1971 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 29th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 1971

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 385 ]

FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 1971

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

The Honourable W.D. Black presented to Mr. Speaker a Message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.

On the motion of the Honourable W.D. Black, Bill (No. 28) intituled

An Act to Amend the Civil Service Superannuation 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 Honourable 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. 26) intituled

An Act to Amend the Sale of Goods Act,

Bill (No. 30) intituled

An Act to Amend the Variation of Trusts Act,

Bill (No. 31) intituled

An Act to Amend the Testator's Family Maintenance Act,

Bill (No. 29) intituled

An Act to Amend the Settled Estates Act.

On the motion of Mr. H.P. Capozzi, Bill (No. 34) intituled The

Protection from Computers 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.

BUDGET DEBATE

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Minister of Rehabilitation.

HON. P.A. GAGLARDI (Kamloops): Mr. Speaker, I thought that

because of the extent of the introductions and the Bills that maybe I

could get away without speaking today, but they finished a bit too

soon. I'd far sooner sit back and listen, than I would talk any day,

because it's always a lot easier, particularly to criticize someone

else, than it is to be criticized by someone.

Mr. Speaker, both the Premier and myself, when in Ottawa, impressed

or tried to impress upon the Federal Government the tremendous

necessity, today, for doing something about the unemployment situation

in the whole of Canada, as well as the Province of British Columbia.

Many times we have been asked the question, and I was asked this

question while in Ottawa, how come the rate of unemployment was as high

as what it was in the Province of British Columbia? I had to explain

that B.C. seemed to be such an attractive place that people from all

over Canada flocked to our shores, particularly from Quebec and from

Ontario, and, because of that, the major portion of the people whom we

have today, who have swelled the rolls, both of social assistance and

unemployment, come from other Provinces in this Nation.

We are proud to be able to have such an attractive area and such an

attractive Government and such an attractive climate, but it does work

a hardship upon the people of this Province. We suggested to the

Federal Government that it would be a good thing for them to consider

some type of portability so that we be reimbursed, on a reasonable

basis, for taking care of the load for other parts of the Nation.

We are not too anxious about many of the policies of the Federal

Government and some of the statements of the Prime Minister of the

Nation. I think that, many times, people think in this House that we

try to relieve ourselves of our own responsibilities by pointing our

finger at the Federal Government. But, after all, this is not so.

Because the Province of British Columbia is one of the contributing

Provinces, the Province of British Columbia is what helps make Canada,

Canada. The Province of British Columbia, I believe, carries a load of

green from B.C. into Ottawa as no other western Province, apart from

Ontario, does. Yet, we are the only Province in this Nation that

doesn't seem to be able to enjoy some of the participation programmes

that other parts of this Nation enjoy. We don't mind being treated on a

rather obscure basis, but we hate to be always continuously mistreated

as we are. I believe that we are worthy of better attention from the

Federal Government and I want to cite some of these policies today.

There are many things I could say, but I don't want to take up too much

time because there are other speakers. But I did hear the Prime

Minister of this Nation…at least, it was recorded in the press that

he said, "That there was a consideration of taking Canada out of the

Commonwealth if England did certain things." I want to tell Mr. Trudeau

that he's not talking for me. As far as I'm concerned, we will stay

with the Commonwealth of Nations. I admire a man of the intestinal

fortitude of Mr. Heath, and I pray that every day people will pray that

this man's fortitude will be sustained. I believe he is a powerful man

in the right place, at the right time, trying to clean up the mess that

the Socialists left behind. He has a tough job cleaning it up.

I think there is far too much interference. We believe in federalism

and confederated federalism in this Nation. I think that everybody

subscribes to that policy. I know the Premier has enunciated it a

number of times. Everybody believes in it. We want to be as much of

Canada as anybody else. We want to make our contribution but we want to

get whatever we have coming back. I don't think we should be pushed

around in any way. I think that, maybe, we are getting a bit of a run

around in many of the policies, today.

One of them is that the Federal Government seems to want to

interfere on the basis of social assistance cases and in some other

affairs of this Province that I don't think it should interfere with.

They pay 50 per cent of the social assistance load. We appreciate that,

but only out of the money that we send down to them in the first place.

It's our money. Then they lent us $35 million and I said that was a

joke. I meant it…for the municipalities, not for the Government, but

the Government acting as an agency. Do you mean to tell me that it is a

fair thing for the Federal Government to take our tax-dollars down to

Ottawa, let them sit down there for a little while, rush them back here

to our municipalities and charge us 8 per cent interest on our own

money? That's adding insult to injury and I don't appreciate that.

Mr. Speaker, a few days ago, I noticed in the newspaper the hiring

of a man by the name of Alex Bandy, that was the name mentioned in the

paper, but his name is Bonde, at least it was. Now, he may have changed

it, I don't know. But Alex Bonde is a man, who, I think came into this

country some years ago, 1956 or so, with some other Hungarian refugees,

and there's nothing the matter with that. But I don't know how a man of

this calibre, a man who has refused to work when he has been given a

job…we offered this man a job and he could have made $500 a month as

an assistant in a car wash plant…refused to take the job. We…( interruption ). As the assistant manager, yes. Then we told him to come back if that wasn't suitable and we would find him something

[ Page 386 ]

else to do. But he's never been back. He doesn't

have to. He has, as an employer the Federal Government, about $830 a

month. Now, what to do? Amazing what this fellow, today, is doing — running around the country teaching people on social assistance how to

defraud the taxpayers of this Province. That's what he is hired for.

There is the Mayor of Chetwynd, right in our midst, today, and he heard

him with his own ears. I have a statement of fact here from some of my

people and it's an amazing statement. It says that this man encouraged,

definitely encouraged, social assistance allowance recipients to commit

fraud.

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell the Attorney-General.

MR. GAGLARDI: I've told him. I don't need you to tell me.

Just wait till I get through. I want you to know also that the moment I

read that in the newspaper, I didn't wait for the Leader of the Liberal

Party to start cranking on his old Gestetner machine. I phoned the

Prime Minister of the Nation. I said to the operator, "Get me the Prime

Minister." In about three minutes I had his office, but he wasn't

there, or he wouldn't come.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you phone collect?

MR. GAGLARDI: I sure didn't. We can pay for the call.

Mr. Speaker, when I couldn't get him I tried the Secretary of State,

Mr. Pelletier. I couldn't get him either, but I got his assistant. I

told him to straighten that situation out in a hurry. But he didn't

know what was going on. He said, "What are you talking about?" So I had

to explain and it took me half an hour. It cost us a lot of money to

tell that fellow what was going on. He didn't know. Then I got Ray

Perrault on the telephone and I said, "Ray, I want you to do something

about this." Poor little Ray. You could see his feathers drooping, he

knew he couldn't do anything about it. Tangled up in a bureaucracy so

that he could get nowhere. Now, here's a man that, just a couple of

weeks ago was brought in front of a Court of Law, was charged with

carrying a secret weapon, was found guilty, charged, or fined, then put

on a bond. Then, the Federal Government pays this man, with your money

and mine, to go out and teach fraud against the Government. Is this a

Liberal policy?

Mr. Speaker, a few days ago, on the floor of this House, I was

called a windbag. I don't mind. After all, you are like the old farmer.

He looked around when he got kicked from the mule and he considered

where it came from. But I'd like to tell the man who called me a

windbag, that he's using the same tactics as Goebbels used years ago.

He invented the policy of attacking the strongest, most fundamental

point to try to create doubt and, when you can't do it any other way,

then tear down personalities. If I had any word for that individual, I

would say he's a blabbermouth. Not a windbag, a blabbermouth.

I'll tell you what — this man had the colossal gall, it was stated

on the floor of this House, he had the colossal gall to try and carry

on a facade, a false affair with the Secretary of Labour in the

Province of British Columbia. What for? To fool the public. That is the

equivalent of fraud. I'd suggest to the Member that he get out and

stand in the aisle and the first Federal employer who comes along will

hire him, like they hired Bonde. They need men like that. As far as I'm

concerned, if I'm a windbag, he's a blabbermouth.

I've also heard so many things on the floor of the House that I want

to take a minute or two to answer them. And you are coming, Mr. Member

from Cowichan-Newcastle, because, after all…. ( interruption ).

The former Leader of the Opposition. There was a day when they had a

Member in the Opposition called Strachan, a Scotchman. He wasn't very

much but he made a lot of noise. I'd say that he's sort of a

gas-animated…one of these bull horns or something. He does make a lot

of noise, at least, he says a few things. The present Leader of the

Opposition…these Scotchmen eat mush. He could take the present Leader

and put him in a bowl of mush and pour some milk on him and dissolve

him and gulp him in one fell swoop. He wouldn't even know he had taken

him down.

MR. SPEAKER: Order.

MR. GAGLARDI: He suggested on the floor of this House that,

after calling the system that we stand for and some of the policies we

stand for, he said, "….and you people stand for this kind of a rotten

system." Now, Mr. Member from Malahat, I'd say that was pretty

hypocritical, because all you were doing was making a straw man and

knocking him down. Well, I'll challenge you, Mr. Member from

Cowichan-Newcastle, to show me where there is any Government in the

world that tackles the problems of its people in a more vigorous,

animated, powerful, progressive basis than this Government.

Do you want to talk about Quebec? Do you want to talk about

Manitoba? Do you want to talk about Ontario? Do you want to talk about

your beloved Scotland or England? Or Africa, or Germany, or even

Russia, with its dictatorship? Or Italy, or any country in the world?

You show me one place in the world, Mr. Member from Cowichan-Newcastle,

and I'll say that we have many faults in the system. I'll say we will

continue to have, but I suggest to you, Mr. Member from

Cowichan-Newcastle, there is not one place in the world where the

people are treated better than the way they are treated here.

