1970 Legislative Session: ist Session, 29th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 1970

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 385 ]

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 1970

The House met at 2 p.m.

The Hon. L.R. Peterson presented to Mr. Speaker a Message from his Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.

On the motion of the Hon. L.R. Peterson, Bill (No. 15) intituled

Jury Act was introduced, read a first time, and Ordered to be placed on

the Orders of the Day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

On the motion of the Hon. L. R. Peterson, 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 next sitting after today:

Bill (No. 14) intituled

An Act to Amend the Supreme Court Act.

Bill (No. 13) intituled

An Act to Amend the Payment of Wages Act.

BUDGET DEBATE

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Minister of Agriculture.

HON. C.M. SHELFORD (Omineca): Mr. Speaker, I would first like

to congratulate you on being chosen the Speaker of the House. I've sat

here for some time listening to the debate and I must say it's been

very interesting, some of it extremely good. However, there has been

some that I will say has been not so good, in fact it bordered on

pretty nearly stupid statements, if I might be permitted to say so, and

the one particular, the statement that I think went to the top of the

list, is the statement by the member from New Westminster criticizing

the Minister of Lands and Forests for his statement to tell labour and

management to try and work out their differences in a business-like

manner. Now, this statement was turned around to say that it was

anti-labour and if I've heard of anything stupid, I think it's that

statement, because I think practically every member in this House would

agree that labour and management should do more of working together as

a team, rather than the way they have been going on in the last few

months. I certainly don't think there is any place for statements such

as that, and I hope the member will do a little more thinking before

criticizing a statement which, I think, was one of the better

statements made in this House this Session.

Now, in taking my place in this debate, I would first like to thank

the people of Omineca for returning me to this House as their

representative.

AN HON. MEMBER: You were here all the time.

MR. SHELFORD: I was here ahead of you, too. I must say the

people of Omineca didn't like your statement that you wanted power

development to be left until 1984. Then we had our friend from

Vancouver East who said in the House that we've been going too slow,

and I was wondering whether his policy fits in with your 1984 policy,

or whether it starts off from our policy today. You better have a talk

to your friend from Vancouver East. He's on a different leadership

race, I think, to you.

Now you know, Mr. Speaker, there's no doubt there will be difficult

times ahead, at least for a month or so, due to the short-sighted

policy of the National Government since World War Two. Now with the

progressive policies of this Government, it is plain for all to see

that had the same policy of pay-as-you-go been followed by the National

Government, we wouldn't be paying out over $1,800,000,000 in interest

charges each year before any money is spent on services to people. Just

think what could have been achieved in Canada if this amount of money

had been set aside in a mortgage fund which could have been used for

housing or other desirable projects like hospitals and schools.

$1,800,000,000 a year for all the years since World War Two, you can

see, would have been a mighty healthy sum of money that could have been

used for these services.

There's no question, speaking of my own particular area, that rural

electrification, communications, road and rail, schools, and hospitals

will be all vital problems in the years ahead, but I'm quite sure that

the long term future is bright as long as we watch and don't borrow too

much money at high interest rates.

Speaking about northern development, and I know my friend from

Vancouver East will laugh, because his development of the north extends

to New Westminster, but mine goes up as far as Atlin. I was very

interested in my visit to the Atlin area, and the tremendous potential

of this area in hydro, mineral, timber and other resources, and I agree

with many things that the honourable member said in this House the

other day, that this does have to receive a priority to get this part

of the area opened up. But I would like to just remind the member that

he said we were advancing at a snail's pace.

In resource development, for instance, in Alberta the Federal

Government paid out over $76,262,000 towards the extension of the

railway up to Pine Point. In the province of Quebec the Federal

Government spent a further $7,431,000. The question I would ask, what

has happened to grants in assistance to the Pacific Great Eastern

Railway, in our endeavour to get communications up into the area of

Atlin, which my friend spoke of the other day? I hope my friends in the

Liberal group will send a message back to Ottawa. What happened to the

Liberal policy that got bogged down in a swamp 50 miles north of Prince

George, because the Federal Government did pay a subsidy on the P.G.E.

to 50 miles north of Prince George? Now there happens to be a swamp

north of Prince George, and so I guess their policy got bogged down in

this particular swamp.

Now what about the extension of the Pacific Great Eastern Railway

from 50 miles north of Prince George to Dawson Creek, Fort St. John and

on up from Summit Lake to Fort St. James, and Fort St. James up to

Takla Lake and on up to Dease Lake? Now why, if one rail line in one

province should qualify for subsidy, why shouldn't the Province of

British Columbia and the Pacific Great Eastern Railway?

I hope to see, in the years ahead, as my friend from Atlin

mentioned, that all of these northern areas will be opened up and made

accessible so that we can take out the vast timber and mineral

resources of these areas. It's an absolute must in Canadian development

in the future, and I hope our representatives in Ottawa will recognize

that this is a must and we should move forward as quickly as possible.

I hope to see many new rural areas served by rural electrification, as

there's still many farm communities that are not so concerned about the

rates of power, but they are concerned about the need for power at all.

One of the problems, of course, that is facing the rural areas, is the

fact that the cost of construction of lines is increasing so fast. In

fact it was not many years back when we were considering the cost of

[ Page 386 ]

$4,000 a mile, and now we're up to over $6,000 a

mile, which creates the real problem in the development of power to the

farming areas.

I hope to see the completion of paving on various highways in my

riding during this season, but I would like to say how much the people

of the area appreciate that Highway 16 is now completed and they can

drive clear through from Prince Rupert right through to Jasper, and I

think the results of the last election indicated how much the people

did really appreciate this work that had been done. I don't think the

day will ever come when we don't have problems on highways, and we'll

have to continue to build as we go along.

I hope one of the things that comes in the 70's will be a better

understanding between all peoples in our communities, especially

between the native Indian people and the white communities in the areas

throughout the north. In many areas, and I hope all people within these

areas will take note, that in many areas the only way they can advance

is with mutual co-operation. As I mentioned earlier on management and

labour, mutual co-operation, because one group can't go ahead without

the other, and I would hope that there will be closer working between

the two groups in the years ahead.

I was interested in my friend the Minister, Mr. Munro, from Ottawa,

when he visited Indian communities and said there wasn't any real

problem in housing in British Columbia, and I would urge him to go up

to Fort St. James, Takla, and some of the northern areas of this

Province, and I'm quite sure he wouldn't go back to Ottawa and think

that he'd solved all the problems of housing in British Columbia.

As I mentioned earlier, the only way we can advance is with a team

approach, and this type of approach is why countries can do so much in

times of war when all groups can get together and work hard for a

common goal as a nation, and in my opinion right at the moment it

doesn't appear that Canada does have a national goal, and it's

something that I think we need very badly, so that we'll all be

striving to do something better in the future. No one, for instance, in

the time of war would stand for ports to be tied up and locked out by

lockouts or strikes, as it would damage the war effort, but last year

we saw our ports closed three times, damaging our ability to deliver to

our customers on time and, of course, our reputation as being reliable

suppliers. 40,000,cases of apples had to be re-routed to Seattle at a

cost of $1.40 a case to the farmers of the Okanagan, in order to carry

out delivery commitments to New Zealand. Now it had taken many months

or even years to negotiate a sale to New Zealand, and we could have

lost it at a moment's notice if it hadn't been that we could have got a

movement of these products out of Seattle. We lost 23 head of cattle

which were being shipped to Korea, partly due to delay in shipping.

$75,000 worth of cut flowers were lost during the Air Canada strike,

and these markets were lost to other countries. The whole world is

within our reach as far as our agricultural products are concerned with

air freight, but we also have to remember that our competitors can

reach here, too. It's a two-way street.

We certainly won't solve our economic problems, in my opinion, by

the high interest rates and high taxes recommended by the National

Government. You'd only add to the spiral increase of inflation, because

those that are trying to build homes with the high interest rates, of

course they have to demand more in order to pay these rates. And by

these policies, of course, it puts people out of work. I think we

should all remember that for every 100,000 that are put out of work,

it's 100,000 less that can buy back production, and there's no point in

production at all unless it can be used by people, and by this it

further creates more unemployment.

Now we've heard a great deal about the White Paper and no one can

stand up here and say that it would help Canadians develop their own

industries or their nation. Being as we haven't heard many ideas out of

Ottawa lately, I'll try and give a few hints that I think might be

helpful to my Liberal friends back there. My personal opinion is that

it would be a better approach, instead of the taxing methods that they

recommend, that it would be a better approach if the individual or

company would have the opportunity either to invest the money that he

would be paying in taxes back in Canada, or pay the taxes — he'd have

the two choices. This you might call an "invest in Canada" policy. Or

an even better approach might be that the taxable amount should be paid

into a Canadian Development Fund, with a reasonable interest share

going to those who pay, and the Fund used for needed development

projects. Now this should be done, in my opinion, on a regional basis,

because if the people of this Province pay a great deal in taxes that

would go into this development fund then, of course, the development

money should be used in the western part of Canada and, of course,

there would be at least three areas or more in Canada.

But I do think we do need a fund where we can invest in our own

country and keep the control here. Millions are needed in the mortgage

field for home builders at reasonable interest rates, and by this

method thousands of Canadians would soon be part owners in their own

industry. This would soon build up and could be loaned out to Canadians

who wish to start businesses, and they would no longer have to rely

entirely on foreign capital. This type of a fund would be, I am sure,

welcomed by everyone, from the farmer who is trying to diversify from

wheat production to beef cattle or feed lots, and the contract logger

who wants to go into the pulp harvesting business, or the other

thousands of Canadians that want to start businesses of their own. By

this method, which may have some weak points, but certainly not so many

as are laid down in some parts of the White Paper, and after several

years at least over 25 per cent of the people of Canada would have a

direct share in the ownership of this fund. With the extra capital

coming in year by year, plus interest, this fund would help bring

interest rates down, or I would hope it would, and it would soon build

up from not just millions of dollars a year, but would finally end up

to billions and over, which could be used for the development of

Canada. I think we want to rely on ourselves, a little bit of self-help

is a lot better than anything else.

AN HON. MEMBER: We could do it provincially, too.

MR. SHELFORD: That's why I said it should be done on a

regional basis, because that's what it would boil down to, that is

true. No doubt my friends in the Liberal group would not support such a

suggestion, as they didn't support the possibility of British Columbia

owning 25 per cent of the shares of the Bank of British Columbia. Now

it is odd that they should oppose this, and the first members of the

Senate opposed it a lot more, when we have here a clipping out of the

Province of Monday, February 9th. It's headlined "Share Buying proposed

by Ontario Liberals". At least the Ontario Liberals acknowledge that

they goofed. It says, "The Ontario Liberal party believes that the

Federal and provincial governments should buy up to 40 per cent of the

common

[ Page 387 ]

shares of holding companies specializing in mining

ventures, northern development, general industry activities and such

like." So it looks like at least the Ontario Liberals are taking a new

look at their policy.

Now in speaking on the Department of Agriculture, I would first like

to say how much I appreciate the hard-working staff in this Department.

I would say it's the best group I've worked with since my days in the

army, because they are a group of people dedicated to doing something

for people, and I think they deserve a great deal of credit.

In 1969, and I don't intend to go through the whole report from the

Department of Agriculture, but I intend making copies available to the

members and they can go over my comments and, of course, they'll have

an opportunity in not too long, when they will be able to ask questions

on what it really meant. I know they are all waiting for this moment,

and I would too, if I was sitting there. If I was sitting there, I'd be

meaner than you are.

