

toxic solvents found in nail-polish remover and other products to

anyone under 16 years of age. This I wholeheartedly support.

However, to date no evident results of his efforts have been

forthcoming from the federal government. Maybe the federal government

didn't have time to do anything positive because they were so busy

reshuffling cabinet posts. But I am not interested in excuses. I want

results. I want action, and I want it now.

Sniffing nail-polish remover has reached almost epidemic

proportions, particularly in the Raymur public housing project in

Vancouver.

Mr. Speaker, this is the culprit — the culprit that is destroying

the delicate brain cells of our children. This is the name they proudly

advertise in the front of their label. "Cutex," and on the back of the

bottle, on the label it says the name of the manufacturer, Cheseborough

Ponds, (Canada) Ltd., Markham, Ontario.

While it is true that the courts have declared that the provincial

government's efforts to legislate against the problem are outside its

power, nevertheless we must find a way to curb this stupid

solvent-sniffing fad.

I endorse all the proposals already expressed in this legislative

assembly, both for the short-term cure and also the long-range

programme of education.

And while we wait for results from the Attorney General's

investigation into the possibility of prosecuting vendors under the

Juvenile Delinquents' Act and the possible removal of vendors' business

licences, I wish to bring to the attention of this legislative assembly

that there are nail-polish removers on the market now that do not lend

themselves to kicks because of the additives they contain.

The products I speak of are: "Dura Gloss Remover," manufactured by

Winarick Canada Ltd.; a nail-polish remover by Revlon International

Corporation and another nail-polish remover by Yardley's of London. And

there may be others.

Mr. Speaker, the idea of sniffing nail-polish remover is not new. It

has been with us for a number of years, but recent public attention has

been focussed on this problem by the outcries of mothers in the Raymur

housing project who mobilised themselves to express their concern in a

most dramatic and spectacular manner. I wish to congratulate these

mothers for their efforts.

I believe parental concern is one of the first and best methods we

can use to beat the sniffing kick which causes irreparable brain damage

to our young children. While it is true that the company was not

manufacturing an illegal product, nevertheless it must have been aware

of the fact that "Cutex" nail-polish remover was not being used for

purposes intended. Yet the company did nothing about it. This shows a

complete lack of social responsibility, social conscience and good

corporate citizenship — all for the sake of the almighty dollar.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I appeal to all citizens, in the interest of

protecting our youth from this devastating scourge, to demonstrate

their indignation by refusing to buy all Cheseborough Ponds products.

Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, I appeal to all retail outlets to stop

selling "Cutex" nail-polish remover and to remove it from the shelves

and return it to the manufacturer for a refund.

Such drastic action by the community will certainly alert the

company in question to live up to its moral and social responsibility.

As another suggestion, Mr. Speaker, I propose that legislation be

enacted, making it illegal in the Province of British Columbia, to sell

without an additive any product containing a volatile solvent that may

be used for purposes other than intended. I would further suggest that

a list of such products that may be abused, be prepared by the

Pharmaceutical Association of British Columbia. This list may be

enlarged or deleted by the Attorney General's department from time to

time. Such proposed legislation should be vigorously enforced and all

violators punished by law. Just letting the situation drift along and

hoping that conditions will improve by themselves is unrealistic and

unworthy of us as responsible legislators.

Another area of concern to me is the 5 per cent social

[ Page 254 ]

service tax. This tax no longer applies to periodicals, magazines,

pocket and comic books and yet printed matter in book form, for

example, Ron Worley's book, "The Wonderful World of W.A.C. Bennett" and

all other hard cover books are still subject to 5 per cent sales tax.

In my opinion such a social service tax structure as it now stands

in regards to all literature, constitutes discrimination. A book such

as this written in a straight-from-the-heart, down-to-earth approach to

tell the Bennett story like it is in a like-it-was fashion is

recommended for everybody and yet you have to pay sales tax. I don't

agree with it.

Therefore, I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of

Finance, the Premier of our province, rescind the social service tax on

all literature, regardless of the form in which it may be printed.

Anybody wanting a copy of the book — I know you've all read it because

you were dying to know what's in it — please put your orders in.

Unsolicited commercial.