Along with the hypocrisy that you hear on the floor of this House,

and I think this comes from everywhere, I'm not just saying the

Opposition, but all of us, we all entertain a certain amount of

it…I've seen the Member from…now, where is he from? Brousson? North

Vancouver. I was going to say Baboon from North Vancouver but it's

Brousson. I'm sorry…and Capilano. He talks for days and days about

the great problems of flooding the Skagit Valley. Now, that certainly

is something to fight for. I don't think there is anything wrong with

fighting for that, if you believe it. You made a great political issue

out of it. I think that everybody gets up and talks about ecology, and

we talk about different things that are wrong, and pollution and so on.

But I wonder how genuine we really are, in the final analysis. I think

that the Book says it correctly, when it says we strain at gnats, and

swallow camels.

I think Nader used this exact same policy. Nader went out and made a

name for himself attacking the most influential, powerful automobile

organization in the world — General Motors. He took on a giant and he

lifted his own stature by fighting a big organization. You have to give

him credit. But what was he fighting? He was fighting the mechanical

failures of a vehicle. It's shown by statistics that only 6 per cent of

the accidents are caused by the mechanical failures of a vehicle, so

Nader was spending 100 per cent of his time on 6 per cent of the

problem.

Now, surely, if oil is to be spilled out here in our ocean and birds die, everybody is going to be concerned. I wouldn't

[ Page 387 ]

like to see a seagull or a crow, or a canary, or a

hummingbird, or anything, die. But, Mr. Speaker, I notice, here, in

this article, that comes from Look

magazine, I think it is just a few days ago, it says that drunk drivers

will kill 673 people every week of this year. Drunk people. Well,

35,000 in a year, more than Vietnam. Do you know something? There isn't

a voice raised in this House about that. A seagull can die and

everybody goes crazy ( interruption ).

What are you talking about? That's what you think the killing of a

person is. That's the nature of you, my friend, because you don't

believe in the lives of human beings. All right, then, what are you

talking about? I'm saying that these things are far more important than

anything else. We do nothing about it, absolutely nothing about it. You

know, Mr. Speaker, I think we could do an awful lot for unemployment if

we introduced a law that said that everybody who wanted to go to a beer

parlour or a bar or wanted a drink — after all, you should give people

freedom — should have somebody else drive their car. That would create

a tremendous amount of employment and it would save an awful lot of

people ( interruption ). That's

what they do in Sweden. You are in the insurance business, you should

know. Do you know what Japan does? Japan has an insurance policy along

with their liquor and, if you are killed by drinking their liquor,

then, they pay the shot. That's the way it should be here. That might

be a good thing ( interruption ).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. GAGLARDI: Now, Mr. Speaker, another couple of things and

then I want to get onto something more solid. I can't go by the hatchet

man for the NDP Party. They have had three of them to date and now they

have fastened on the Member from Vancouver East, Second Member from

Vancouver East. First, it was the Member from Burnaby and he lasted for

a little while, but he became so discredited that he had to drop out.

Then they used the very famous lawyer at the end of the line and it was

too distasteful for him and so he dropped it as well. So it was picked

up by that character and I listened on the day…( interruption ). If you did drop me, I must have landed on my head because I didn't get hurt ( interruption ).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MIL GAGLARDI: Mr. Speaker, I sat here the other day and I

listened to the machinations of a Member of this House rip people up

and down, who have no opportunity of standing on the floor of this

House and defending themselves. I don't appreciate those things any

more than anybody else does. I'd like to suggest to the Member that the

Book says that, "Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth

speaketh." If you are bitter inside, then you are bitter everywhere.

One of the tragedies is that people, who make a success of anything,

are always abused by those who can't seem to make a success of anything.

I noticed the other day there has been a number of things that have

been said by Mr. Haynes, the Secretary of the B.C. Federation of

Labour. I think most everybody has missed the main point of, really,

what happened at the opening of the House. And that, Mr. Speaker, was

simply this — that Mr. Haynes does not have the leadership of those who

were here, the labour leaders who were here. They can't have the

backing of labour. The decent labour people of this Province are

upstanding individuals who have made a fantastic contribution to this

Nation. They are called people and they are good people. Mr. Speaker, I

suggest to you that Mr. Haynes, in his desperation, picked up anything

and everything he could get and he disgraced labour. Advertising in Georgia Straight ! You can't get any lower than that, even the Vancouver Sun is above that. Imagine advertising in Georgia Straight

to get a crowd over here to demonstrate, when you are supposed to be

the lead man in the labour movement. Now, that was a disgrace to labour

and Ray Haynes should stand on the first box he can get on and should

shout to the world that he is ashamed of that display, and he should

give the labour of this Province the recognition that it deserves. I

don't think that anybody in this House wants to say, for one moment,

that labour doesn't deserve good wages, good working conditions. I want

to call on labour, today, to go to their own union meetings and throw

out this rebel-rousing leadership that puts them into disgrace. That's

what they should do. I believe that the labourers of this Province

deserve a far better deal than to be inflicted with that type of a

situation. Mr. Member, you tell me that he's elected. All right, I

suggest to you that every member of labour should be down there to

elect him and they would throw him out and you, too.

Now, I represent, Mr. Speaker, a labour riding and I've got a bunch

of proud people up in my part of the country. There are no smarter

people or better people on the face of God's earth than up there in

that Kamloops labour force because, well, they keep sending me down

here. They couldn't be brighter than that ( interruption ). No, it was the Liberals who did that.

Mr. Speaker, they spent a lot of money. People are still…. I'll

tell you, the Leader of the Liberal Party is a clever strategist. They

are still trying to figure out how those gaps in the parade appeared

and how it seemed to be able to continue on such a continuous basis. I

think, the next day, a lot of garages were working on steering boxes to

try to get them unlocked. They were locked in a circle.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to suggest to you, today, that the Budget that

was brought down the other day — any Government, any free Government,

or any government in the world, would be mighty proud to be able to

bring down this kind of a Budget. I believe that. I've looked at a

number of periodicals. I've been in a number of places around the

country and I've clipped out a few clippings here and there. I don't

know of any place in this Nation, or in the free world, or out of the

free world, that is in better financial shape to tackle the problems of

people than we are in the Province of British Columbia. I think that

has to be recognized and it is a creditable act of a group of people

and, particularly, the Minister of Finance, who manages the financial

affairs of this particular Province.

I know many people, when we first started, came to scoff and now

they have gone away as believers, because they have seen what has been

able to be accomplished. When you can put up a Budget of a

$1,300,000,000, Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you, to represent this amount

of people, with no indebtedness that the taxpayer has to pay off, I

think that's a creditable account of a marvelous fiscal policy. The

thing that makes me proud of that Budget is that 80 per cent of

it…that's right, shake your head, Mr. Ballpoint Pen, but don't shake

it too far, it will fall off…I suggest, Mr. Speaker, the reason why

you can be proud of this Budget is the fact that it is geared to help

people, that's what it is geared to. Eighty per cent of this Budget is

for services to people. I think that's a record. That's an outstanding

[ Page 388 ]

achievement, because this is extremely important. I

don't think anybody can quarrel with that. I think that it is hard,

sometimes, for the Members of the Opposition, because people are

important. We believe that. We also believe that every segment of

society has to be taken care of. We're interested in that secretary and

in that housewife and in that labourer and in the enterpriser and in

the jobless. Speaking of the enterpriser, there seems to be some idea

from the opposite side of the House that it's a sin to make a profit.

You know, there isn't any greater hypocrisy on the floor of this House

than these legal people, who stand up and talk about profit and

enterprisers in such a fashion. There is nobody here that makes more

money on nothing than these legal people on the other side of the

House. Now, pray tell me, do you work for a profit or don't you work

for a profit? ( Interruption .) I haven't got enough money to hire a lawyer. They are good people. I wouldn't hire you. That's right. Lawyers, but not you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order.

MR. GAGLARDI: Listen, Mr. Insurance Man, if I were you, I'd

go bury my head. Because the type of insurance that you sell shows how

a person has to die and those who are left behind collect it. The type

of insurance that I sell, when you die, you go home and get it.

Mr. Speaker, because people are important is one of the reasons why,

today, we have such a fantastic amount of money poured into the social

services and the education and health services of this Province. And

that's important, that's important.

Unemployment is a very serious thing and, today, we are concerned

about it. Unemployment came about in this Province on two bases. Number

one, when Mr. Benson, that famous professor…and if I had anything to

do with him, I would ship him back…no, I wouldn't put him back in the

university, I'd put him in a rocking chair, because he'd ruin any

university with those policies. I'd put him in a rocking chair, leave

him his pipe and a great stack of tobacco so he wouldn't have to move

off that chair and could stay there…because those policies,

certainly, have been devastating to this Nation…Number one, that White Paper , the people of this Nation have never gotten over. The scare of the White Paper , they still don't know what's going to happen. Do you know that when Mr. Benson brought in his White Paper ,

there were literally hundreds of millions of dollars that were diverted

from the investment field of this Nation to other parts of the world?

That's a tragedy. That's a tragedy and they've done absolutely nothing

about it to this day, except talk, nothing concrete about it, except,

maybe, in one or two small areas — in the mining field and, maybe, one

or two other areas. That White Paper ,

literally, shattered the confidence of every enterpriser right across

the entire Nation. Talk about taxing! Even if a person sold his home,

if you please, it would be a tax situation. Why, jumping Jupiter, what

kind of a Nation are we, anyway? They are pretty hungry people for

dollars and cents, when you have to get down to that kind of a level.