AN HON. MEMBER: You still are mean when you're sitting there.

MR. SHELFORD: I always speak for the people of Omineca, and

that's why I'm a little bit mean sometimes, even with you. To my friend

from Cowichan-Malahat, I was quite interested the other night when we

had a strike, and all the members left the house excepting two, and my

friend from Cowichan-Malahat, he quit leading the N.D.P., but I have

noticed he's taken on a new role of leading the Liberals, because when

he got up he signaled to the Liberals.

MR. R. M. STRACHAN: I was signaling to my wife in the Gallery.

MR. SHELFORD: I don't know whether your wife understood your signals, but the Liberals did.

In 1969 the gross farm cash receipts from the sale of agricultural

products were $206,000,000, down slightly from the previous year for

the first time in many years, and this drop can be attributed to the

reduction in receipts from the tree fruit industry which got hit so

hard by frost last winter, grapes, berries, and especially the Peace

River area, when they were hit by severe weather conditions. I would

like to point out that the farm community is not adding that much to

inflation, when we get discussing inflationary measures, because the

farm groups are not contributing to this, and the income from grain

sales in the Peace River will be down from around, the farmers in the

area tell me, from around $12,000,000 down to about $3,500,000 this

year, which is a terrible drop of income.

It was for this reason that I recommended an emergency meeting of

the governments across Canada to discuss ways of moving our surplus

grain to the markets of the world. I've received support from several

provinces in Canada: Quebec, Ontario, Saskatchewan, and Alberta. But I

would point out right now that the support has been really

disappointing from the farm organizations across Canada, and it would

seem that this is where the real push should come, is from the farm

organizations trying to push both Federal and provincial governments

into trying to get out and sell Canadian products, because that is

exactly what we have to do.

Now in speaking on the problems of the Peace River area, I must tell

you a story of what my friend sitting across the way was doing the

other day in his spare time. He went out to a hardware store and bought

a hammer for a dollar. The next day he was back and he bought two

hammers for a dollar each, and the next day he was back again and he

bought four hammers, and this went on for a few days and finally the

fellow in the hardware store said, "What goes on here?" he said, "how

come you buy all these hammers for a dollar apiece? What do you do with

them?" The farmer said, "Well," he said, "I go out and" — my friend

across there — "I go out and sell them for 75 cents apiece." And the

hardware merchant said, "Well, that's kind of odd when you buy them for

a dollar and sell them at 75 cents, you're sure not making much that

way." And the fellow said, "Well," he said, "it sure beats farming!"

I would like to point out that the British Columbia farmers, even

though I'm not satisfied with the income they are receiving, I would

like to point out that in 1967 they achieved the highest net income per

capita in Canada and have maintained this position ever since, and they

have received less in the line of Government subsidy. For instance, the

average net farm income in British Columbia is $4,260 per farm, and the

lowest in Canada is Prince Edward Island with only $913 per farm. Now

as far as subsidy per farm in British Columbia, we are the lowest in

Canada, where we receive only $72 per farm in subsidy payments,

compared to Quebec with $572 in subsidy payments per farm, and these

net income comparisons would be even more impressive if our figures

were based strictly on commercial farms. However, we have a large

number of retirement and hobby farms in this Province, and their

inclusion tends to reduce some above the averages. Now, for instance,

we do have more part-time farmers in this Province because it is a nice

place to live, and so it does bring our average down, and I'm quite

sure if you use just a commercial farm basis, of those actually fanning

and making their living on a farm, that the figure would be closer to

$10,000 or over, rather than just $4,000 which is shown by the Federal

statistics — this is not ours, by the way, either — this is done by the

Federal Government.

We expect, in the very near future, a report by the Federal Task

Force, which we would hope will lay down some policy ideas for future

agricultural policies. Now, I don't know whether we should be too

hopeful. We have a group carrying out this inquiry, and goodness only

knows what recommendations may come out. But one thing we do not want

to see is prepaid assistance be discontinued from this Province,

because so many of our farms base their whole operation on freight

moving from the prairie regions or Peace River region, better still, so

this is one policy we are watching very closely in the department.

I have got enough material on agriculture here, on the things that

are being done in this department, to keep us going on all afternoon,

but I think most of these things could wait until my salary vote comes

up and we'll be able to ask questions and, I hope, some answers during

that time. We've been working very closely with the Federal Department

of Agriculture on the joint programme such as ARDA farm labour for each

crop insurance acceptor, and a new ARDA agreement, we hope, will be

signed in the very near future. One of the newer programmes that's

coming out is Canfarm, which will put the computer to work to show a

farmer where he makes his money and where he loses his money, and quite

a number of farmers show interest in this programme, and we are quite

hopeful that it will be of great benefit to the farming community in

the years ahead.

Another thing we are moving into as quickly as possible is public

information, to try and get information from the department, because as

I mentioned earlier, we have an

[ Page 388 ]

excellent staff in the Department of Agriculture,

but I'm not altogether satisfied that the information that they have

available is always getting out to the farmer that can use it, and the

information here in Victoria is of no use at all unless it gets out to

the farmers. It's just a waste of time and we have so many competent

people that can give this advice, I think the farming community should

take advantage of this service.

A great deal of research is going into trying to get rid of pests,

and I don't refer to the Opposition when I mention this. We don't have

a spray for that yet, and we don't want to see you out of there because

we kind of like some of you, especially on that side of the House, and

we intend keeping you there. On our pesticide policy we have made many

changes during the last year, tightening up regulations so that people

can't go out and buy freely and another thing, we have a collection

agency so that if people want to get rid of pesticides they can turn

them over to various agencies for collection — Department of

Agriculture, Health, Recreation and Conservation offices, etc., because

we don't want to see poisonous pesticides poured down toilets and such

like, which might get out into water systems. This is something we

don't want.

Now we've made many changes during this last year which no doubt, we

can discuss in detail later on, but D.D.T., aldrin, dieldrin, endrin,

and heptachlor, are all taken off our spray calendars this year on

recommendations of what farmers should use. Some of you saw a picture

the other day on pesticides, which I am disappointed a few more weren't

able to come over and see, because I think it was quite worth while to

show what is being done. I think we can show a better picture in

British Columbia than what they do in Ontario, I'm quite sure of it. We

have set up a new committee to study this problem which is made up of

Agriculture, Lands and Forests, Highways, Recreation, Municipal

Affairs, to find out what types of pesticides are being used now, and

what type can be used in the future, because I pointed out at least

five that we call hard pesticides that we've taken off our spray

calendars. If other groups are not using these types of pesticides to

any extent, then there is no good reason why they are still marketed,

and maybe we'll have to pick them up later on.

I think I should say a few words on our crop insurance programme. I

think crop insurance is a very good programme, and I would hope that

the farmers throughout this Province wig recognize that it is good to

have protection in case of disaster, because I've farmed too long, and

know that disaster can strike; I think any of you that watched the

picture last night of Pan Phillips on the cattle drive from over in the

Nazko into Quesnel, that he even had disasters over there in the form

of grizzly bears eating up his cattle. But there are so many types of

disasters that can strike agriculture, from bugs to drought to frost to

too much rain, like in the Peace River, that I do think a crop

insurance programme is necessary, and we are trying to carry out

improvements as fast as we can that will make it fit modern

agriculture. We paid out, I might say, a lot of money during this last

year to help out, and in the Peace River alone nearly $2,000,000 will

be paid out, and if all farmers had insured, we would have been paying

a total of pretty near $6,000,000 into the Peace River region, and we

also are paying out over $1,000,000 into the fruit crops in the

Okanagan.

One thing I just

should mention, as a point of interest, is that an agricultural college

was started in Saskatchewan to train veterinarians, which is a joint

project among the western provinces. I think it is an excellent

approach, because there's not that many trained, but it is interesting

to note that there are 26 students enrolled in this college and at the

present time 13 come from British Columbia. Because our students stack

up so highly among the other provinces, the ratio is high enough that

we get half of the total, which is a pretty good record, and I think we

can say congratulations to our friend in Education.

As mentioned the other day, an investigation was carried out by

another Federal Royal Commission, on farm machinery. Now the findings

of this Commission really weren't too surprising, because we sent out

this information to farmers and to the Federation of Agriculture and

others, pretty nearly a year before the report came out, and so it

didn't surprise us too much to find that the farmers could buy

machinery in Great Britain for about half what they could in Canada.

One of the interesting things, I think, in this report, and I think

everyone should take note of the fact that Barber mentions that since

the farm machinery companies were international in scope that it was

questionable what action the Federal Government could take. I think

this is a point that is worthy of note. because it is something that

should concern all of us.

Now it is very possible that the same might be said in the field of

fertilizers, and I don't mean the kind that you fellows are thinking of

right at the moment, but no doubt the farmers of Canada are questioning

the wisdom of the Federal aid to small businesses, because when a

farmer has to buy his fertilizers and finds that they are far more

expensive than they are in other areas, he starts asking the question,

"Why should the Federal government be encouraging small industries?" I

mention these small industries, because the farmers' union mentioned

some time ago the fact that the Federal Government had paid $5,000,000

subsidy to Imperial Oil to set up a fertilizer plant in the prairies.

Now I'm not questioning whether there should be area incentives for

poor areas, but I do question paying out $5,000,000 as a subsidy for

fertilizers, when we could obtain the same products from Japan for $20

less and pay no subsidy at all. I don't think subsidies such as this

solve anything, whether you call them a subsidy or a tariff, they

amount to the same thing.

When you're speaking of farming, there's no question in the very

near future we'll consider fish farming as a part of farming, and I

would just like to quote you from a Scottish scientist, where they did

some more experiments with controlled temperature sea waters, and found

that 20 flat fish can be raised per square foot. Between them, the

experiment shows that a tank ten feet by 20 feet could produce a ton of

fish in under two years. The cost would be one-quarter of a cent per

pound, and there you can well see by this here again, production is no

problem as long as you can move your products to the markets of the

world. A fish farm. A fish farm on these lines, covering three square

miles only, could produce as much fish as the entire British in-shore

fishing fleet, the scientists claim. "That is one population explosion

that the world should be glad to see, " it ends.

One of the programmes that we are extremely proud of in the

Department of Agriculture is our 4-H programme. We think this is one of

the best programmes for training young people to be leaders in the

years ahead, and it is a good programme and we try to encourage more

people at the local level to assist in this programme. When we are

talking about inflation, sometimes agriculture is being condemned for

being inefficient, and I must say I resent these charges very much,

[ Page 389 ]

because I would point out that in 1928 a dozen eggs cost 31 cents

and today they are only 38 cents. And you can go back to the turn of

the century and you can find out that it would be less. So agriculture

doesn't contribute to inflation, because I don't think you can point to

another industry that is more efficient than agriculture.

We produce a good product at a low cost, and if anyone thinks we

don't they should take a look at the Federal booklet on food costs

which I supplied to the committee last year, and I hope they will give

it another took this year, that the number of hours an individual works

to buy his food is far less today than it was 20 years ago. In fact, he

only has to work 13 hours today for the same amount of food, the same

quantity and of better quality I might say, where he had to work 20

hours back in 1949. So I would say the consumer is getting an excellent

product at a reasonable price, but I don't think you can say the same

for the automobile industry, farm tractors, fertilizers and various

others. None of them can show the efficiency of the farmer, where he

has produced at this level and maintained quite a low price over the

years, and one of the reasons is that he is one of the few that doesn't

practise price leadership of some form, which I have maintained for

many years is detrimental to the consumer.