Members to the House of Commons in Ottawa are elected on a local

area representation basis. Similarly, members to the legislative

assembly in Victoria are elected on a local area basis. However, the

City of Vancouver elects its aldermen on a city-wide basis, commonly

known as the "at-large system."

I think the time has come for the City of Vancouver to also have

local area representation. Area representation would provide the

citizens a better feeling of neighbourhood participation and interest

in the activities of the Vancouver City Council. It could also form the

structural basis for greater citizen participation in the area of

social services, planning, recreation and cultural services. Therefore,

Mr. Speaker, I urge the government to bring in legislation, in the form

of an amendment to the Vancouver City Charter, that would enable the

Vancouver City Council, if so desired, to institute a system of area

representation. Such proposed legislation should be proclaimed by June

1, 1972, to permit the City of Vancouver to make use of it during the

1972 civic election, if it so desired. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, I

would suggest similar enabling legislation be considered for all

municipalities in the Province of British Columbia.

In federal and provincial elections, eligible electors who are

hospitalised have an opportunity to vote. However, such is not the case

in municipal elections and for a city the size of Vancouver to deny its

eligible electors the voting privilege because they are hospitalised,

is indeed discrimination.

I think that provisions should be made for all eligible persons who

may be patients in an acute, extended-care, private hospital, or rest

home, to have an opportunity to cast their ballot whenever a municipal

election is held, or a vote is needed on a particular bylaw.

I would therefore suggest that an amendment be made to the Vancouver

City Charter for such provision, and that such enabling legislation be

extended to all municipalities in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, recently the Canadian government announced that the

term of office of the Right Honourable Roland Michener as

Governor-General of Canada has been extended for another year to April,

1973. This announcement was received by Canadians with general

approval, for Mr. Michener has maintained the high prestige of the

Canadian vice-regal office established by his distinguished

predecessors. However, the extension of his tenure has brought up for

open discussion a question, important to all Canadians: who is going to

be our next Governor-General?

I think one of the reasons why a new appointment was not made at this time is that of an upcoming federal election.

Another reason is the assumption that his successor should be a

French Canadian, and there is no rush to have a French Canadian as

Governor-General while we have a French Canadian as Prime Minister and

French Canadians as Speakers of both the House of Commons and the

Senate.

I think that the selection of the next Governor-General should be

made from the forgotten one-third of Canadian citizens that are neither

found from among them. There are many strong and valid reasons why I

First of all, such an appointment would remove the concept of French

a repugnant concept and is contrary to the principle of full equality

of citizenship for all Canadians, whatever their ethnocultural

background may be. It is an undemocratic exclusivity which is

discriminatory in nature.

Let us for a moment also look at the office of the Governor-General

from a historical point of view. During the first stage, this highly

prestigious office was the exclusive prerogative of the British

government, and only Britons were appointed. The second stage began

when a Canadian citizen was first appointed as Governor-General in the

highly-respected person of Vincent Massey, who personified an ideal

combination of a scholar and a gentlemen.

We are now in the third stage when Canada's nationhood has been

registering their exclusive claim to one-half of all the privileges of

Canadian citizenship. The fourth stage in the development of the office

of Governor-General is yet to come.

Somehow, the natural rights to full citizenship of one-third of

so far been stubbornly ignored, including the right to be appointed to

the office of Governor-General. Somehow it seems natural for French and

only. No others need apply.

There is no better time than the present to usher in the fourth

stage. The stage of democratic enlightenment in Canada in the selection

of our next Governor-General. The requirement that the Governor-General

eliminated.

Mr. Speaker, I would therefore suggest that the next

Governor-General of Canada be chosen from any of the ethnic and

aboriginals, and the choice should not be restricted to males only.

This same consideration should be extended to appointments of

Lieutenant-Governors in the provinces of Canada. Such a move would be a

step forward to a full democratic nationhood of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, with the exception of the Province of Quebec, the

only across Canada but virtually over the entire continent. It is the

language of instruction and education, administration and commerce,

because it is a common medium of communication, a practical economic

and social necessity.

However, as a result of protests from the Province of Quebec — that

the terms of the British North America Act were not fully complied with

and that the French language and culture were slowly disappearing — with the blessing of the former Prime Minister of Canada, Lester B.