Then spend that money, if you please, hiring fellows like Bonde to run

around the country and teach people fraud, or else build the Bonaventure . They got the horses off the payroll, but the Bonaventure 's and the Bonde's are on the payroll. And that's not right.

Mr. Speaker, I think it's about time that some of these things were

remedied. The second thing, I believe, that has hampered a tremendous

amount of investment in this Nation, of course, has been the

inflationary measures that they have taken, or, at least, the measures

to curb inflation. You can't be too hard on the Federal Government for

trying to curb inflation. Nobody is going to quarrel with that. I think

that was a justifiable thing. I can quarrel with the methods that they

used, but I can't quarrel with the desire to curb inflation. I must say

that labour certainly hasn't given too much cooperation in this field

and I think that that's not to their credit.

Nevertheless, this Government is

anxious to do something as far as the labour situation is concerned.

Now, the problems, today, are as numerous as perhaps the people on the

floor of this House. We have embarked on a number of programmes that

are helping in just about every sector of this Province, as far as

unemployment is concerned. From the Department of Rehabilitation,

alone, up to 1,500 people a month, Province-wide, arc coming off the

roads every month and going into areas of employment. Now, along with

that, we have men coming in and, sometimes, more are coming in than are

going out. That's only because, from across the Nation, more keep

coming into the Province. It seems that the shovel that we've got

shovelling them out, isn't quite as big as the shovel that the rest of

the Nation has, shovelling them in. We're doing everything we possibly

can and I think it's a credit to this Province and a credit to the

Department of Finance, that has said, "Don't put the brakes on in

helping out where there is genuine need." That's what we're doing.

After all, we're not interested in hurting people but we are interested

in helping.

Now, to be able to tackle the problem, number one, you have to first

analyze the problem and categorize it. This we have done. We have

separated the unemployed employables and have them on a separate list.

Then we know exactly what people we are dealing with. Then we

categorized all that list. We put the mechanics on the mechanics' list,

the waiters on the waiters' list, and every type of employment — 70, 80

or 100 different divisions of employment all on different lists. Then,

when anybody calls for a man, we know exactly where to go, and we don't

need social workers, necessarily, to deal with that thing. Then we have

the pure social assistance cases and, incidentally, the Provincial

Alliance of Businessmen has been ridiculed so many times, particularly

by the Lady Member of the Opposition…always seems to be on the back

of the people who are doing the PAB work. Go ahead and deride, all you

like. But I want to tell you I'm proud of the job they are doing. They

have a record of about three and a half to one; for every application

that's come in they have been able to place, on a three and a half to

one basis, one individual on a job. That's not easy. Then a lot of

people have said to me, "Well, you are duplicating in the manpower

field." Oh, no we're not, we are supplementing. How many agencies are

there in Vancouver or in British Columbia that are employment agencies?

You can't have enough and, as long as there is one person unemployed,

there's got to be agencies to look after every segment of society, not

just one or two. We take care of people that Manpower doesn't take care

of and Manpower takes care of people that we don't take care of and we

have good co-operation with Manpower. I must say that. Manpower is

helping us out on some programmes that I will tell you about in a very

short time.

Now, the programmes that we have implemented, in the different

cases, run as follows. We have an incentive programme for social

assistance cases. We've taught them a number of things and we're using

them as case aides, nurse aides, teaching aides, and library aides. We

have a variety of

[ Page 389 ]

clerical and stenographic positions in the

Provincial Government and also in the private agencies. We have given

them the opportunity, that is, the pure social assistance case, as long

as they fit the category and it's not an abuse of earning up to $100 a

month, as an incentive. The private sector is doing a lot to help us

out. A company, a few days ago, gave us hundreds of thousands of screws

to fit washers on. So, we took them over to one of the social

assistance cases, a home where the lady could sit down in front of the

fireplace, during the day, and put washers on screws and make $150 a

month. Nothing the matter with that. We have different art work. For

instance, we take an empty box and we've taught the people, the social

assistance cases, how to do art work in their own home. Take plates,

paint them certain colours and make certain things out of them, and

take empty boxes and do the same thing. In fact, empty creatures like

the Leader of the Opposition, you know, we could really paint him up

and do something with him but you could never make him useful.

We're teaching a number of different things in the homes, so that

these people have a work-oriented atmosphere. Then we've taken the

unemployed employables. We've taken many of the young and we've allowed

them in these hostels. We're paying for them while they are there for a

few days. We teach them incentive programmes, work-orientation

programmes. The amount of young people that have been able to go to

jobs is kind of fantastic. In one month alone, over five hundred people

out of one hostel in Vancouver found areas of employment after teaching

them proper incentives; what the employer desired and what he didn't

desire; what he was looking for and what he wasn't looking for; what he

expected and so on; and a proper motivation of the young people.

Fantastic programme.

Now, we are also using many other areas of activity, particularly

with the unemployed employables. We're finding, today, that, in many

instances, there are a lot of young people, who have no skills of any

kind. In fact, one employer said to me, yesterday, he had asked for an

accountant. He put an ad in the paper. I think he got a hundred and

some odd requests to fill that job. Do you know, out of all those

requests, all those applications, he said that he could only see five

out of those applications that, really, could fit the job? Out of that

five, he thought he might be able to get two people, who could

actually, be employed. Now, there's something wrong. I'd say there is

something wrong with the schools that are not meeting the demands of

this day. Even vocational schools, with all the good jobs they are

doing and they are…You can send people to a vocational school and

he'll come out of that school with a certificate in his hand but he

still will not be able to meet the qualifications of the job, without a

lot more training.

A company contacted me and said, "Mr. Gaglardi, we've got a training

school up in Nanaimo which trains drillers. But," he said, "we can't

use them after they come out of there." I said, "Why aren't they

properly trained?" "Oh, yes, they are properly trained, but they live

in a cafe, eat the best meals, work eight hours a day or less, five

days a week, sleep in the best motel in town, sitting in the midst of a

very fine community. When we send them out on the job, they have to

walk through a foot of mud, work ten to twelve hours a day, sleep in a

bunkhouse, work seven days a week. They last five days and quit." He

said, "We want to set up our own training programme, where they are

properly work-oriented." That gave us an idea. That's where the idea

came from. So I said to my people, "We are going to start a new

programme." That programme is "in industry" or "on the job," not on job

training because we started that over a year ago. But in industry

training. Today, we have asked Manpower to help us out and Manpower has

given us good co-operation.

We have perhaps, one hundred people, right now, in about 15

different areas in the cities of Vancouver and Victoria who are

embarking on this programme after only a few weeks of activity. We have

set an objective of ten thousand people in areas, or in plants, or in

all different areas of activity, on a training basis — in a hardware

store, in a grocery store, training as clerks, in butcher shops

training as butchers, in secretarial offices training as secretaries,

in shops, training as welders and mechanics, and everybody who we can

train. Will there be jobs for them when they are through? Not for all,

certainly not, but after they are trained, on this kind of a basis,

these people can walk into any shop or any store or any area that they

are trained in, in the Nation and say, "I'm properly trained and fit

the job, right now."

Now, do you mean to tell me, Mr. Leader of the Opposition, who is

seldom in his seat, that this is the programme of a windbag. I tell

you, this programme is an active, powerful programme that I believe

will change the entire… In fact, when we were back in Ottawa, they

were jumping like jackrabbits and grasshoppers, back there, about the

plan. Manpower has given us good co-operation and they are paying 50

per cent, 75 per cent. Manpower is paying, in some instances, the

entire shot. Where they don't, they pay 50, or telling industry to pay

25. The Minister of Finance has given us the OK to pay 25. That means

that a man will be trained for three months to six months, so that he's

qualified for a job. He's going to be getting welfare, anyway, and,

this way, we are doing something that is active, helpful, and

beneficial and dignifying the human being, creating confidence, giving

him stature and giving him a feeling that he belongs to a Nation and a

Province that believes in him and has something for him to do.

I don't know of anything that could be more inspiring than that type

of a programme. Now, there are many other programmes that I could talk

about, here, for hours, in that particular area of activity. We've got

a programme for misguided youth. We're working on this problem and,

today, young people are really misguided. You know, everybody that

walks into the Chamber who wears a band, or you see on the street, who

wears a band, and lives as a Hippie…you can't class all young people

in that category…you only class a very small majority. The great

majority of young people of this Nation have been turned out and find

themselves in the situation they are in, because of the failure of the

home, the Church, the schools, the universities, the municipalities,

the communities and the Government. Everybody's played a role, a part,

particularly the home, schools and the Church. It's about time we quit

this monkeying around and fiddling around, and did something worthwhile

with our young people. Quit mollycoddling them and do something

substantial that's going to make human beings out of them. Young people

don't need mollycoddling. And these do-gooders! I tell you, they are

the ones who have caused a major portion of our trouble. You take in

our schools, today…We can blame the schools, but also blame

ourselves. I remember when I was a young lad going to school, if I came

home and told my dad or my mother that, "I got a spanking today," or

"the strap today…" In one school I got the strap for three years

every day of the week. That lady who gave me that strap, she wrote to

me, when I became a Minister of this Government, and she had nothing

but praise for me. God

[ Page 390 ]

bless her, she was a good old soul ( interruption ). Whether I deserved them or not, I got them. Yes, she should have given me more, it wouldn't have hurt me at all.

I want to tell you something. If I went home and said to my father

or my mother, "I got a strapping today," they never phoned up the

teacher. They took me to the woodshed and, before I got through, I'd

think that the school teacher was using a cream puff to give me a

spanking. Today, whenever a school teacher tries to correct a child,

the stupid parent phones up the teacher and says, "Don't touch my

child." All the bleeding hearts who stand behind that type of a policy

have hamstrung the police, and the school teachers, and the

authorities, until we've made these young people what they are today.