I am skipping through a lot of the material on agriculture — I am

glad to see someone happy when I sit down — but I thought the members

would be interested to have a little information on the Agricultural

Aid and World Disaster Fund and where it stands at this moment. Now at

this time I would like to report to you as chairman of this Fund. We

had many interesting meetings with foreign representatives this year,

not as many as I would have liked due to my accident last summer when I

was laid up for some time. One of the best meetings was when we had the

Colombo Plan Conference here in Victoria, which gave us contacts with

many governments from the Pacific Rim areas. Following this, we hope

that the agricultural leaders of this area, we have invited them — my

Deputy did just recently — to hold their convention here in 1971

Centennial Year, because we feel that it is only through co-operation

with the other Pacific Rim nations that all areas can move ahead

together, and no doubt it will help our markets also. I hope all

nations in this area will come, because according to statistics, which

are not altogether accurate I wouldn't say, in this regard, but it is

certainly better than 1,426,000,000 within this area, which is a very

large trading block if we can get sales in this area.

The potential for trade is unlimited providing that these nations

improve their standard of living. Some people, I must say, have the

mistaken idea that if this is done it will damage our trade because

they will produce what they need. But I would point out that the

reverse is true and we only need look at Japan and Korea to see the

increased trade goes along with the increased standard of living. Last

year Canada exported, through British Columbia ports, $337,875,000

worth of food products, and there is no question that this is only the

start. As the standards of living of these areas improve, the demand

for meat and such like will increase a great deal, along with wheat to

a certain amount. Eric Moore from the B.C. Fruit Growers Association

had this to say, "At the present time there is no opportunity to sell

our apples to the People's Republic of China. We regard this market as

having a great future potential as the standard of living improves."

Some will no doubt say, "Well, what has this got to do with

agricultural aid? "It has a lot to do with agricultural aid, because

the more we can help them to help themselves to improve their standard

of living, the greater opportunity there will be to trade. It is not

easy to sell a ton of wheat to someone that is starving with no money,

but the someone that has a higher standard of living and wants to

purchase goods from this area. Some object to trade with some of these

countries. I don't. I certainly don't, as I developed the philosophy,

while I was overseas during the war, that if a person didn't shoot at

you he was a friend, and if you treat him properly at least some day he

may be your friend, even if he isn't your friend right at that moment,

and that is the philosophy I have always worked on ever since I was

overseas.

In meeting with the Colombo Plan delegates we found that their

problem, like ours, as I mentioned earlier, was money. They received

loans from various countries at high interest rates and often found

they were worse off than they were before, as nearly their total

revenue was going to interest payments. But I would again like to point

out that the real wealth of a nation is not money. It is the services

you can give to people which is the real value.

I would say the money-lenders have the farmers beat a mile. The best

a dairy farmer can do is to skim off between five and seven per cent

butterfat from his milk, but the money-lender is certainly doing an

awful lot better than that, he is skimming off between eight and a half

to 24 per cent, and he makes us farmers look like a bunch of pikers, I

might say. I would say it is the same as being in a poker game, and I

know quite a lot of you have never been in one, but some of us have

that bad habit once in a while, but it is the same as being in a poker

game and the house taking away 10 per cent of every pot. I think you

all know what happens if you have ever been in these games. The house

ends up with all the money and the players all broke. This is what is

happening on the international development field, that the

money-lenders are taking off too high a percentage and all of the

development countries are not doing too good, and they will do worse

when some of these payments come due. It is something that can't

continue too long. I would say this condition can't last, and the

financial institutions of the world had better sit up as they can't

keep the developing nations down just because the western nations

controlled all the credit at the start. Because otherwise it might be

something like in a poker game, someone finally gets hurt if this kind

of a thing stays too long.

I think the first principle of agreement, and this is speaking as

far as the world community is concerned, we must arrive at during the

70's should be that all people must have the right to food first, and

second to shelter. I don't think there would be anyone in this House

stand up and contradict that. The question would be how to achieve it.

Some try to make out that this is impossible, but this kind of thinking

is not supported by the World Food Organization's recent report from

Rome, where they say right at the moment there is sufficient food for

all if it was properly distributed to many of these nations. Even if

there isn't sufficient food today, we have so many capable people in

Departments of Agriculture and in science that can show us what can be

done in the very near future, and I don't mean by 10 years or anything

like that, I mean a year or two years, because most of the

high-producing nations right at the moment could produce six times as

much in a very short time if it was possible to move it to other areas.

A second question someone may ask, well, the problem is

transportation. I don't really think this is a problem either, even

though it is more difficult than production. So this leaves us one

hurdle to the goal of food for all, and that is

[ Page 390 ]

again money, and again I repeat that this has to be solved. The

young people of the 70's won't stand what the young people of the 30's

stood for, and I hope they won't, where you see starvation in the midst

of plenty.

There hasn't been anything new come out of international finance for

the last 100 years on how the developing countries could be helped, and

I think it is about time that they sat down and started doing some real

serious thinking. Our aid programme is in two parts. One is to disaster

situations such as Nigeria, Tunisia, and some others. The last

part is

the most valuable, and we hope to help train people in their own

countries in the methods of modern production. Now we think this is a

sound principle that we should be training those people in their own

countries rather than bringing them over here to train them in Canada,

and we have such a nice place naturally they want to stay here, but

this doesn't help the developing countries. So we think it is a far

sounder principle to try training them in their own countries. One type

of aid which is being considered and, we hope, with the help of those

in the Federal Government and other aid agencies which we are working

with, is to provide scholarships and such like. We are told that there

is one area in the mid-Pacific where they have a beautiful university

but no students because they don't have any money to pay for tuition

fees. Now we are proposing to give it at least $75,000 in scholarships

to help these students get into universities and learn modern

production methods.

In discussing foreign aid and improving the standard of living of

developing countries, there is one thing we don't want to forget and

that is the fact that without family planning there is no long-term

solution. I think we all have to accept that. One grant we made last

fall was a grant of $5,000 to Korea. That was to buy milk here in

Canada and ship to Korea. That was one of our first under this fund.

I would like to announce right at this moment, Mr. Speaker, that

Mrs. J.J. MacKinnon, chairman of the B.C. UNICEF Committee, is in the

House today, and I would hope that she will stay for at least 15

minutes after I sit down, because I have a cheque for $25,000 that

British Columbia is donating in aid to Nigeria.

I would further like to mention that already 16 metric tons of K-Mix

milk are on the way or are already there. These supplies were purchased

in Denmark because they could be moved to Nigeria far quicker than they

could from Canada, and speed is something we have to consider in aid

along these lines. I was doing a lot of work and looking into

possibilities when the Biafran situation was about at its worst, and I

met with several in Ottawa with possibilities of aid, but about that

time the war ended and so this followed on that there is still a real

need for aid and I know the people of British Columbia will be very

pleased that they are doing something in aid. If it is possible to

obtain whole milk powder, which right at the moment there doesn't seem

to be any available in British Columbia, we will send a further $5,000

worth of milk to Nigeria.

Another area we are studying at the moment is Tunisia, where they

had a disaster late last year and it wiped out 50,000 homes in one

flood. In this case food is not the real problem because they are

close in to the surplus food production areas of Europe — France and

such like — where they have large surpluses and so there is no need for

food, and so in this case we moved to my second principle. I mentioned

earlier that the first in the 70's has to be food for all, the second

shelter — and in this area we are considering aid in the form of

plywood from British Columbia which will be shipped to Tunisia, and we

are already negotiating ways and means of trying to get it there if

the need is still there.

I hope to report from time to time on this Fund and also hope it

will be possible during this year that I will be able to visit some of

the areas involved. But I want to stress, again, that one of the first

principles I think we should work towards is as much self-help as

possible, because you can see by the experience of the Americans, that

by giving people something quite often doesn't bring you friends. But

the Canadians are regarded very highly in practically all countries

because they believe in the principle as much as possible of self-help,

and we certainly want to move in this direction. We are trying to keep

the administration costs down to nil because we want every dollar

possible from this Fund to go to needy people somewhere in the

developing countries.

Again I would like to say how helpful the contacts were when we had

the Colombo Plan people meeting herein British Columbia, and I would

also like to acknowledge the co-operation from the various agencies

involved.

I would like to acknowledge the help of the Federal Government — and

I hope my Liberal friends are listening to this one — because they have

worked very well with us, and I think it is in programmes such as this

that we should always work closely. I would further say that the

Federal Department of Agriculture and the Provincial Department of

Agriculture work very closely in all fields, and we have had very good

relations and I hope to maintain those good relations with our friends

in Ottawa, even though I criticize their policies sometimes and they

criticize mine. I thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Kootenay.

MR. L.T. NIMSICK (Kootenay): Mr. Speaker, fellow members,

I've been up on this debate a good many times in the past years, but

each time it always gives me that much more pleasure to have the

opportunity of making my contribution in all debates in this House,

because I feel I'm doing it in the interests of all the people of

British Columbia.

I was very interested in the Honourable the Minister of

Agriculture's speech. I always look ahead to his talks. He gave a very

good talk, but years ago I looked to his speeches with far more

interest than today. That was the days when they called him a maverick,

but the Premier learned by experience what to do with mavericks,

anybody that gets to be a thorn in your side. Because the Premier was a

thorn, if I remember when I was first here, a thorn in the side of the

Coalition Government for awhile, and they failed to act. At that time

they should have put him in the Cabinet and they would have solved a

problem. So this is a lesson to all you new members, don't be

frightened to be a maverick because the best you can do, the worst you

can do, is to get to be a Cabinet Minister.

In commenting on some of his talk, I notice that he referred to the

speech made by the honourable member from New Westminster, and he said

he made a stupid statement. I think that he wasn't listening as well as

he should have listened at the time that the member for New Westminster

spoke, because at that time he was critical of the honourable Minister

of Lands and Forests for his statement, not on co-operation between

management and labour, but on the fact that he made the statement that

a dark cloud was hovering over British Columbia for 1970 in regard to

labour problems. I thought at that time, when he also spoke about the

strikes in British Columbia and the damage that has been done by

strikes — and I was listening the other night to

[ Page 391 ]

somebody and they said that a lot of business people were not coming

to British Columbia on account of the labour unrest — I thought the

Minister was going to once again strike out as a maverick and advise

the Government that they should take out the compulsory clauses in Bill

33, and we probably would bring about settlement in strikes a lot

quicker than what you're doing at the present time, and better co-operation between management and labour.

The strike that was settled just the other day by Bryce Mackasey,

I'd like to say I was very pleased to hear Bryce Mackasey give a great

deal of credit to Harold Winch in the settlement of the strike with the

longshoremen. Harold was a leader in this House for quite a long time,

and I think he's got a lot of credit coming to him with his knowledge

and understanding of the people. This is what this Government fails to

have, is understanding of the people in regard to these matters. They

think that they can wield a big stick and they can bring about

solutions. You can't do this. You've got to have an understanding of

the problem before you can bring about proper solution.

In regard to pesticides, the honourable the Minister said he has

taken them off the calendar, these hard pesticides. I thought he was

going to say that he had banned them, or that he was intending to ban

them altogether from British Columbia, and this is a move that should

be made, not just taking them off the calendar. I didn't understand

that they were banned altogether, and as far as I can understand the

farmer can still use them and he will use them, in some cases, as long

as they are on the market.