Pearson, a

[ Page 255 ]

Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism was created in

1963. Because the work of this commission has become the dominant

influence in discussion of Canadian cultural life, we sometimes tend to

think that the commission started the whole process.

However, it must not be forgotten that the Canadian "cultural

mosaic" as contrasted with the American "melting pot," has been an aim

for many years. At the turn of the century, Sir Wilfred Laurier

suggested that the Canada he wanted to see would be like the gothic

cathedrals he saw in Europe. He said that the cathedral is made of

marble, oak and granite. He then went on to say:

It is the image of the nation I would like to see Canada become. For

here I want the marble to remain the marble: the granite to remain the

granite: the oak to remain the oak: and out of all these elements I

would build a nation great among the nations of the world.

Mr. Speaker, our pluralistic society became a necessity for Canada

niore than a century before Sir Wilfred Laurier. It became inevitable

in 1763 when, following the defeat of the French by the British on the

Plains of Abraham in 1759, New France was ceded to Great Britain. From

that time on, when the British conquerors realised that they could

neither liquidate nor assimilate the French-speaking population on the

banks of the St. Lawrence, it became clear that this land would not be

unilingual and homogeneous.

Once the Quebec Act of 1774 recognised that a person did not have to

same rights had to be granted to others as well. Once these "others"

started to enter Canada later in the 19th century, it became clear that

there was not going to be just one way to be Canadian.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to emphasise that this is one of the

important distinctions between Canada and the United States and a

distinction which is important for us to preserve. We do not, and have

not in the past, spoken of one Canadian way of life. Ever since the

British conquered the French, this country has permitted different

groups to live their own different ways, while yet being the equal of

one another. In response to the fourth volume of the report of the

Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, which concerned

itself with the contribution by other ethnic groups to the cultural

enrichment of Canada, and the measure that should be taken to safeguard

that contribution, the federal government officially pronounced its

multicultural policy for Canada on October 8, 1971.

I think this was an important, though long overdue, recognition of

this so-called ethnic contribution to the development of Canada. I

consider this recognition a triumph of justice and proper evaluation of

the Canadian reality.

We are now facing a new era in the life of our nation marked by a

planned "just cultural society" for the "just society," the first-class

citizenship for all Canadians.

On October 8, 1971 the multicultural statement of policy was

subscribed to by all the federal political leaders of the country.

Whatever the practical results of the new multicultural policy of the

federal government in the near future might be, its ideological basis

is most appealing and far reaching. It reads among others as follows

and I quote:

Ethnic pluralism can help us overcome or prevent the

homogenisation and depersonalisation of mass society. Vibrant ethnic

groups can give Canadians of the second, third and subsequent

generations a feeling that they are connected with tradition and with

human experience in various parts of the world and different periods of

time.…

The sense of identity developed by each citizen as a unique

individual is distinct from his national allegiance. There is no reason

to suppose that a citizen who identifies himself with pride as a

Chinese-Canadian, who is deeply involved in the cultural activities of

the Chinese community in Canada, will be less loyal or concerned with

Canadian matters than a citizen of Scottish origin who takes

part in

the life of his community; his identity is not the same thing as

allegiance to a country. Each of us is born into a particular family

and Slav included — has an "ethnic" background. The more secure we feel

in one particular social context, the more we are free to explore our

identity beyond it.

Ethnic groups often provide people with a sense of belonging which

can make them better able to cope with the rest of society than they

would as isolated individuals. Ethnic loyalties need not, and usually

do not, detract from wider loyalties to community and country.

Unfounded fears that through a multicultural policy Canada would

become "Balkanised", are persuasively annulled by such statements as,

and I quote:

Canadian identity will not be undermined by

multiculturalism. Indeed, we believe that cultural pluralism is the

very essence of Canadian identity.

Every ethnic group has the right to preserve and develop its own

culture and values within the Canadian context. To say we have two

official languages is not to say we have two official cultures, and no

particular culture is more official than another. The policy of

multiculturalism must be a policy for all Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, I endorse and welcome this multicultural concept

because I think it is the only logical choice for Canada.

Multiculturalism is a realistic and inevitable future for Canada.

Yet, with all due respect and approval of this new development in

the internal life of Canada, there are still some outstanding problems

awaiting their ultimate solution.

First, it is unknown w