It's about time we woke up, straightened the situation out and did

something about it. This is a tragedy.

When a Member, on the floor of this House, stands up and says, "We

need help in our small community because we have over a hundred

addicts," I want to tell you I feel like getting out of here, on my

hands and knees, wondering what in the name of commonsense we are going

to be able to do to stem the tide of that situation. If we don't stand

behind our police force, today, and enforce the rules for these young

people the way they should be…They admire that. Young people, today,

they like to be corrected, and they want to be corrected. The way we

mollycoddle young people and fuss around with them and monkey around

with them, we've ruined more than we've ever helped because of this

situation. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that it's time that it was

straightened out. I don't know what kind of an upbringing you've had

over there, the Member who is used as the hatchet Member for the NDP,

because there's certainly something lacking in your background, that's

for sure.

Misguided youth needs help today and we're giving it to them. We're

trying to train them, we're trying to create proper motivation, we

believe in them. I've had them walk into my office. I'll never forget

and this is only one case. He walked into my office and he came in with

no shoes on. The man who runs the Vancouver office said, "You get out

of here. I don't want to talk to anybody without any shoes on. If you

haven't got any respect for yourself or this place, get out." And he

got out. He came back the next day with his shoes on. Then we found him

a job. He walked into my office and he shook my hand and he said, "Mr.

Gaglardi, I've been in jail two, three times but I think you people

believe in me, now, and I'll make you proud of me." He went out in a

training programme and as far as I know, he's still there. You know

that we had, I believe, one of the assistants in Ottawa… No. I won't

say that, because somebody might find out who it is and it might hurt

his life. I don't want to do that. We help all cases, because we

believe in young people. We believe that they have to have help, but we

think, more than anything else, they need guidance, they don't need

mollycoddling. This stupid policy of the Federal Government to try to

load them up on buses and carry them around the country makes tramps

out of them, that's what they do. They don't make men out of them.

Young people don't like to be given everything on a silver platter,

they like to earn their way. Walk in the front door. Lift their head

high. Say, "I'm walking under my own steam." Stupid policies, the

Federal Government, sometimes, puts in. I gave them a piece of my mind,

when I was down there. I told them on a television programme that it

was about time the Federal Government quit some of the foolishness.

When they tried to…when the Minister, who I was on the programme

with, when they asked him what he was going to do about the

unemployment situation, he said, "Well, we are going to spend $200

million here, $300 million there, $150 million here, $400 million

there." So, the announcer looked at me and said, "What do you think?" I

said, "You know, you can't create solutions by standing in a mud puddle

and pulling at your own bootstraps." It's impossible. Whose money does

the Federal Government think they are spending, but our money? So,

after they spend all those hundreds of millions of dollars, what are

they going to do for the encore, but go back to the taxpayer to get

some more'? So, the taxpayer has to pay the shot and the Government

goes out and keeps spending more and more. Government should only spend

what they get in. That is fiscal policy. I said to the Federal Minister

and to the television audience, "Get rid of that White Paper

business. Give this Nation a sound basis to walk on, unleash the

private sector and let them go out there and build." Twenty million

people in a territory larger than the United States of America…I want

to tell you that, if they unleashed the private sector today and gave

them a proper opportunity…they should use the shepherd plan. At

least, that's what I called it. The sheep herder he takes his sheep and

leads them around in the pastures and he feeds them the best hay and

grass that he can, so that they grow more wool. When that wool grows

nice and long, he shears the sheep. All the Federal Government has to

do, Mr. Speaker, is to make the pasture and let the sheep wander around

and eat, and then collect the taxes. That's all ( interruption ).

That's right. The Federal Government pulls the wool over their eyes, that's right. And kills the sheep, that's right.

I want to tell you that the policies should be that, if you take

care and look after people on a proper basis, look after enterprise on

a proper basis, Government's job should always be to create the climate

and then collect the taxes from the success of the enterpriser. That's

what we should be doing. The Member on the Opposite side, who got up

the other day and said that some people were making fabulous profits on

the sale of land, he doesn't know what he's talking about. He couldn't

even run a peanut stand if that's all he knows about business. Nobody

in this Province can even make $3,500 dollars without paying tax and

the more he makes, the more taxes he has to pay, so, who gets the

rake-off every time, but the Government? ( Interruption .)

You had better believe you've got a good idea. If you've got the

intestinal fortitude to say what you are thinking, get up and say it,

because you're nothing but a sham, a tragedy.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that all governments should follow that

policy. Free enterprise is a good system and it weeds out those who

can't make a success. Because that's the proper way. Nature does that.

I think it's proper for governments to help those it can help and do

its best. I think that collection of taxes, when a government can take

80 per cent of everything it takes in, and gives to those who need,

then, Mr. Speaker, that's good policy.

We have policies for the long-term social assistance cases. I don't

want to take the time to tell you about them, now — the paraplegic, the

retarded, the incapacitated — each category we are looking after and

we'll continue to look after them.

I have one more thing here that I would like to say, Mr. Speaker,

before I sit down, and then I'm through. It's this. I want to read to

you an advertisement that appears all over the world in newspapers. It

says, "Only a few hours away from big, young, growing Canada. Canada

rewards ambition and hard work with one of the highest standards of

living.

[ Page 391 ]

You and your family will be protected by social welfare programmes." ( Interruption .)

Yes, that's a Federal Government advertisement. "The Land of

Opportunity," it says. The Federal Government is telling people from

all over the world to come to Canada — and go on welfare. Then, they go

to Quebec and they go to Ontario and they don't like it, so they come

to B.C. We get them all. We are at the bottom of the hill. They come

rolling into our lap and there is no place else for them to go, except

into the ocean and we won't put them there. We'll look after them.

Mr. Speaker, again, with the good sense of the Minister of Finance,

who, I believe did one of the most outstanding things that has ever

been done in any government, when he said that everybody in this

Province should own their own home and should have the privilege of

living in their own home…those policies are sound policies. People

should belong, that is, if they want to. If they want to own a home,

they should have the privilege of doing so. I will be submitting a

brief that I presented to Ottawa, and this is something the Minister of

Finance has looked over and thinks it's a fair plan. Long before this

plan was ever thought of, this Government is so far ahead of every

other government in this Nation or in the world, as far as housing is

concerned, for we have incentive programmes on housing like no Province

in this Nation has. You'll find, when you get this brief that we

presented to Ottawa, that we have a system of subsidizing the interest

payments on housing, so that a man, even making $4,000 yearly, will be

able to live in his own home. By the Federal Government, it would have

to be on a National basis, or everybody would be in B.C. It has to be

on a National basis. This policy will see to it that even a person

earning $4,000 a year could own and survive easily in his own home. So,

this will be handed to you in just a few minutes and you can look over

it yourself. What we are suggesting is that the Federal Government,

through NHA, should put a billion dollars worth of money on the market

and should give loans at whatever rate, that is, to everybody, at

whatever rate of interest is the going interest rate. Then the Federal

Government should, apart from that, use about $200 million a year, or

whatever is necessary, to subsidize interest, alone, and there would be

a sliding scale on the interest payments whatever wage category you are

in, so that the poor, so-called, the individual, who hasn't got the

capacity to earn as much as others, would have exactly the same

privileges. That's the objective of this Government. They talk about

guaranteed annual wage, this Government's been giving a guaranteed

annual wage for years. Nobody in this Province ever goes without. We

look after them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh. Oh.

MR. GAGLARDI: Oh, yes, you go ahead and moan all you like.

The Federal Government, give them credit, they give unemployment

insurance. The Provincial Government, along with the Federal Government

and the municipalities, give social assistance to every case that

qualifies ( interruption ). Mr.

Member, you don't know what you are talking about for, if you did, you

wouldn't say that, because a person with eight children can make as

much as a wage earner who is making $850 per month. That's right. I can

show it to you.

AN HON. MEMBER: What does a 60-year-old widow get?

MR. GAGLARDI: Mr. Member, that's the Federal Government's

responsibility, and they are the ones who have shirked on that. The

Provincial Government has given them more than any other part of this

Nation. That's right. I'll tell you something else, Mr. Member, the

Province of British Columbia, for every old age pensioner, for every

person that is in this kind of need, will allow any organization to

build senior citizen homes and we will give them one-third of the cost.

( Interruption .) What do you

mean? Nobody else? Not only nobody else, the Federal Government won't

do that for you. They will charge you interest rates on the money we

give the Federal Government and they'll charge it against the old age

pension. Don't you ever tell me that kind of trash. I want to tell you

we have an admiration and we take a pride in doing our best for our

senior citizens because we appreciate them. God bless them.

Mr. Speaker, there are many other things I could say, but I'll leave

them for a while. If there are any other opportunities, and I'm sure

there will be in the time when we are on our estimates, I shall go into

any details and answer any questions at that time. Thank you for the

opportunity and all the best.

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

MR. G.H. DOWDING (Burnaby-Edmonds): Mr. Speaker, in speaking

on the Budget Speech and the Budget Debate, I want to say that I will

cover a number of topics that I think reflect the problems of policy of

this Government.

It is rather a happy choice that I was going to discuss some of the

problems that we have in British Columbia with pollution, in that I was

following the speech of the Minister, who just sat down, and we can

deal with that subject of pollution, at the same time.

In all the years I've been in this House, Mr. Speaker, I have never

heard a more unrestrained example of insult, innuendo, smear, and

vacuous nonsense, as that Member has been guilty of. We could have,

fifteen million times, drawn him short in his tracks for the insults

and the parliamentary garbage of which he was guilty, in terms of the

rules of this House. We thought we would let that good Christian go on

and have his say, get all the bile and venom out of his system. And he

talks about hypocrisy. He doesn't know what charity is. He doesn't know

what Christian grace is. All he knows is how to smear everyone around.