When he was speaking of the farmers not being inflationary or

causing inflation in the country, I think he was correct, because I

think the farmers are a victim of big business, and this Government

represents big business, and although I know that the honourable the

Minister is really representing the farmer, but he's got a tough gang

around him to do any business with.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you write this with your ball point?

MR. NIMSICK: You said, Mr. Minister, that there was plenty of

food in the world if it were properly distributed. I can't quite

understand how you can follow a policy of the present Government if you

really believe that we should properly distribute the goods in the

world, because you are not going to do it under the present economic

setup. You are going to have people starving right in your own back

yard. You've got people on the prairies today that are really in a

blackout because they cannot get rid of their wheat. You've got people

right in our own Province. We talk about sending shelters to Biafra or

Nigeria or some other place, but we've got lots of people living in

shacks that are not fit to live in right in our own Province, and we

are doing nothing about it. I don't hear you say anything about it to

the rest of the Cabinet, to tell them that something should be done in

this regard.

Now the one thing I noticed in listening to the talks by a great

many members from the other side of the House, and some of the new

members, is their criticisms and their very harsh criticisms of some

member of the Opposition, that is the honourable second member for

Vancouver East. I want to say to you, to the members across the way,

and especially the new members, that you do not know what the duty of

Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition is. They have got to be the watchdogs of

the Legislature. They've got to see that justice is not only done but

that it appears to be done.

I want to bring back to memory some of the things that have happened

in this House over the years. Back in 1956, when there were charges

made in this House and they denied it, they called "smear" across this

Chamber time and time again. They went to the country crying in their

beards that we were nothing but a smear party, that there was no truth

in the statements that had been made in this House. Prior to that there

had been a police investigation. The Government sat on the police

report for two years and did nothing about it.

AN HON. MEMBER: And knew all about it.

MR. NIMSICK: And knew what was going on. Then they went to

the country and won an election on it. Following that we had a

by-election, because somebody made another charge in this House and,

finally, one of the Ministers had to go to jail for it. I'm surprised

Mr. Speaker, when I listen to members criticizing the Opposition when

the honourable member from Vancouver East had discussed the conflict of

interest that went on, and brought it to the attention of this House,

and I say, Mr. Speaker, that a warning is far better, far better, then

having to cure things later on. And if this is only a warning….

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, it's only a warning.

MR. NIMSICK: I'm not saying, but I say if it is only a

warning. But he brought up to this House that there was a conflict of

interest, and this is the thing that the Opposition has got to do, and

this is their duty to do. If they see it and they fail to do it then

they are not representing the people of British Columbia the way they

are supposed to represent.

Rather than be critical, rather than be critical, we stayed up all

night here in 1956 on these issues, and I just want to bring it back to

the memory of those, and let those members know who were not here at

that time, what had happened and how it happened. But I think the

member, rather than be criticized in such a fashion that he is being

criticized, you could at least — I know that you don't like to

congratulate him — but you should at least keep quiet until you're

positively sure what's going on.

Last week, Mr. Speaker, we listened to two very fine speeches in

this House. I think that they were very constructive, although the

Government side said that the Opposition is never constructive, but

they say that, I imagine, with a smile on their face. The member for

Yale brought up the question of preventative medicine in the Province

of British Columbia, and I am sure that every member of this House took

cognizance of that speech, because whether we like it or not, this is

what is going to come, and regardless of which Government or what

Government brings it in, it's going to come. You've got your pilot

plans in the country working today and they're working successfully,

and all we need to do is to widen them out throughout the country and

we've solved a lot of the problems that you have today.

Then the member for Atlin got up and gave another fine talk, I

thought, on Indian affairs. You know, when he was talking it made me

think of the trip I had to Hawaii. I was talking down there to a….

AN HON. MEMBER: You go to Hawaii?

MR. NIMSICK: Yes, I went to Hawaii and I paid my own

[ Page 392 ]

way, I didn't have a travelling account. I'm not like the Cabinet Ministers who travel all over the world and get paid for it.

It put me in mind of a talk I had with a Hawaiian on the shore down

there. He was making straw hats. He said to me, "When the missionaries

first came here they came with the Bible under their arm and the

Hawaiians owned all the land." He said, "Now the Hawaiians have the

Bible under their arm and the missionaries own all the land."

AN HON. MEMBER: That sounds familiar.

MR. NIMSICK: And that's quite familiar, that's quite familiar

here, too. As I was riding in the bus I talked to a bus driver down

there and he said, "You know, when the missionaries first came here

they came here to do good," he said, "and they've done very well."

AN HON. MEMBER: That sounds familiar.

MR. NIMSICK: So in Canada we could just pass that on, when

the white man first came to Canada, when they got the land from the

Indians. I don't know whether the Indians have got the Bible under

their arm yet, but the honourable Minister should see whether he

couldn't get them to get the Bible under their arm maybe. And now this

Government, with our natural resources, are giving those away, too, to

other countries, so I don't know, I think one of the things the Indians

made a mistake on is not having a strict immigration policy in the

years before the white man came, and maybe they'd have a better

solution to the problem.

AN HON. MEMBER: They. didn't have anything but birch logs.

MR. NIMSICK: Well, that's just the trouble, I said that they didn't have strict immigration laws.

I think that many of them had probably better organizations than we

have today. They looked upon land as being community and for the use of

everybody, not just for the use of individuals, and the other

individuals have got to walk down the road and cannot trespass into

their property.

The member for North Okanagan, and she isn't here today, I was

rather interested in her talk about planned families. A few years ago

I brought up a question here in the House, and asked that our

curriculum in the schools should include a course for married life, a

course explaining the pitfalls, and how to budget, and how to look

after a family, and planning of the family could all come in this

course in school. This is the time to do it. Not after they grow up.

That's too late. You've got to do it in the schools because there you

have an audience that can't get away from you, and if it's a part of

the curriculum then you could teach it to them. I say to the honourable

Minister, the member from North Okanagan, that she should appeal to the

Department of Education to put a course in the schools…. Well, it

wouldn't bother you, Mr. Minister, at your age, at this stage in the

game. It won't worry you.

The honourable the Minister also spoke of the future of British

Columbia. She said that the future of British Columbia was ripe if we

plan properly. I say she was right in this respect, and we have got to

plan the future of British Columbia properly, and we've got to plan

depletion of our natural resources, and whether they're for recreation

or economic interests, in a proper way or we are not going to have a

beautiful British Columbia for too long.

At the present time, as I stated in my last talk, we are giving out

coal licences all over the place, because there is a sort of a coal

rush on right at the present time. One of the big dangers of this is

that you are going to build up little towns in different areas of the

Province, and if coal doesn't hold up you'll have little ghost towns in

different parts of the Province, too. I say that the coal development,

and we've got lots of it, should be developed in the proper way and not

scattered all over the Province. Use them up as you need them, and move

around the Province as you need them, but not until that time. You

know, it's a sad commentary on the intelligence of the human species

that it is not able to plan adequately for its own survival. Civilized

man has become dominant and now that civilized man has become dominant

in the organic world and has every advantage, as the honourable, the

Minister of Agriculture stated, that we have plenty of food for

everybody, it seems rather odd that we should be headed pell mell for

oblivion ourselves.

The Minister of Social Welfare, I just got a few words to say to

you, honourable Minister of Social Welfare, in regards to your talk the

other day. Well, I think your new policy to a great extent is correct

because — and I thought that you would at least give me credit for

having suggested it several years ago — because here's a quote from the

Vancouver Sun , March 29th, 1968.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yours truly, yours truly.

MR. NIMSICK: "Reorganized Welfare Urged."

"Leo Nimsick called for reorganization of welfare for, unemployed

employables, widows with children, and handicapped." This was back in

'68 I advocated that, and I'm glad that you have adopted this

categorizing the welfare. I'd like to see the mothers — of course

you're going to change the name, which I understand might help matters

some in taking the stigma of welfare out of it — but mothers with

children should have this by right. The Provincial Alliance of

Businessmen are not too happy about it, because there could be certain

privileges given to some business people that wouldn't always be given

to others, maybe, and we might run into difficulties.

I'd like to quote a letter from a man from Burnaby, I believe it is,

North Vancouver. This man, he's out of a job. He wrote to the

Provincial Alliance of Businessmen and he said, "I've been unemployed

since last June through no fault of my own. My company, Bering

Industries Ltd., was put out into mothballs for two to ten years." Now

he's a man that was in charge of this. He was rather worried because

another fellow was sent over to see you and you recommended to him to

go to a certain job on a wash rack, but they wouldn't accept him because

I guess he probably may be classed as one of the hippies today. But

this fellow was wondering why he didn't get the chance to go to this

job which he would have accepted, and he didn't get that chance.

I'd like to say something about the dangers of your suggestion in

regard to rehabilitation, and I agree with you wholeheartedly with

rehabilitation in itself. I think we've got to get the unemployed

employables, or the people that are physically unfit or partially

physically unfit, we should try and get them something to do. But if

we're going to help these partially unfit people that cannot do a day's

work, I would not like to see the Government start to subsidize

industry in these cases, and another man taken out of a job and come

around and have to go and apply for welfare some

[ Page 393 ]

place else. Also, if you're going to give this any subsidy at all,

let's give it to the Government. We've got a big enough staff and a big

enough organization throughout this Province to use some of these

paraplegics and people that are crippled and cannot look after

themselves. We can make jobs or have jobs where they can be used, and

we would be paying the subsidy to the Government, and we could give

these people a better standard of living. Because I am sure that these

people, if they're put into private business and the private business

is subsidized, that it'll create problems in many respects.

The $5 increase that's going to the welfare, I think it is an insult

in some cases, especially the single people that are physically unfit

to look after themselves at all. They get $75 a month, $75 a month to

feed themselves and clothe themselves and to have shelter, and to get

$5 extra. You know, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, how much

you can purchase with $5 today. You can carry it almost in the palm of

your hand, if you're buying meat, to get $5 worth today, and these

people have got to live. I say that it's a damn disgrace if we, or a

darn disgrace, if we can't look after these people a little better.

They

should get a little better than a $5 increase a month. I'm not saying

that you didn't maybe apply for more than $5, but it's not enough and

it's more of an insult to these people than to do them any real

worthwhile good.

Now in regard to the Budget I'd like to say the Budget is a sort of

a knick-knack Budget — a knick here and a knack there, you know. It

gives a little bit more here and a little bit more there, but the whole

Budget is not quite keeping up with the increase in population of

British Columbia, either in education, welfare, or anything else. We

give increases. When we speak of increases to the welfare, we give

increases all the way through with the Government, but welfare got the

smallest, puniest increase of all, and I think this is wrong. I'm

amazed when I listen to the Minister speak about being debt free, and

then he asks for us to give permission to borrow $250,000,000 more,

which will bring our contingent liabilities up to around

$2,500,000,000. When the honourable Minister of Agriculture spoke about

the amount of interest the Federal Government was paying, and what it

would do in building houses and that, don't forget, on $2,500,000,000

contingent liabilities at 6 per cent you're paying $150,000,000 a year

interest on it — that's just at 6 per cent, $150,000,000 a year

interest on it. Now how many houses, Mr. Speaker, would that build? How

many houses would that build? It doesn't matter whether you call it

direct debt or contingent liability, that interest has got to come out

of the consumers of British Columbia through light bills and taxes on

the schools and other needs. It's got to be paid.