And he showed it today. By innuendo, he called one of the Liberal

Members a baboon. I don't know how anyone can tolerate that kind of

conduct in this House, Mr. Speaker. I don't intend to allude to it any

further, but I ask the people, who have heard his speech, to draw their

own conclusions about the Minister of Rehabilitation. Rehabilitation is

the right word for him, he needs it. You know, he takes a great deal of

pride in selling insurance to people who are going to die. This is what

he told us today. The only thing is the people who die, he makes sure

he buries them six feet under and then he never gets sued for breach of

contract when they don't come back to say that his policy was no good.

I'm willing to bet you that he's the most successful Minister in the

country when it comes to his insurance policies, because I haven't

heard of a single case of one of his clients suing him for breach of

contract, not one. So it must be working, Mr. Minister. You must be

really selling a good policy of life insurance to those about to die.

One thing that the Minister said about the job employ-

[ Page 392 ]

ment agency is that it's working hard. Maybe it is,

but, you know, it's really a closed book to this Legislature what is

happening in that agency. When you look at the Budget and the

estimates, what do you find under that Minister's department? You find

that those things that have been established over the years, in the

department that he inherited, indicate the number of employees who are

hired, what their wages are, what their duties are, all laid out in the

department estimates under the Minister of Rehabilitation. Then, what

do you find at the end of it? Provincial Alliance of Businessmen. And

what does it tell you about the employees? What they earn? What their

duties are? Their classification? Not a thing. It's just a mystery. All

there is is a vote for the Minister in that department of $500,000 — a

blank cheque, without any explanation to this Legislature by that

Minister, without any participation by the people of British Columbia

in the opportunity to get a job in that particular agency.

It's obvious. I think you'll see why. This particular branch of

Government is such a mystery, such a conundrum, such an enigma. When

you read the Civil Service Act, what does it say? "The duties of the

Civil Service Commission are…."

section 5C, "to report upon the

organization or proposed organization of the personnel of any

department of the Government and upon any proposed change in such

organization." Now I ask, Mr. Speaker, if the Civil Service Commission,

pursuant to the law, pursuant to the Act, has reported upon this

organization of the Minister or its personnel, or taken them under the

jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission? They have? Why isn't it

in the book? Why aren't the positions filled in the Provincial Alliance

of Businessmen offices? Why are they not classified? Why are they not

advertised and gazetted? Are you saying that they are now under the

Civil Service Commission? Since when? ( Interruption ).

Then, all I can say is, you are in violation of the Civil Service

Commission Act. Absolutely, because none of this has been set out in

accordance with the Act. I'm going to ask the Minister to present to

the House the Civil Service Commission's advertisements for employment

in his agency in that department. By all means, I want you to table

them with the House. I find it extraordinary that two years after… ( interruption ).

No, it's not. It's the second year. You know, it's a great mystery why

you're not prepared, if you are in operation as you say, you have

nothing listed in your estimates that show that the Civil Service

Commission was charged with the responsibility of any part of that

department. When you look, Mr. Speaker, at the kind of people the

Minister hired, on his own, without the assistance of the Civil Service

Commission, you can see it's a political boondoggle, that's all it is.

I point out that, always, this House has the duty of approving the

salaries, the amounts, the classifications, indeed, the salary of the

Minister himself.

It was quite….

AN HON. MEMBER: Right. We are supposed to approve every salary in that book and you don't list a salary.

MR. DOWDING: Not a thing listed, a complete mystery. You

know, it was quite amusing, also, to hear the Minister, Mr. Speaker,

telling us that labour deserves good wages. Saying how wonderful labour

is and how they deserve good working conditions. It's that Minister and

his employment agency who got a bunch of Portuguese people, who are in

this country illegally, who had the fear of deportation over their

heads, sent them up on the PGE where they were working a 17-hour day,

at $1.75 an hour, where they couldn't protest, working overtime,

without any supervision from the Department of Labour, and always in

fear of being taken out of this country. You call that good working

conditions to send men to! Talk about hypocrisy. Talk about

rehabilitation. The Honourable the Minister had something to say about

he didn't want to see the younger generation with a silver platter from

their parents. It makes me laugh when I think of the silver platter he

was handing out around Kamloops and Blue River, and Del Cielo Heights.

Talk about mollycoddling the young.

Some mollycoddling. You know, the average young person, today, is

anxious to get work. They are anxious to get training and education.

But the problem we have, and it's exemplified by this Budget, is that

this Government has so circumscribed the field of education and

discouraged the schools and the school boards from developing an

educational system that they want, that young people are beginning to

feel cribbed and confined in the school system. The teachers are

feeling the same frustration. The school board and, indeed, the

parents, everyone is dissatisfied with the school system and, when you

try to find out the reason, I think, you can see that it mainly has to

do with the failure of this Government to have an imaginative programme

for education or, indeed, any encouragement of imagination at the local

school level.

The best demonstration of that is in regard to the formula which, in

effect, not only circumscribes the school districts in their desire to

take a bold leap forward in education, but actually, inhibits the

school boards from daring to come close to the budget they need. One

has only to look at what is happening throughout British Columbia. Some

of what are called the lighthouse districts, such as West Vancouver,

Kitimat, Powell River — these districts had one of the highest

standards of education in this Province. Then came this new Bill 86,

two years ago, which, in effect, said that a school budget could not

exceed 110 per cent of the previous year, without having the assent of

the electors. There hasn't been a successful referendum yet, but people

are suddenly realizing what they lost, too late. What is happening with

this, it has meant the cutting out of kindergartens at the local level.

Now, is that something to be commended? Is that something that should

be dispensed with — kindergartens? It has meant that special teachers

and teachers' aides have been eliminated. Is that in aid of education?

But this is the effect, psychologically, on the school boards. They try

to cut the budget in fear and in anticipation that they will not meet a

referendum successfully and get the money they need for the programmes

that the schools desperately cry for.

Any school districts who have had the courage to start what can be

termed a lighthouse experiment in education finds it is punished,

punished by this Government. The whole idea and philosophy of the

Government is to keep expenditures down. But, you know, when you think

of it, half the time, the restraint on certain expenditures leads to

the very things the Minister was talking about in Nanaimo. If you don't

have a challenging and appealing school system, the kids turn off. They

drop out. They take up drugs and they become delinquents. Then you

wonder where all the money has to go. It goes to the Attorney-General's

Department instead of to the Department of Education ( interruption ).

It isn't nonsense, my friend, I see them every day in the Courts, the

ones who are turned off and dropped out, who see no future in the

school system, see no challenge in it, who are

[ Page 393 ]

fed up with the hypocrisy of this Government and

the system. They don't like it. They hate what their elders stand for,

now, they think their elders are hypocritical. They think that the

whole system is based on greed and materialism ( interruption ).

You say it is. The whole system is based on greed and materialism.

You simply confirm what the young people are beginning to think and I

wish you wouldn't confirm that. I wish you would hold some hope out to

them that there is a better way of life than greed and materialism.

What young person could get enthralled with the statement made last

night by the Honourable the Member for Delta, who said, "The Government

should stop all capital grants to universities and, instead, give the

money allotted to them to vocational and technical schools." What is he

saying? He is saying they are just bolts and nuts for an industrial

machine, that they don't count as human beings, they are not there to

develop as individuals, they are just fodder for a machine. This is

what he was saying. What is the philosophy behind it, Mr. Member? I can

only draw my conclusions from the fact that he's saying we don't need

universities, we need technical and vocational schools ( interruption ).

Well, you see, I can only draw my conclusion as to what he was driving

at. Why did he want to deprive the universities of assistance and

grants? Why did he want to give them to technical and vocational

schools? I'll tell you this. This Government should hang its head in

shame over its attitude over vocational schools and technical schools.

When…

AN HON. MEMBER: Rubbish.

MR. DOWDING: The attitude is rubbish, I agree with you. Do

you realize the money this Government has foregone by its indifference,

over the years, to Federal grants in the field of technical education.

You just have to compare the figures for Ontario with British Columbia.

Just compare the figures for Ontario. Do you realize how much money

they have got from the Federal Government for technical schools in

Ontario? It's staggering. Because they were alert, because they were

imaginative, because they saw the benefit of technical and vocational

schools five years before this Government.

Now, I'll agree that, maybe, the Member for Delta had some motive. I

don't know what it is, he didn't spell it out. I can only surmise, and

my surmise is that he thinks that technical and vocational school

training is essential but that university education isn't. Now, I seem

to recall him having said that previously in this House. Well, he's the

man who says that wives should stay home, that wives with children

should not work. They shouldn't believe in women's liberation. If that

were true, there would be about four women in this House who should be

at home ( interruption ). Five,

that's right. What kind of nonsense is he preaching? You know, Mr.

Speaker, I say that women grace this House. I say the women deserve to

be in this House. I say that at least half the Members of this House

should be women, as long as it doesn't include my riding. The reason I

say that, Mr. Speaker, is that there would be less of the hypocrisy,

less of the dishonesty, that we have heard in this House from that

Member, with women here. Women are sincere in their beliefs, they are

practical in their beliefs ( interruption ).

I'll withdraw, if he withdraws the insults that he made across the

Floor, attacking this Member, that Member, for dishonesty and

insincerity, and hypocrisy.

You know, Mr. Speaker, that the word hypocrite, or hypocrisy, is a

political word that's banned in this House. This Member was guilty of

it all through his speech and he didn't have the grace to apologize.

Yet, he demands an apology from me. I'm the injured party, Mr. Speaker.

As I was saying, Mr. Speaker…

HON. P.A. GAGLARDI (Kamloops): Are you going to withdraw? I

demand a withdrawal. Do you know what you called me? But you can't take

it, can you? You can give it, but you can't take it.

MR. DOWDING: People will just have to judge on their own what they think of you. And they do, they do.

But, you know, Mr. Speaker, the idea that women should go back a

hundred years to button shoes, is just ridiculous and it shows the

attitude of Members of this Government, Members on that side, that they

would even attack their own lady Members. I think it's disgraceful.

It's true that the lady Members have been prevented from expressing

themselves fully about their criticisms of this Government. They were

forced, I think, reluctantly, to accept Cabinet posts, knowing full

well that the Premier had no intention of having them be outspoken in

regard to the problems of British Columbia. It's been a disappointment,

in a sense, that they have not spoken out, as most ladies would have.

The reason is obvious. The Cabinet's solidarity. What a shame it is.

But, you know, I expect those ladies on that side of the House to

support day care centres and I'll tell you why. I want to point out to

the Honourable Minister of Rehabilitation, who has something to do with

welfare, that studies that have been made in the United States and

Canada make it abundantly clear that one of the reasons we have, in

British Columbia, 130,000 people on welfare is because we don't have

day care centres. You may think that is an unusual conclusion, but I

refer you to the Report on the Commission on Emotional and Learning Disorders in Children ,

which is sponsored by the Canadian Association for the Mentally

Retarded, the Canadian Council on Children and Youth, the Canadian

Education Association, the Canadian Mental Health Association, and the

Canadian Welfare Council. And what do they say? They point out that one

of the basic problems of the poor is that mothers with children are

tied down in a way that will not allow them to earn income, so they can

get off the welfare rolls. What do they advocate? They advocate this

Government and the Federal Government, together, sponsoring more day

care centres around the Nation to help eliminate the welfare problem

and to give these children the headstart, that so many of them need.

The same is the situation in the United States. I want to refer to an

article in Fortune magazine

of July, 1968, dealing with the welfare mess, and one of the things it

says there is, "The only objective that makes sense is an

across-the-board attack on the whole problem of welfare dependency. By

now it is widely accepted that this Nation is rich enough to provide a

minimum level of subsistence to those who have missed the train of the

U.S. economy. This means supplementing the incomes of everyone

genuinely in need, through a system that is efficient and dignified,

and that contains built-in incentives for families to stay together and

for the able-bodied to seek work. While childrens' allowances and the

negative income tax have their merits, most of the same advantages

could be gained by revamping the present welfare system. This approach

should be tried first before more radical changes are attempted.

Such a strategy will be self-defeating, however, unless it is

[ Page 394 ]

coupled with an intensive effort to pull as many as

possible aboard the economy… To get some of these people into the

labour force will require not only financial incentives, but education,

training, and a major expansion of the country's grossly inadequate

day-care facilities for children." That's one of the prime things it

points out as a solution. Now, you are not doing it for the silly

reasons attributed by the Member for Delta. Day care isn't there to

introduce the State into the education of our children at pre-school

age. Day care is there to make a family self-reliant, to get them off

welfare, to help the children in proper surroundings, so their mothers

can go out part of the day and do a little of whatever they want to do,

when they want to do it, in the way of other activities, particularly,

perhaps, when they are on welfare in work projects.

How has it been worked out, where it has been tried? I mean, really, tried. Fortune

magazine points to the situation in Chicago, Cook County. Here's what

it says. "To stem the rising tide of welfare dependency, the U.S. must

turn idle people into useful workers. For the past two years, some of

the 44,000 mothers on welfare in Chicago have been attending the

training centre shown in the pictures on the left, set up in the George

Westinghouse Vocational High School by the Cook County Department of

Public Aid." It shows pictures of it. "They get basic education courses

to bring them up to, at least, an eighth grade level, plus various

types of vocational instruction. Many mothers would ordinarily be

unable to take such training because they are tied down at home by

small children. The Chicago training centre has solved that problem by

providing day care, right in the same building. Each morning, the

mothers and their children come to school together and, while the

mothers learn various skills, their children receive pre-schooling of

the headstart variety. Government not only must provide more training

in day care, but it also must create jobs for welfare recipients, who

cannot find any employment elsewhere." The men shown in another

picture, in this same article, are drawing welfare in West Virginia

but, instead of sitting idle, they are obliged to work, in this case,

on a public building project. But they are paid and they are paid at

union rates. What a difference. Not the idea of slave labour on the PGE

in the north, by frightened men coerced to work at $1.75 an hour. That

isn't freedom, that's slavery. That's like turning them into the

welfare camps of the 1930's, where they sent men out to work for 20

cents a day. That, certainly, is not something any government should

advocate.

But I emphasize the vital importance, not just from the standpoint

of the children and the mothers, of a day care centre programme across

British Columbia, but from the standpoint of a new approach to the

welfare mess created by this Minister. Now, you realize, Mr. Speaker,

that, two years ago, when he took over this Portfolio, there were less

than 75,000 people on welfare. Today, under his administration, the

B.C. welfare roll has now swollen to over 130,000 persons in the

Province each month. Now, I don't know what he's trying to do in this

Province but, if this is the kind of capitalism that he believes in,

pretty soon everybody is going to be on welfare. When you add together

130,000 souls on welfare, with 12 per cent of the work force

unemployed, when you see figures anywhere from 90,000 unemployed

registered getting cheques in British Columbia this month, to a figure

in excess of 100,000, and add together the families that go with those

unemployed names, you'll get a staggering picture of stagnation in this

Province. Just add it together. Two hundred thousand people unemployed

and their families, 130,000 on welfare. Those aren't duplicates,

because the ones on unemployment insurance have families. If you

average it, you can see that there must be 200,000, including the

families, on unemployment insurance. There must be 130,000 on welfare

who are not getting unemployment insurance. Add them together, my

friends, and it's a staggering picture of economic decay in British

Columbia.

And this little kind of Budget, we've got to deal with that? What does it propose? Where is the imagination? It is status quo .

What are they going to do? Are they going to help make jobs? I'll tell

you, my friends, do you know where the jobs are in this Budget? I found

them. They are in the welfare department, that's where they are. I

found several positions in the welfare department, several positions ( interruption ).

They may have 25 new jobs. The only other place where there were jobs,

I could see, was where they were going to have to expand the Division

of Laboratories because of pollution in this Province. So the way they

create jobs in British Columbia is out of catastrophes. Pollution, on

the one hand, unemployment, on the other. The way they make jobs is

that they service the people that they create the problems with ( interruption ).

Well, I certainly have. My honourable friend from Burrard, surely,

would accept that the way out of the welfare mess is not just handing

out cheques. I suggested to this House that we tackle day care centres.

If that isn't constructive, what is? ( Interruption .)

Of course, we should be working in the field of secondary industry.

It's not a great proposal, it's one that has been tried elsewhere, with

success.

But I ask this House to adopt day care centres everywhere and,

particularly, where the welfare rolls are the heaviest. I might point

out that the day care centre is covered under the Canada Assistance

Programme and we would get Federal money. What are we turning our backs

on it for?

Now, I am going to say another thing about education that I think

has to be said. That is, that too long in British Columbia this

Government has managed to play the teachers off against the school

trustees, with great success. What I want to point out is that there is

another way, a peaceful way, of getting co-operation between school

trustees, school boards and teachers. I notice that the Vancouver

School Board wants to know how much value it is getting for the $20,000

a year it kicks into the half a million dollar annual budget of the

B.C. School Trustees' Association. Burnaby had to take a good look at

that, too, and they decided to opt out. I don't think that that is the

answer. I hope that the school boards of the Province will not find

themselves in that position. But what started it? The School Trustees'

Association has tried to regard there being an inseparable wall between

them and the teachers on the subject of education. They regard working

for school boards as a job where you get paid a salary, where,

annually, you meet on the field of battle and you don't talk to each

other very much for the rest of the year.

Now I don't like that philosophy. In Burnaby, they had a school

board that had a little imagination and a little bold determination,

and that school board said, "We'll sit down with the teachers. Maybe,

the teachers can help us spot the inefficiencies in the system ( interruption ).

Yes. Rather than sit on them, sit down with them. So they met with the

teachers, the Burnaby Teachers' Association, and they said, "Would you

sit on committees with us, to discuss the school system, to discuss

working conditions, to discuss the prob-

[ Page 395 ]

lems of teaching in the schools, and what

suggestions you can make that will make it more efficient, more

desirable and less expensive?" The school teachers of Burnaby said,

"Yes, we will sit down." And they did and they worked out an agreement

with the school board which, in effect, put teachers' representatives

on committees that were set up by the school board. They hope to bring

in students, as well, which I can only say is participatory democracy

and a wonderful thing. That's why kids are being turned off. They are

not consulted. What happened? They signed an agreement. It was a good

agreement because it did not go round the Public Schools Act. It said

that this agreement is subject to the overriding jurisdiction of the

school board in any matters that are decided. In other words, the

ultimate authority still resided in the school board in any

determinations arising out of any committees that met. So they took

nothing away from the school boards.

What happened in Victoria? The President of the B.C. School

Trustees' Association immediately got on his high horse and charged

around with his spear, attacking the Burnaby School Board, saying this

was giving in to the teachers, that this was selling out the school

boards, that they must stop this, that they should take them to Court

and appeal to the Government to prevent the school boards from

cooperating, in any way, with the teachers. The Minister, he jumped in

a hole and pulled it in after himself, instead of standing up for the

right of the Burnaby School Board to work out this experiment in

participation. It is working out very well. They have suddenly found

that they have common ground where they can help each other. When the

school boards find out the problems the teachers face and what the

students face, they can work out ways of saving money, and that should

appeal to the Members over there. They can also find out ways of

getting a better spirit and morale in the teaching staffs in Burnaby.