In education, what did they do for education? Actually, they've

fallen behind on education. They didn't recognize any equality. The

students in the Interior have been asking for equalization grants for

years in order to put them on an equal basis with those that are living

in the proximity of a university, and they haven't got it yet. With all

the wealth that this Province has got, why don't they do these things

that are going to help the people? There are those who talk about

equalized education throughout this Province. Why do we not have

equalized education then? Why does a child in the Interior have less of

an opportunity to go to university than a child in Victoria or in the

City of Vancouver? And nothing is done.

There's no indication in the Budget that the Government is giving

any consideration to taking over Notre Dame University. The Notre Dame

University blazed the trail of colleges throughout this Province. They

blazed a trail. It wasn't until after Notre Dame College started and

then became a university, it wasn't until then that the Government woke

up to the fact that we needed colleges throughout this Province. We

need a university in the eastern part of the Province, and this is an

opportunity, and don't forget this university was paid for and built by

the people of the Kootenays with some help probably from other areas

too, but the principal part of the assistance came from the people of

the Kootenays. It's done a wonderful job, they've got 600 students

going to Notre Dame University. It has been classed as a private

university, and our Public Schools Act does not recognize private

universities and, Mr. Speaker, this is the opportunity to make a public

university out of it, and I'm sure that you'll get it at bargain

basement rates, the university, to take it over. I'd like to know

whether any consideration is being given to this, because there's one

thing we do not want to let go is the Notre Dame University in the

Kootenay, because it's doing too good a job for the people there.

People go away from home from Cranbrook, from Fernie, from Yahk, they

can go to Notre Dame, they can get back on a week-end or they can get

back on a long week-end and get back home.

Mr. Speaker, I'm surprised that the honourable member for Columbia

didn't speak on this question as well, because it's to his interests as

well as mine. And the honourable member for Nelson-Trail — he hasn't

spoken yet — I’m sure that he's in favour of this as well. I'm not

speaking just as parochial for myself. The Notre Dame University serves

all the eastern parts of the Province, both East and West Kootenay, Mr.

Speaker, and I'd just like to quote you a letter that I got.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why speak to the Chair? You speak too long.

MR. NIMSICK: "I would appreciate it if you would bring to the

attention of Education Minister Brothers the importance of the crisis

that Notre Dame University is facing in its endeavour to make Notre

Dame University into a public university. It is important to the

Kootenays that Notre Dame be included into the B.C. education system to

create a number of universities in the southeastern portion of our

rapidly expanding Province." Then I got a telegram from the Mayor of

the City of Fernie. "The Fernie City Council and the Fernie Chamber of

Commerce unanimously endorse the city of Nelson's and the Nelson

Chamber of Commerce's support for Notre Dame University's application

to become British Columbia's fourth public university. We trust your

kind consideration is given this most important matter. — Reno

Lenardon, Mayor of Fernie."

I'm sorry, Mr. Minister, that you weren't in, Mr. Speaker, through

you, that you weren't in a few minutes ago, but I was saying that I

didn't see any indication in the Budget or anything that there's any

consideration being given to make Notre Dame University a public

university. I'm sure you're interested in this as well as I am, because

we've got to have, we've got to continue on with a university in the

eastern part of the Province, because there is enough inequality now

between the rural areas and the coastal areas, without having no

university in the Interior.

Then the Budget gives $10 extra for the home-owner grant. This is a

small crumb thrown out and probably their taxes will go up by a whole

slice of bread. Municipal aid, $2. Pollution, $5,000,000. $5,000,000

will do very little towards

[ Page 394 ]

pollution in the Province of British Columbia. Recreation and

Conservation, the only increase was for the Creston Conservancy that we

got a little extra money. But the population of this Province is

increasing, and the pressure on our recreational areas, on our wild

game, are increasing day by day and year by year, and there is not one

provision made for one extra personnel in the Recreation and

Conservation Department for wildlife, and I think that's bad. If this

Government is interested in people, this is very important. Nothing in

there to acquire winter range for our big game.

The other night I heard the Premier state that he was giving out a

$250,000 prize to anyone who would correct the smell in the kraft pulp

mills. You know, a few years ago we gave a prize for the best house,

too, that was being built, but I haven't heard anything about it, what

success it was, and I don't know whether it was any success or not, or

whether anybody got the prize even. It probably collapsed. But we've

got a research department in Vancouver, scientific research, we've got

the universities of British Columbia, the three, the four universities.

Surely if anyone's going to find out a solution to this problem in the

Province of British Columbia we've got ample access to the means by

which it can be done without offering $250,000 of the taxpayers' money

to private industry to do something that they should be doing anyway.

And I say, Mr. Speaker, that this is wrong, that this $250,000 — if the

industries want to put up a prize to get rid of the smell out of the

kraft pulp mills, if we feel that it should be done, then it's up to

industry to do it, and I don't think it should come out of the

taxpayers' money. Already we have research for industry, we have the

universities that are working for industry, and we're contributing a

great deal out of the taxpayers' money to help industry along these

lines.

Then there's savings that we could have in other ways. When we look

at the travelling done by our Cabinet Ministers it would read like a

travel extravaganza. Honest to goodness, it would read like travel

extravaganza, the travelling that our Cabinet Ministers do. I don't

think that they spend very much time in Victoria at all, but they're

wandering around the country, round and round, because $55,872 was

spent last year for the Cabinet Ministers, and in addition to that,

$14,762 for the Ministers without Portfolio, and I can well see, in

sending these, why you send these people around. Why don't you make

more use of the members in the area? If you don't like to make use of

the Opposition, at least make use of your own members to open — you

don't have to send a Cabinet Minister in from Victoria — to open every

little outhouse that might be built by the Government. You don't have

to do that. You don't have to have a Cabinet Minister come in just to

unveil a plaque on a building that was built before this Government

took office. That's what they did in Kimberley.

AN HON. MEMBER: They particularly wanted a Cabinet Minister, they asked for it.

MR. NIMSICK: Listen, then, if the Government would tell these

people that you feel it's too expensive to send Cabinet Ministers all

over the country, they'd be glad to hear that. The reason that they

maybe asked for a Cabinet Minister is — and don't forget, like the

Premier did last year when he was going to take his film around the

country, the Chamber of Commerce didn't ask him to come in — no, the

honourable Minister of Education wrote in to the Chamber and asked them

to invite the Premier in so he could show his film, and I don't think

that this is right.

I don't think that we need to spend $14,000 on the Ministers without

Portfolio to go around here to be nothing but propagandizing for the

Government. That’s exactly what you do, and I know that you've got to

show something for the extra money that you get, but nevertheless I

think we could at least save the $14,000 and leave you at home and let

the local M.L.A.s look after the job. I say that in all kindness to

you because I really believe that. Then if they can't find a Cabinet

Minister, who do they send in? They send in either a Deputy Minister or

somebody else. They send in somebody else, at the taxpayers' expense.

All this is done and you talk about economizing, you talk about

restraint, and you're spending money like drunken sailors when it comes

to travelling around the country. You think they get in the Cabinet to

see the world, that's about what it is, I'll tell you.

I notice in the Budget, too, that the M.L.A.s got an increase. I'm

not ashamed of getting any increase. I feel if the honourable member

for Point Grey or if the honourable member for Oak Bay feels that he

has not warranted that increase, I say that in a rural area you got to

be almost an ombudsman, and it's a full time job to represent your

constituency. You've got to travel hundreds of miles and you've got to

come down here and have a second home during the Session. This is

something that the members right around Victoria don't have to do. So I

don't feel bad about accepting the increase, because I feel that I can

serve my constituents that much better.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words, in the Speech from the

Throne there was an indication we were going to have a new Land Act

brought in. It hasn't been tabled in the House as yet, and I think that

this should be one of the most important Acts that will be brought in

this Session, because it deals with land, and land is practically

everything. The forests grow on the land, the cattle feed on the land,

the lakes are on the land, the people live on the land — it covers

everything, and pollution is on the land, too. I think we should give

great consideration to this Act, because there is a lot of inaccuracies

in it, we might call it today, that should be corrected. We have

alienation of land, and some people on the Arrow Lakes are very

concerned about the alienation of the land along the new lakeshore

that's going to be formed by the High Arrow. These lands, I understand,

according to a letter that I've got here, they intend to put them up

for option. I would like to quote this letter, "If it is considered

desirable to lift or amend the existing reserve, the matter of the

disposition of the land will then come under review by the department."

This is the land grant. "However, inasmuch as the entire water frontage

has been under reserve for a considerable period and numerous inquiries

have been received concerning the acquisition of the lands, it is

envisioned that any future disposition thereof would be made by way of

public competition, due notice of which would be published in the local

press."

Now these people in Slocan Valley, and the honourable member for

Revelstoke-Slocan will understand this, and I'm sure it is probably

going to apply to some of my area as well, they are quite concerned.

The Pacific Command of the Canadian Legion have gone all out in regards

to the disposition of the lands along the lakeshore. Down in the United

States they don't allow aliens to buy Crown lands, they don't allow

them to buy Crown lands. I do not see why the request of the Pacific

Command of the Canadian Legion — they're not asking it for their own

members — they're asking that this land should be set aside, first

option on all the

[ Page 395 ]

Crown land should go to Canadians and residents. This is the first

option for a period of probably five years, and I think that this is a

good point, because most of the people who come up here from the United

States and ask for land along a lake, they are wealthy and they can

practically offer any price when it's up for bids, and the local

residents have very little chance to compete against them. I think that

we should give the Canadians the right to these lands if we are going

to sell them or lease them, and I'm more in favour of leasing, because

I think the time is going to come when all lands in British Columbia

will be on a lease basis rather than selling them outright. This is a

question that could be considered in this new Land Act that is coming

up at the present time, and I feel that we should be having somewhat

the same laws.

Also they tell me that there's an organization, an American

organization, which notifies about all tax sales in and around these

areas. They can be picked up quite easily sometimes, too, sometimes it

is a little more difficult. But any tax land that goes up for tax sale

in British Columbia, in my opinion, should revert to the Crown and

become Crown land from then on. I don't think we should have tax sales

where people can get hold of good land and valuable land at a very

cheap price sometimes. To me it seems reasonable that we should revert

all land that is going up for tax sales back to the Crown.

Then there is access problems on land. Much of our land that is

Crown land is behind private land, and it is difficult to get access to

these areas, whether you want to go hunting or fishing or hiking or

what you want to do. People buy land away out in the wilderness,

nothing on it, Mr. Speaker, and they then put up a sign, No

Trespassing, and there is nothing there at all, you couldn't hurt

anything if you wanted to, and this is a question that has always

bothered me. It is my opinion that no Canadian, or no British

Columbian, should be deprived the right of walking on land in British

Columbia providing he does no damage to it, providing it isn't a

cultivated area. If it is wild land, a sign should not be there, a No

Trespassing sign, providing he doesn't do any damage.

AN HON. MEMBER: What if a bull gets them?

MR. NIMSICK: Well they can say, "Watch for the Bull," just as

I've been doing for the last few weeks in this House. I've been

watching you all week.

Then along streams and around lakes we should have certain marginal

areas reserved to the Crown, so that when people want to go fishing

along a creek they can walk along the shoreline without interfering

with the private property of the individual, and they couldn't put a No

Trespassing sign on there. Around the lakes there should be so many

chains so far back from the lake, before we have private land. These

are questions, I think, that should come up under the new Land Act.