More than that, the teachers feel that they are contributing to the

work of the school board and they have, now, got a new sense of

responsibility. I think that responsibility is an important aspect of

any participation by any group in the community.

I say that this is a notable achievement, this is a step forward

that the other school boards should study and watch, see how it works.

Now, if one school board, out of some eighty-odd districts tries this

experiment and it leads to good results, then, I say the others will

see the benefit of it. It shouldn't be stopped, it shouldn't be

discouraged. It is experimentation that leads to progress, and is the

opposite of stultification that, so often, is the role of this

Government.

I wanted to deal with another matter. I'm afraid the

Attorney-General isn't here, but it's this question of the loss of

man-hours, during the last year, we have suffered in British Columbia

in 1970. It is completely disparate figures that have been bandied

around in this House as indicating the time-loss occasioned by lockouts

and strikes in British Columbia. I noticed an item in the Province

of February 10, talking about a credibility gap on lost time. I quote

from that article. It says, "Those who think legislation will eliminate

strikes are whistling in the dark. One has only to look at what has

happened in British Columbia to understand the rougher legislation is

not the answer." The above was said by none other than the Federal

Labour Minister, Bryce Mackasey in Calgary last week. Now, the

article

goes on, "It's general knowledge that our controversial rougher

legislation, properly called the B.C. Mediation Act, but popularly

known as Bill 33 because it is easier to fit into headlines, was

enacted early in 1968. Working days lost due to strikes and lockouts

since that time have gone up from 327,000 in 1967, to 406,729 in 1968,

over 407,000 in 1969. Last year's figures varied between 1.7 million

and 2.9 million man-days — a credibility gap of 1.2 million man-days,

because of discrepancy between what Provincial Labour Minister Peterson

told the Legislature the B.C. total was, and the Federal Government's

Labour Department preliminary figures for the year."

The Minister of Labour never told us how he arrived at his figures.

But I say, Mr. Speaker, it was a political arrival on a political

train. What he did, apparently, to reassess the figures he had

originally announced, is lost in the clouds. He doesn't reveal how he

got these figures and the people who were questioned by the reporter,

in this case, said, "Our figures are based on confidential figures

supplied by the unions and the companies to Deputy Minister of Labour,

William Sands. He said these confidential figures could not be made

public. He also said the reassessed figures represented a very strict

definition of who was involved and who was not. Those workers counted

in the Provincial Government figures include only employees directly on

strike or locked out." But you know, Mr. Speaker, aside from those who

were locked out or on strike, there were thousands of workers who were

unable to work as a result of the strikes or lockouts. They weren't

counted but they were man-days lost, and they were lost as a result of

a lockout or a strike. Why weren't those figures included in the

totals? If they were included, it would be the most devastating attack

on the labour policies of this Government that it's ever had. A

devastating attack. I just repeat to the honourable Member who didn't

hear it, "Those who think legislation will eliminate strikes are

whistling in the dark." Then it quotes this, at the end of the article,

"It is significant that the countries with the least labour disruptions

are the ones with the most liberal labour legislation," said Mackasey.

You would think, after a year of disastrous economic slowdown, with

more than 250,000 people involved in the stagnation of a lost economy,

that this Government would review its labour policies that have led

from 1968 to this disastrous result. Not a sign of repentance. The

Labour Minister has stuck us with a Mediation Commission that has done

two minor jobs during its life. Two minor jobs by those three

commissioners.

AN HON. MEMBER: Half a million dollars worth.

MR. DOWDING: …and this Government is going to pay them, as

the Member says, a half a million dollars for seven years of this kind

of stultifying nonsense ( interruption ).

Oh, yes, they've got a new pension plan. There is one set of employees

who are back to work all the time without having anything to do. That

is the Mediation Commission. I'd say it's time that you reviewed the

whole tragic affair of trying to get tough in the field of labour

management. They don't invite your assistance. When you interfere in

it, you only cause a further extension of the strikes and lockouts.

I want the Attorney-General to lay it right on the table. I want him

to say where he got his figures. I want the sources of his figures. I

want the names of the persons who supplied those figures. I want to

find out how many other casualties of last summer are not mentioned in

the man-days lost that he reported to this House.

Now, there is another area I said I was going to speak on very

briefly and that's on the question of the damage that is being done to

this environment in British Columbia by the

[ Page 396 ]

lack of policies of this Government. It's

absolutely scandalous that they take pride in setting up new pulp

plants, without any guarantees, throughout the Province, that they have

met the problem and the challenge of pollution before those plants were

built. If ever there were a time when we had to consider where this

planet is going, it is today. Just read this item that you may have

seen in the paper and reflect upon it: "Air-borne Metals Foul Rain.

Study charges poisonous chemicals tested on people. A Government agency

which started analyzing rain and snow to see if phosphates and nitrates

were getting into the Great Lakes through precipitation reported

Wednesday that it had discovered a major new problem — air-borne lead

and cadmium. Canadian Centre for Inland Waters in Burlington, Ontario,

disclosed that cadmium and lead concentrations in rain and snow were

above the Government safe drinking water standards in some areas. A

spokesman for the Centre said, 'Scientists had no idea there was so

much heavy metal pollution suspended in rain and snow. It will be two

or three years before we can reach any definite conclusions about the

source and extent of the problem, but this is a whole new aspect of the

pollution situation that has just been opened up."' That's in the snow

and the rain. If you've ever seen a Province with lots of snow and

rain, despite what the Minister from Kamloops says, it's British

Columbia. We've got a pretty heavy rainfall here, a pretty heavy

snowfall.

I want to know what the Minister of Health is doing about this. Is

he monitoring the rain and snow to determine whether we're getting lots

of lead and cadmium? I don't know whether the Members really

understand, yet, the extent of the problem that this poses for our

people in our environment. I read an interesting

article on it to see

if I could find out what is being discussed. Here, again, Fortune

magazine, which seems to have excellent articles on scientific

subjects, January, 1971, a recent issue, deals with metallic menaces in

the environment. It says this, "Toxic metals can get into our food, air

and water by devious and unexpected paths. A disturbing case in point

has to do with the introduction of NTA as a substitute for phosphate in

detergents. The toxicity of phosphates to people is very low, but they

foster the growth of algae in lakes and rivers. NTA alleviates that

problem but creates another. Being a chelating or binding agent, it can

lock up metal ions and carry them from metallic surfaces, such as those

of water pipes, into the tap water. NTA also may be capable of

mobilizing heavy metals, such as mercury, from lake sediments. The

possibility of such dangerous intrusion into environmental processes is

leading some scientists to conclude that we may be better off not

replacing phosphates." Fancy that! We are supposed to have

eutrophication of lakes from phosphates as the alternative, to the

means of seeking to stop the use of phosphates. "Concern for the

protection of the environmental quality is no reason to replace a

relatively defined and otherwise controllable ecological problem by

potential hazards to human health of undefined dimensions. We may well

be jumping from an ecological frying pan into a toxicological fire.

Another unexpected hazard, transformation of a metal into a form much

more dangerous than its elemental state, is illustrated by this

seemingly sudden emergence of methyl mercury as a potential threat to

public health. The mad-hatters of yesterday suffered mental instability

and tremors as a result of inhaling vapours from methyl mercury, used

in processing fur and felt. Today's concern about mercury, chiefly, has

to do with exposure of the public to organic compounds of mercury in

fish and other foods. Among these organic compounds, methyl mercury is

the worst offender because it can penetrate biological barriers with

great ease. Reaching the brain, it can cause insidious damage that may

not show up for months or years. Now this methyl mercury danger has

come out in Japan. Starting in 1953, they found more than a hundred

people had died or suffered serious neurological damage after eating

mercury-contaminated fish." And, here, fish is one of the staple diets

of this Province, one that we want to protect and foster because, more

and more, as the population grows, we are going to have to turn to the

sea for help in keeping our population alive.

I say that it's time that a serious, a really serious, effort was

made by Government in British Columbia to monitor, so we know what's

happening in the atmosphere, to monitor the rain and the snow and the

water and the rivers and the lakes and the fish. But we're not doing

the job. The Budget makes no real provision for monitoring. Where we

once had a place like Ocean Falls, remote, far up the Coast, or Powell

River, still remote from really settled areas, today, the whole

Province is now spotted with pulp mills that belch their effluent out.

Those pulp mills are not immune to the poisons that I'm talking about.

It's getting better but, you know, we're lucky if we survive. Quoting

again on this subject, on the long-littered past of clean air and

water: "Stopping industrial waste at the source would be economically

advantageous. Some materials might be recovered and reused and

beneficial from the standpoint of public health, as well. To take one

example, indiscriminate discharge of compounds of mercury, used in

production of caustic soda and chlorine and in other processes, has

created a public health hazard that is only now, being recognized in

the United States and Canada. Analobes, micro-organisms that live

without free oxygen, break the compounds down into poisonous methyl

mercury which passes from organism to organism through food change to

fish and man. In Japan, episodes of poisoning from eating fish that

contain mercury go back to the early 1950's. Just this year United

States and Canadian scientists began to detect high mercury

concentrations in the fish taken from various lakes and streams.