The ARDA Report — a land inventory to know what we should do with

our land, because today we don't seem to know, it's just a haphazard

system. We are destroying valuable farm lands for building industry on

and to have subdivisions and all the rest of it, when we should be

conserving that valuable arable land for the future use of the people

of the world, not only Canada, but of the world. So the ARDA Report we

were promised last year, it was going to be out last spring, and we

still haven't got that ARDA Report, I don't know what is in it. I don't

know whether the Government is trying to doctor it up or what they are

trying to do with it, but I hope that it comes out as it was researched

and as the recommendation was given to them by the committee that

investigated the ARDA Report.

Then we've got expropriation that could come in this Land Act. I

think, Mr. Speaker, that consideration should be given that this Land

Act should come in early, and should be turned over to a committee, so

that we could give it great consideration. Because land is so

important, I think it is one of the most important Acts in British

Columbia today, and let's get the opinions of everybody, because it

concerns us all whether we are in the Opposition or the Government, and

we could discuss it in committee and maybe come up with some

recommendations, so the Act will be the best Act that we can devise at

this time. I don't think that even the Government thinks that they've

got all the knowledge that should go into

an Act such as this. I don't

think, Mr. Speaker, that the honourable the backbenchers even have any

knowledge of what's going to be in that Land Act to this day, and I

think we should consider it.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I am going to deal with that item I said should be

considered in the Land Act, and that's expropriation. In 1963 we had a

report of a Royal Commission on Expropriation, and this was at a cost

of $63,000. $63,000 of the taxpayers' money, and you may as well have

thrown it down a drain as far as it doing any good. Nothing has been

done with that Royal Commission Report for that seven years, and I say

that this Government is derelict in their duties, when they do not take

cognizance of what the recommendations were in the Royal Commission's

Report. Mr. Clyne was quite definite at the time he wrote that report

and we've got 29 Acts, 29 Acts dealing with expropriation at the

present time. 29 with the Land Clauses Act — who said 28?

AN HON. MEMBER: One of those Liberals.

MR. NIMSICK: 29 with the Land Clauses Act, and this one dates

back, Mr. Speaker, all the way back to 1848, Mr. Speaker, 1848. Mr.

Clyne stated that in England compensation was based essentially on the

market value, together with additional compensation for disturbance,

severance and injurious affection, and I would like to quote you what

it states there. "The Minister of Highways, under the Highways Act may,

in his absolute discretion, enter and take possession of land or take

gravel, timber, stone or other materials without notice to, or the

consent of the owners. The present law does not protect the land owner

by requiring that notice must be given him before an expropriating

authority can enter upon his land and conduct studies and surveys which

may or may not fore-shadow expropriation of all or part of his land…."

AN HON. MEMBER: Did the Minister of Lands do that?

MR. NIMSICK: This is the Highways Department. Mr. Speaker,

there are a good many members in this House that weren't here in 1963,

and it might be of interest to them to listen to what Mr. Clyne says in

this expropriation report, the new members especially that have never

heard what was in it, because this is very important.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Clyne stated that in the United States, this is

what they do. "The constitutional right of an American landowner

entitles him to fair compensation and due process of law. His Canadian

counterpart across the border has no such written protection of his

civil rights. The Legislative Assembly in each Canadian province, under

the

[ Page 396 ]

British North America Act, decides what his civil rights are." We

can't even sue the government in this Province if they feel they are

being hurt. After perusing all these statutes, Mr. Clyne stated the

following, and I quote, " In the public interest and to achieve

uniformity and the elimination of injustices, I have come to the

conclusion that it is desirable, subject to possible minor exceptions,

to repeal all existing expropriation legislation in British Columbia

and in its place enact a statute governing expropriation."

The report recommended certain rules for assessing compensations, and I quote,

"(

a) Where expropriation of an entire parcel of land takes place,

compensation paid shall be based on market value (assuming a willing

seller and a willing buyer). No account shall be taken of value

peculiar to the taker nor of any effect on value attributable to

expropriation or threat of expropriation nor of any increased value

arising from unlawful or unhealthful uses. The practice of adding a

percentage to value by reason of compulsory purchase or otherwise,

should be abolished. In special cases where the property has no real

market value (for example, with churches and schools) an alternative

rule should allow compensation based on reinstatement.

"(

b) Where the taker expropriates only a portion of a parcel of

land." and I'm still quoting from the Royal Commission Report, Mr.

Speaker. "Where the taker expropriates only a portion of a parcel of

land, compensation should be paid for the portion taken and for

consequential damages to the remainder through severance or other

injurious affection. Against such compensation should be set-off any

increase in value to the remainder attributable to any act or acts of

the taker. The 'before and after' method of valuation should be used to

determine the net compensation due namely: the amount of compensation

due is the difference between the value of the whole parcel before

taking and the value of the remainder after taking. If the 'before and

after' method results in compensation being payable less than the value

of the kind taken, the taker should be required to either pay

compensation equal to the value of the land taken or to expropriate the

whole parcel and pay compensation accordingly.

"(

c) In any expropriation of land, compensation should be paid for all disturbance attributable directly to the expropriation.

"(

d) If an owner's land is not taken in an expropriation but is

nevertheless in some way injuriously affected by the expropriation,

compensation should be paid for such injurious affection and for loss

of business profits, provided such loss is permanent. When market price

reflects loss of business profits no separate allowance for such loss

should be made."

His recommendation, Mr. Speaker — that's the end of that quotation — his recommendation as to procedures to expropriate were as follows, "In

the event of disagreement by the parties as to the amount of

compensation, it is recommended that proceedings be instituted by the

taker by filing a Notice of Expropriation in the appropriate Court

Registry and by service on the owner."

Mr. Clyne also recognized the rights of the expropriating body to

obtain possession of land before final determination, and I quote

again. "It is recommended that the expropriating body be enabled to

obtain possession of land before the compensation is judicially

determined by payment into court of such amount, as the court summarily

determines to be the probable just compensation, and that the owner be

enabled to withdraw such moneys without prejudice to his right to

dispute the sufficiency of the compensation offered."

Then Mr. Clyne outlined the procedures that must be followed after

this to its final conclusion, but he also said, and I quote, "In my

view expropriation is a last resort to be used where lands necessary

for public uses cannot be acquired by private agreement. It follows

that bodies with authority to expropriate should have the fullest

possible freedom to obtain land by negotiation and private purchase.

"The acquiring authority generally has an advantage in such

negotiations because of its greater resources and its knowledge and

experience in the valuation and acquisition of land. For this reason it

is desirable that an acquiring authority should, in making overtures to

owners — for the purchase of their land, advise those owners of their

legal rights in respect to compensation, including their right to have

the matter determined by an independent tribunal." That is the end of

the quote.

At the present time the Federal Government is putting through a new

Expropriation Act. Now this what I quoted from Clyne was seven years

ago, brought out in a Royal Commission Report, and nothing has been

done so far. At the present time the Federal Government is putting

through an Expropriation Act that is even more forward looking than

what Clyne suggested. I would like to quote from the Vancouver Sun ,

November 8, 1969. "Ottawa. Federal expropriation procedures, largely

unchanged since 1896, came a stage closer to major revision Friday as

the Commons gave second reading to a Bill described by an N.D.P. member

as 'a good Act 50 years overdue'." That is just like some of the Acts

we get here. I quote further. "The new Bill specifically provides for

compensation for home-owners large enough to enable them to buy an

equivalent dwelling elsewhere. The home for a home principle." Now this

is the principle that has been adopted by the Federal Government. "It

also requires an expropriating Federal department or agency to notify

the property owner in advance of any action, and guarantees public

hearings and imposes a financial penalty on the agency that is judged

to have undervalued the property it seeks to take." That is the end of

that quotation.

So what has this Government done, Mr. Speaker? It has done

absolutely nothing in this regard. And why has nothing been done?

Because you represent big business, the big pipeline owners, and big

government. You want to be able to roll roughshod over the private

individuals of this Province any way you like.

I would just like to give you a few examples of your policies, of

what goes on, and how you do it, and I am going to use two examples.

One is relating to Natal-Michel and the other one is relating to the

Libby Dam Pondage. First, I think that the prices offered in

Natal-Michel for people's homes were ridiculous. The highest price

offered was under $10,000, the highest price for a home. I would like

to ask any of you, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask any of the members

to go home tonight and look in the paper and see what they can get for

$9,000.

I will read you a part of a letter and give you a description of a

house that was appraised at $6,300. This party's place, his lot was 60

by 100. His house was stucco on the outside and dry wall on the inside,

three bedrooms, one bathroom, kitchen, hot-air furnace, living-room

with hardwood floor, breakfast nook, porches front and back, unattached

garage, full-sized cement basement, sidewalks one-half cement and

one-half wood, and completely fenced. That man was offered $6,300 for

that.

Now it would cost him at least $2,000 for a

[ Page 397 ]

lot in Sparwood, $2,000 for a lot in Sparwood. Now what chance does

a man with a house like that, given $6,300, have of getting an

equivalent house in Sparwood? These houses are being pushed under the

urban renewal. The Federal Government is paying the big put of the

shot. So what is the reason for this kind of statement, Mr. Speaker? If

we had a decent expropriation guide the people would know where they

stood, and know what was going to happen.

I would like to ask — I am sorry the honourable the Minister of

Municipal Affairs is not in here at the present time, but I hope he

listens to the tape afterwards — I would

like to ask why should a man that owns a 60 by 100 foot lot in Natal,

why should he not receive one in Sparwood? You subtract that $2,000

from the $6,300 and all he is going to get for his house is $4,300. A

three-bedroom house, hardwood floors in the living-room, full basement,

a garage, all fenced, $6,300. I'll bet the honourable Minister without

Portfolio wished she could find 100 houses like that so she could set

them all over the Province. But it is a long way for this man from

getting a home in Sparwood. I think it is a disgrace that this

Government doesn't do better than that. The honourable the Minister is

back. I am just going to go back to this house. The highest price, Mr.

Minister — Mr. Speaker, through you — that was paid in Natal for a

house is under $10,000. Here is a house they offered $6,300 for. They

didn't accept it yet. 60 by 100 foot lot, house is stucco on the

outside, and dry wall on the inside, three bedrooms, one bathroom,

kitchen, hot-air furnace, living-room with hardwood floor, breakfast

nook, porches front and back, unattached garage, full-sized cement

basement, sidewalks one-half cement, one-half wood, completely fenced.

$6,300 for the lot and the house combined. It is not good enough, Mr.

Speaker, that the Minister can pass this buck on to the Regional

District and say he can't do anything about it.

When I put questions on the Order Paper last year asking for the

amount of money that was paid out for houses in that area, you said you

couldn't give it to me. You mean to tell me that this Government is

contributing and the Federal Government is contributing and you don't

know what is going on? I ask the honourable Minister through you, Mr.

Speaker, to get on the ball and get us the information so we'll know

what is going on.

They should at least receive a lot, in the first place, for any lot

they owned in Natal. Because you are going to take these lots and you

are going to sell them to Kaiser to try and reclaim the money that you

are paying for the house, and probably sell them for a lot more than

you appraised them for. How you appraise a house that size at $6,300,

and when you subtract $2,000 for the lot out there, at $4,300, is

beyond me. Whether the Regional District does your dirty work or not,

that's not good enough. You're the man — Mr. Speaker, the honourable

the Minister is the man that's looking after this job and he is the man

that should be responsible.

It was this Government that promised the people of Natal in 1964

that they would be relocated to Sparwood without any cost to

themselves. They were promised that. And they failed. They failed in

that regard. Mr. Speaker, when they saw it was going to cost them some

money, what did they do? They turned around and handed it over to the

Regional District. They passed the buck to the Regional District and

now they say that it is the Regional District's responsibility.

It is not the Regional District responsibility. These people have a

right to the same treatment as the new Federal Expropriation Act gives,

a home for a home of comparable value, and any of those homes that can

be moved, should be moved at the expense of the Government over to

Sparwood.

So I say, Mr. Speaker, that it is really something that has got to

be considered. The business people of Natal have sat pretty tight. I

don't think they have purchased many businesses in Natal. You don't

offer them enough that they could start up without any building, in a

tent. You don't offer them enough, so I think it is time that this

Government fulfilled their promise to the people of Natal-Michel and do

justice to them.

Secondly, I would like to take you to the Pondage area of the Libby

Dam and see if this Government has been any more responsible in this

case. All the farms in the Libby Pondage area will be flooded by

December of 1971, and I would like to read you a few clippings that

portray the treatment that has been given to these people. This is a

picture of a fellow — the men came along and cut the fences around his

property and were entering it. He came and he had to have a fist fight

with them to get them off his property.

"Bitterness and frustration is growing among the 25 south country

ranchers who face flooding in the Libby Reservoir area in 1972. This

frustration broke through the surface Friday when eight of the ranchers

gathered at the home of Bob Totten, nine miles from Waldo on the west

side of the Kootenay River, ready to do physical battle to protect the

fences. On Thursday Totten, who has spent 22 years on a 400-acre ranch,

came back from riding on the range and found two members of a B.C.

Forest Service crew cutting down his fences. 'They had taken down about

400 yards of my fence,' Totten explained. 'I saw the two men working

and I went up to them and told them they were on the wrong fence. They

said they thought they were taking down the right fence. I said they

weren't and I told them to hit the road or I'll lick you right here!

One guy said, 'I don't think you can,' and, he didn't go. So, I cracked

one guy with a right, the other fellow grabbed me and I gave him a

couple in the stomach, then they decided to go down the right-of-way.'

"Totten pointed out that…. Oh, we've got tough people up in

that country, don't forget that. I dare say that some of these people I

am talking about even were foolish enough to vote for this Government

even.

"The Forest Service crew didn't show up the next day, and the

ranchers marched down to the office at Waldo. After a short wait they

were met by Ray Banta, and the Forest Service apologized to the

ranchers for the incident and said it was a misunderstanding. He

promised that the crew would put the fence back up. Totten pointed out

that he hadn't even had an offer for his place and a number of the

other ranchers were in the same boat. He also said that trap lines and

other things had no offers. Banta said he couldn't help them on these

points, since the Department of Highways is involved in the land

purchases."

Now doesn't that seem rather odd, that the Department of Highways is

involved in the land purchases for the Libby Pondage area? And you'd

wonder why. Just to pass the buck from the Hydro over to the taxpayers

of British Columbia to try and save the face of this Government on the

fiasco that they created by the Columbia River deal. They wouldn't put

it in the legislation when it was brought up.

"Banta said he couldn't help them on these points since the Department of Highways is involved in land purchases.

[ Page 398 ]

One rancher said a south country resident had applied for work for

his bulldozer over a year ago and didn't get a job even though a

bulldozer was brought in from Merritt." I would like to know what my partner over here from Yale has got, that he gets his bulldozers in my area. "Williston promised us that local men would have the first chance at jobs he could carry."

AN HON. MEMBER: To cut down the fences.

MR. NIMSICK: "Banta said the bulldozer could be the wrong size for the work." That's that.

Then we go to another one. "Ranchers know they can't win." I quote. "The ranchers, about 30 of them all told, are among 70 landowners

whose property is being expropriated by the Department in preparation

for the flooding of the valley by the $360,000,000 Libby Dam just

across the border in Montana. By December, 1971 everyone must be out,

because some time in the early spring of 1972 the water will start

backing up into Canada.

"Under the rising waters will go many of the hopes, the dreams, and

the livelihoods of men whose families helped carve out the country in

the East Kootenays. The area of the Kootenay Valley that could be

inundated by the Libby project, the fourth dam to be built under the

Columbia River Treaty, extends 42 miles up into Canada. The homeowners

know that the flooding is inevitable. They know that sooner or later

they will have to settle up, pick up and get out. But they say they'll

be damned if they will do so on the kind of terms the Government has

offered so far.

"With expropriation imminent the valley residents have formed the

Libby Reservoir Property Owners Association and dug in for a fight It

is a fight that can have only one winner, the Government. But the

losers, the ranchers, are determined to come out with a fair share of

the purse.

"To an outsider the folk in the valley may look rough and ready.

They are a different breed from city dwellers. A man's word is his

bond, and there is a real sense of community despite the fact a man's

nearest neighbour may live 18 miles away."

Further to this, just two days ago, 16 — this is two days ago today

— stood in front of bulldozers on a farm near Wardner and defied the

bulldozers to run over them. I went to the honourable Minister of

Highways and I think maybe we have solved the problem. I got in contact

with the farmers. I know the Minister of Highways has power to place an

injunction against them which was going to be done last Friday, but he

was kind enough to postpone it until today. I don't know right now what

has happened, but nevertheless I advised the farmers of their rights. I

told them that the Act was there, the law was there, and not to defy

the injunction if it was placed against them. I don't like to see them

go to gaol because then they will be hot and bothered.

These are reasonable people, Mr. Speaker, so why are they treated

more or less like a herd of cattle to be driven here and driven there

and driven off their land if the Government so wishes? On the advice of

the Minister of Lands and Forests, the farmers got their own appraisers

to negotiate. I would like to hope the honourable Minister of Lands and

Forests is listening to this. Mr. Speaker, I hope the honourable the

Minister of Lands and Forests will listen to this portion of my talk,

because it concerns him very much. It was on your advice, Mr. Minister,

through you, Mr. Speaker, that these people went out and got their own

appraisers, and I'd like to quote a letter from the appraisers. The

appraisers were Mack Grant Realty Co. in Calgary, and they went in

there and they appraised the property and they've got a list of

qualifications here that seem to be well qualified to appraise

property. And, after the honourable the Minister advised the people to

get their own appraiser, I think he should have had the courtesy of

listening to them. "Dear Sir," he said in a letter to me. "It was

suggested to us that you would be interested in the problems that we

are encountering trying to negotiate settlements for the ranchers

affected by the Libby Dam." Mr. Speaker, I wish the Minister would at

least look up and recognize whether he's listening to me or not.

HON. R. G. WILLISTON: I've heard every word you've said.

MR. NIMSICK: Thank you, Mr. Minister, for the recognition. Up

until now, Mr. Speaker, this has just absolutely been, to our way of

thinking, a ridiculous situation. These are the words of the

appraisers, the Mack Grant Realty Co. "We cannot seem to be able to

meet with anyone of authority, qualified and with an appraisal

background, with whom we can negotiate. We are enclosing two copies of

letters, we have written to Premier Bennett pleading for some type of

consideration on behalf of these ranchers who are just about at the end

of their patience, not knowing where they stand or how to reach and

negotiate a settlement on their ranches." Then they wrote a letter to

Premier Bennett to get some action, Mr. Speaker, and I quote, "Dear Mr.

Bennett." I do not know whether Mr. Bennett answered this letter or

not. He doesn't often answer letters. "Since our last letter to you

some events have transpired that we thought you may be interested in.

We sent a copy of our letter of January the 26th, 1970, to you in which

we made an effort to set up a meeting with the Department

representatives through the lawyer who represents, or misrepresents,

the Department on occasion." I know that there isn't much love lost

there.

"We felt, and still believe, that eight days is sufficient time for

the Department to have appraisers meet with us, or at least to set up a

meeting date more mutually convenient to you. To quote Mr. Williston in

his address to the property owners last year, 'The department would

bend over backwards to make settlements.' Our reply from Mr. Graham"

— that was the lawyer for the Government — "contained many excuses as

to why no meeting would be held, but hardly bent over backwards to

further negotiations. None of his statements, including his

understanding" — I won't quote that one.

This last paragraph, "Once again we impeach you to use your

influence to end this obvious attempt by the Departments of Highways,

Lands and Forests to coerce the property owners to settle. Coerce may

sound over-dramatic, but the malicious and maligning remarks about our

conduct, the cancellation of meetings to reduce our effectiveness, and

public statements by officials recommending that owners do not retain

attorneys, cannot be construed as anything less than coercion." You may

be interested in some of the statements Mr. Williston made as to the

acquisition policies at a property owners meeting last year. These

direct quotes hardly strengthen the Government's position today because

of the apparent disregard for these promises.

I'd like to quote you from the tape, Mr. Minister, and this is what

you stated at a public meeting. "I am not an appraiser and I do not

know, but you have an appraiser or someone representing you that can

point out exactly why his figure is right. I am a fair man, and what I

am telling you sitting here

[ Page 399 ]

today is that a reputable appraiser has got it well backed as to

what his values are, and you will get attention paid to those

valuations if that man is a professional appraiser and knows his

business." Then another quote. "You picked them out and I said I would

pay for them — and I said I would pay for them. I made this offer this

afternoon. I said if you did not do it, if you thought our people, when

we assessed this business, I said you picked them out and I said I

would pay for them. I said this as I have said it before. I would pay

for it because it has to be fair, but what is happening in this

situation is that we are faced with a business. You have picked out an

appraiser as a unit, and nobody is talking until this appraiser, some

day he is going to have to come up and sit down with the appraisal

officers and establish this on both sides. Let's get this straight, we

are on tape, and let's, and let's get this very straight, you are

working as a group. I said if you had a situation where it was not

fair, you were working as an individual. You were working as an

individual and you suggested an appraiser who would represent you on

this business, and was recognized, and was brought into this and who

was willing to represent you. I would pay this business That is right." End of quote.

Now, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister, all these people asked for was to

meet the appraisers. This Mack Grant Appraising outfit asked to meet

the appraisers and they haven't been able to, and what is the hold-up?

I don't think it should be necessary that people should have to fight,

or stand in front of tractors, to stop the acquisition of their land or

the expropriation of their land. I think that we are civilized enough

in this country. I know that the white man did it with the native

Indians years ago, they didn't care. But I think we've reached the

stage today that people should be treated with more respect than that.

For the sake of justice, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask this

Government to put a little of that conscience that they talk about into

these people's problems and settle the matter. Surely these cases have

exemplified the necessity of a proper Expropriation Act. If there was

ever anything that recommended a change to our expropriation

proceedings in the Province of British Columbia, it is the cases that

have been facing us under the Columbia River Treaty, and the case in

Natal-Michel. I say, along with the Land Act, for goodness sakes, Mr.

Speaker, let's get an Expropriation Act that's fair to everybody, that

treats people as individuals and as true citizens of British Columbia.

I thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Minister without Portfolio.

HON. GRACE McCARTHY (2nd, Vancouver–Little Mountain): Mr.

Speaker, it's a great pleasure to follow the honourable member from

Kootenay today. He won't, I don't think, go down in history as being

the briefest speaker in this House, but we always enjoy listening to

him. I was particularly interested in his remarks regarding the

Ministers without Portfolio, because I have a little bit of a personal

interest in this particular position. I do want, Mr. Speaker, the

honourable member from Kootenay to know that in the realm of my

responsibilities as Minister without Portfolio I have never really been

asked to open such a building as he described.

The member did make some remarks about our Budget which I didn't

think were really a very good credit to the member from Kootenay. He

said that this Budget that we are discussing in this debate was the

knick-knack Budget, and all I can say to that, Mr. Speaker — some

knick-knack! It's a fine Budget that I rise to speak to, today, and

I'm proud to speak to this Budget and I am surprised, really, to note

that every member of the New Democratic party, the socialists on the

other side of the House, have made so many derogatory remarks, because

when the member from the Opposition rose in his seat, he did say that

we gave them credit for never being constructive. Can I say this, that

you make it very, very difficult.

I would like to say too, that it is a very significant day in this

Chamber, because this is the 100th anniversary — 100 years ago today

that the first legislature sat in this room, and it is significant in

that we have — not in this room, but in British Columbia, pardon me. It

is indeed a great pleasure to be here and to know that in this past 100

years that very many people over the years have contributed to the

well-being and to the history of British Columbia, as are all members

on both sides of the House, all members in this House today.

The Budget that I address my remarks today is the most exciting

people's Budget that will be or has been presented by any jurisdiction

in Canada this year. The socialists on the other side of the House can

call it down, they can call it unimaginative, they can call it

anything they like, but who are they trying to kid? For the second

year, the honourable Liberal leader gave his personal budget, and again

may I say as I did last year — if it is so easy for the Liberal leader

and for the Liberals in Canada to prepare a budget, why is it that it

is costing us so much for a Liberal administration in Ottawa? Why is

it, Mr. Speaker, that just today we spend $5,000,000 a day on interest

alone incurred by a Liberal administration who this member speaks for,

and again, it doesn't give any credence at all to the claim that the

Liberals could prepare a budget that is any better or even as good. I

would be very pleased to make a few remarks just in correction of

something that was attributed to me, and I want to put it on the

record, as it were, in regard to drug experimentation. It was a remark

that was made by the honourable Minister of Health in this past week

where he claimed, and I think I should quote, "That the statements made

by the Cabinet Minister and the premier of the Province in regard to

drug experimentation, said that it was a terribly irresponsible

exhibition." Mr. Chairman, I know about the motion on the Order Paper,

because I was the one that put the motion on the Order Paper.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The reason for the ruling in regard to debate

is so that the House is not subjected to tedious repetition, and

therefore I would ask all members to keep their comments for the proper

place.

MRS. McCARTHY: I would be pleased to honour your ruling, and

I will bring up the subject under that proper place in the debate. And

may I say, that if all members of this House would accept the Speaker's

ruling, we could get through the business a lot easier.

What are you getting so excited about? I'm sorry I said that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order please. Will the member please proceed.

MRS. McCARTHY: But I will certainly be speaking on this subject another time.

Mr. Speaker, in regard to another habit, I would like to draw to the attention of the House the fact that this year,

[ Page 400 ]

1970, is the tenth anniversary for the Non-Smokers Association of

Canada. I think it would be well to remind the House that it is just

ten years ago that the Non-Smokers Association began in British

Columbia. The first seminar that was furthered by the British Columbia

Government, this Government, was held in 1961. The first annual

seminar, 1963, and the first annual Non-Smokers Day was held in 1961.

This Government was the first anywhere, and Barry Mather followed our

Minister of Health at that time, and may I at this time pay tribute to

Barry Mather, to Eric Martin, to the present Minister of Health, and to

all those Ministers of Health in between, who gave tangible assistance

to a smoking and health programme in this Province. We did, at that

time, produce a brochure which is still one of the most effective

brochures that has been put out in this area, and I would like to see

that that brochure is repeated and that a better educational programme

is implemented in our educational system.

But more than that, Mr. Speaker, I think that we should mark the

first decade of the Non-Smokers Association of Canada which was

conceived right here in British Columbia, by holding a seminar on the

effects of smoking in key centres in British Columbia. I think that in

doing so we would highlight and would bring to the attention of the

young people of our Province the dangers of smoking, and point out the

statistics which are very well known, and I'm sure you don't want to

have them repeated.

But the thought is that in 1962 there was issued by Great Britain's

Royal College of Physicians of London, a damning indictment of smoking,

and again in 1964 this was followed by the report of the U.S.

Surgeon-General's Advisory Committee on Smoking and Health, and they

came to several conclusions on cigarette smoking. These have since been

accepted by the major medical and scientific organizations of the

world, and these conclusions are this, and I quote, "Cigarette smoking

is a cause of lung cancer, that it is associated with heart disease,

that it is the most important cause of chronic bronchitis, and that it

substantially increases the risk of premature death." I rather think

that it is our responsibility to once again lead the way in education

in this programme, and I would like to see that seminars are held

throughout the Province in this regard, and I would also like to

suggest that perhaps the teachers and the P.T.A.'s could get together

and call on young people to turn the money over on Non-Smokers Day this

year to a worthy cause.

While I'm speaking of worthy causes, I would like to draw attention

to the one that was announced today earlier by our honourable Minister

of Agriculture, and to commend him and the Government for the $25,000

relief fund to the Nigerian Relief. I thought that was a tremendous

tribute to a very, very fine cause, and it was a very good suggestion.

Now following too, on the kind of pollution that we have been

discussing, and I suggest that smoking certainly is a form of

pollution, I would like to say, as has been reiterated time and time

again in this Session and in the last Session and more particularly, I

would say, in this year, that people are the cause of a great deal of

our pollution. I would commend the very many anti-pollution

organizations that have sprung up the past month and the past year.

They're doing a fine job at the community level, and I suggest, Mr.

Speaker, that these members of organizations such as S.P.E.C. and those

people who are on an anti-pollution drive, whether the members in the

Opposition want to admit it or not, it was this Government, this Social

Credit Government, that gave leadership to the people in making them

aware of this threat to our environment. I think again — well anybody

that is an authority on pollution, it should be the Leader of the

Opposition in the socialist party.

I think that the Provincial Government should continue to lead, Mr.

Speaker, and it is that which I would like, to speak to today. One of

the suggestions I'd like to make, and this is not the main point in my

address today but I would like to pass this on, I think that there

should be an educational programme carried on this through the

television and through the radio and, when available, through the press

— a fact that can be sponsored by the Provincial Government and that a

message can be told. Public information can be given and an appeal to

the public to clean up, tidy up, and keep British Columbia clean, as

our member from Burrard has so ably described. I would like to

associate myself, too, with the remarks made by many members of this

House, and that is that it is time that this Government took the

initiative to clean up that area of pollution which is caused by

disposable bottles and by the kind of refuse that is thrown away. The

non-returnable bottle is a menace to our Beautiful British Columbia.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I do want to, report — I've heard quite a bit

today in regard to what a Minister without Portfolio does not do — I do

wish that I had more time this afternoon, and if the last member had

not taken quite so much time, I think I could have spent a couple of

hours telling you of what I have done. I do want to say this, I do want

to say this, Mr. Speaker. I do want to say this, though, that one of

the things that I have had the pleasure of working with and working on

is trying to get the Olympics for Vancouver and for Garibaldi–Whistler

Mountain for 1976, and being the liaison for the Provincial Government

with the Garibaldi Committee, I would Re to tell you that they have

done a tremendous job, the Garibaldi Olympic Committee, in representing

us all over the world. Not only all over the world to visit the I.O.C.

members to talk about Garibaldi and the tremendous mountain that we

have, the one that Nancy Green described as the best mountain that she

had ever skied on, but also, I would like to say that our Committee has

done a job for British Columbia, has done a job for British Columbia

which we can be very, very proud of.

Later this month they will be in Africa, next month they will be in

South America, and before we get to the international meeting in

Amsterdam in May, they will have visited every international Olympic

member in the world. Their reception has been excellent, and I want the

members of this House to know that it is an excellent reception they

have had and we should give them credit for doing a good job under the

auspices of the Provincial Government, the City of Vancouver, and the

Federal Government contribution. As you know, our Government has

pledged $10,000,000 to bring the Olympics here — up to $10,000,000, and

we say that the eyes of the world will be on Vancouver in 1976. But it

continues to be a good campaign for the whole of the Tourist

Department, and the possibilities of getting the Winter Olympics are

excellent. It could be that after May of this year, then, that each

member of this House can say that he or she is a representative of that

country which will host the 1976 Winter Olympics.

In conjunction with that, and because of the fine job that the

Olympic Committee has done, I would like to say that I think that

Vancouver itself, because it has been publicized worldwide as a great

skiing centre, is missing the boat just a little. I would like to

suggest today that a Ski Information Centre should be created in the

City of Vancouver to

[ Page 401 ]

promote the winter sports aspect, and to promote the winter

playground effort that we are trying to do through our Tourist and

Convention Centre. Perhaps we should give consideration to an

imaginative ski hut in the City of Vancouver which could be operated

jointly by the Canadian Ski Association, by the Vancouver Visitors'

Bureau and by this Provincial Government and, Mr. Speaker, I do wish

that the honourable member from Burnaby-Edmonds could keep his voice

down just a little so I could get the point across, because I'm trying

to get two other speakers on by six o'clock.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order please.

MRS. McCARTHY: With the interest now initiated by our

Vancouver Olympic Association, it can be carried forward to bring more

people to promote Vancouver as a winter playground, and I would hope

that we can give some thought to a very imaginative ski but, not just a

good member from Burrard suggested in terms of promoting tourism by a

highway of daffodils, I would like to suggest that that was a

tremendous spring promotion, and I would like to see the winter

promotion as a very imaginative ski hut.

And now, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to turn my attention to something I

said during the Throne Speech when I referred to the obvious tendency

on the part of the Liberal administration in Ottawa to isolate us

further and further from references to the Queen and to our British

parliamentary system. I don't think I need to document the obvious, the

removal of the Queen's crest, the many references that have been made

regarding medals and so on, stamps, the changing of medals, and that

sort of thing. I won't take the time to document them today, but it is

with real concern that I suggest that while the Liberals in Ottawa are

whittling away at our birthright, the very foundations of our

parliament system, we in the Provincial Government have a

responsibility, have a responsibility, Mr. Speaker, to preserve our

heritage. And we should bring this right here to home, and I suggest

that the Provincial Government can do this in a very constructive

manner.

I'd like to suggest, then, that these very buildings, these

buildings which we speak from today and which we have had the pleasure

of representing our constituencies in, be made available to the people

of British Columbia, and that the Government consider these

suggestions, that these government buildings be more accessible more

often, during the day and during the week-ends, in the first place

keeping the Legislative Buildings open to the public every day of the

year except, perhaps, Christmas Day. I include Sundays in this, for I

feel that the parliamentary system which we strive to protect and to

preserve recognizes the freedom of worship, and without that freedom no

system of government is free, no system of government is worthwhile.

Secondly, in adding to the staff, I would hope that we would utilize

the combined talents of the retired people that we now have working so

capably with us and utilize them in conjunction with students,

recognizing that the melding of the experienced generation and the

young generation is the best possible of the both worlds. I did have an

opportunity, along with one of the members in the Opposition, our

member from New Westminster, in working for the Y.E.S. group in

promoting the Government's contribution to the youth employment

services during this last summer, and certainly one of the things to

keep young people busy during the summer would be to act as guides in

the Parliament Buildings.

I'd also like