Mercury is only one of many kinds of harmful substances that man is

discharging into the environment and, to cope with their combined

accumulative effects, will take much more than just tinkering, even

expensive tinkering. Above all, it will take a lot of thought. Efforts

to remedy environmental ills are often lacking in imagination and

perspective. It is not enough to deal with this or that pollution

problem on the piecemeal, short-run basis. We must consider the complex

inter-action of a myriad of pollutants and their long-run impact on the

web of life, and undertake co-ordinated systematic remedies. Unless we

think more about the future, the future will turn out to be more

polluted than the present."

I just want to point out, bringing that right to home, in Penticton,

right now, there is a new tertiary treatment plant being built to

combat the use of phosphates getting into the waters of Skaha Lake.

This tertiary treatment plant is for the partial removal of nutrients

in municipal wastes and it will be tried out in Penticton, this year ( interruption ).

No, I'll explain what it's about, so you can see what I'm talking

about. "Construction is now under way on a $400,000 renovation

programme for the city's activated sludge plant, which is expected to

result in 90 per cent removal of phosphates from the city's effluent,

according to city engineer J.M. Hamilton. Work on the plant is expected

to be completed before January 1st of next year." Now, that was

[ Page 397 ]

October, 1970. This

article is in the Water and Pollution Control

magazine. "Although Penticton's new treatment plant has been compared

with the reclamation project on Lake Tahoe on the California-Nevada

border, there are striking differences. Both projects have sought to

remove nutrients from the effluent as a means of arresting

eutrophication. Both Penticton and Tahoe have had a vested interest in

keeping the lakes clean because of their recreational value. The Tahoe

experiment cost $18 million." The one in Penticton is $400,000. I don't

know how they are going to work out but I want to point out one thing.

That, if they are going to be faced with the problem that I was

mentioning earlier, of getting rid of the phosphates by putting

chemicals into the treatment centre, then, we are going to have real

trouble — if you read the report that I was just reading from to the

House. I think that that should be studied by the Minister of Health. I

think he should get in touch with those people and make sure what the

consequences of this type of treatment will be on Lake Skaha and the

Okanagan.

In my own area, in Burnaby, we are quite concerned about what is

happening there, in regard to the industrial and sewage contamination

of Stiff Creek and the Burnet River and Deer Creek. As you know, the

Burnaby Lake was to be designated as a park area for the lower regional

park and we're hoping that the lake will be available, with the help

from this Government and some from the lower mainland regional

authorities, for development in a natural setting. But to do that,

there has to be a lot of rectification of the pollution that exists

along what were once pleasant streams where fish could be caught, which

have now degenerated to the point that these streams are not safe for

man or fish.

Looking at the industrial and sewage waste there, it is evident that

quite a number of industries are dumping into that water system. I have

a list of them here. I think I'll deal with it, later, in the

particular estimates from the Minister of Health. But you get Canadian

Forest Products Mill there, dumping into the Burnet system. You've got

Domtar, Seagram's Distillery, Crain Potteries. When you look at Bordar

Chemicals that makes rosins and so on, all this stuff is going into our

water system, where we are expected to have recreation, where we're

expected to hold the next summer games. I can't see athletes swimming

in that lake, unless something's done by the authorities and the

Pollution Control Board. When you look at the Pollution Control Board,

they are not prepared to talk to the public about their findings. They

are not prepared to talk to the public about what they are doing. They

expect it all to be held in a sort of a mysterious wonder world, where

the public is never told. If you don't like something that's going on,

you're supposed to go to them. You have to prove that there is

something wrong, instead of the onus being put on the polluters to

prove that they should have a permit and that everything is right. This

pollution control legislation has the whole thing turned around. It is

totally ridiculous. Why should a man be entitled to pour his poisons

into the river or the stream? Why should he? Why has he the right to

contaminate the earth with all the industrial waste? Who gives him that

right? This Government? Surely, the onus should be on him, before an

industry is started, to prove that he will not harm the environment.

One thing they have done in the United States, in many States, in

Maine, Wisconsin, Washington, Minnesota, just to name a few States,

they have come around to the realization that the citizen should be

armed with the right to stop pollution by laws that say he has a right

to stop it. What can you do if you are a citizen in this Province? Sue

the polluter or nuisance? You have no way of succeeding, unless you are

directly affected by being right next door to the pollution. If you are

a citizen and you want to stop pollution, you can't go to Court. But,

in the United States, they have passed laws, now, that any citizen or

any groups of citizens can stop this kind of poisoning of the world,

wherever it exists, so that the industry must clean up or be closed by

the Courts. I think that's what we have to think about here — whether

this Government and this Pollution Control Board are not prepared to

police the polluters…they don't appear to be at all interested in

policing the polluters. Somebody's got to do it. Why should volunteers

always have the duty cast on them at their own expense? Why should

volunteers have to fly all the way up to Port Hardy at their own

expense, stay wherever they can get accommodation, for a hearing of the

Pollution Control Board, which was apparently prepared to grant a

license to pollute to the Utah outfit, without studying the matter,

itself, on its own research?

AN HON. MEMBER: …pre-ordained by the Premier. There he is, right there.

MR. DOWDING: That's another thing I'll deal with, later on.

There is this whole question of auto pollution and what's got to be

done about it. He's got to take a brave new look at it and I'll be

dealing with that, later. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for North Peace River.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Mr. Speaker, it's nice to

stand in my place and take my turn in this Debate. I see that you are

in your usual good frame of mind, this afternoon. I was interested in

listening to the previous speaker. All I can say is that I acknowledge

you, sir, as a master of misinterpretation. I listened and listened,

and there were very many of the statements that you made that were

taken out of context from somebody else, and explored and exploited and

blown up, and, then, given your own twist. So, all I can say is, that

it was a speech with about an ounce of fact, and two pounds of fancy.

The title was a "Fancy Speech."

Mr. Speaker, I have before me a headline from the Province

newspaper. The headline is dated June 20, 1971. That's a little

unusual, because the paper for June 20, 1971, has not yet been

published. So I'll give this to the editors of the Province

when I'm finished with it. But the headline reads: "Ecologists Flee for

High Ground." Under that I see, "A team of scientists and their field

personnel, working on a ecological study of the Mackenzie delta,

abandoned their camp and ran for high ground last night. All their

equipment was lost in the flood. Government officials say that last

winter's exceptionally heavy snow pack, coupled with the last three

days of continuous rainfall, has caused the whole Mackenzie system to

reach almost record high flood levels." The next headline I have is

under the dateline of June 22, two days later. The headline: "Town of

Peace River Flooded. Many residents fled their homes last night as the

waters of the Peace continued to rise. The mayor, after an emergency

council meeting, wired Dr. Shrum of B.C. Hydro, asking him to shut down

at least three generators, thereby reducing the volume of water until

after the flood crest had been passed. Weather office officials predict

this will be in three days. The

[ Page 398 ]

mayor said, 'Better the residents of Vancouver have a brown-out, than to flood my town off the map."'

Mr. Speaker, people may laugh at this but it could happen. It could

very well happen this year because we have had, in the whole northern

part of British Columbia, the heaviest snowfall that we've had in many,

many years, probably, in about ten years. If you combine that heavy

snowfall, which hasn't dissipated at all yet, everything that has come

down is still there, if you combine that, in the spring, with heavy

rains in June, regardless of the effect the dam at Portage Mountain has

on the upper reaches of the Peace, we could very well have a flood

condition that would again flood the whole Mackenzie delta area. We

could have a flood condition that could be detrimental to the town of

Peace River and, instead of suing B.C. Hydro, they'd be asking them for

help to solve their problems. And it could happen.

Mr. Speaker, I'd also like to speak a moment about another matter

with regard to flooding and that is an

article that appeared, last

night, in the newspaper. The

article says, "Skagit Flooding Backed by

Hope Board of Trade." It's quite an interesting little article, not

very long but it does indicate that the Board of Trade of the city of

Hope, rather than fly into this argument about flooding Skagit, did a

comprehensive survey which covered a period of four months. The survey,

after it was completed and they had all the facts before them, they

decided that this was not such a bad idea and they had the courage to

get up and say so. Now, I'm no authority on the Skagit Valley. I'm not

referring to any motion. I'm no authority on the Skagit Valley. But, I

do say, Mr. Speaker, that the Hope Chamber of Commerce is to be

congratulated for taking a stand. Nothing more. They made their

statement and they took a stand. They are to be congratulated for that

because, in this day and age, very few people are prepared to do that ( interruption )

No, not at all. Mr. Speaker, I have some knowledge of the

misinterpretation and the misrepresentation that goes on with regard to

areas that have been flooded, because I live in the area where the

Portage Mountain Dam is at and I have seen the result of telecasts, and

newscasts, saying what a holocaust that lake is going to be. True, I

agree that when it was first flooded it was a very great mess,

unpleasant to look at, unsightly ( interruption ).

But, just a moment, sir. If you had followed the progress of that

particular project the way I have, you would see that, today, the

reservoir behind that lake couldn't be compared with the condition of

it, two years ago, there's been such a great improvement. In less than,

I would think, another three years, three to five, it will be one of

the greatest inland bodies of water for recreational purposes in all of

British Columbia and in all of western Canada. It is a tremendous body

of water, right now ( interruption ).

You can't, right now. I'm saying in a few years' time, Mr. Member, if

you were listening. I agree, you shouldn't go on that reservoir, right

now, until they can get it completely clean. But when it's done, it

will be a tremendous recreational resource. Right now, Mr. Speaker ( interruption ),

I'll tell you what time, Mr. Speaker, right at the moment. You can go

into the reservoir into the…no, not a 300 ft. boat…into the streams

that run into the lake and, this year, many of the sportsmen from that

area took rainbow trout anywhere from 3 to 5 lbs. in size. These same

streams, that we fished a few years ago when they were just running

into the Peace River, produced rainbow trout never larger than one

pound or a pound and a half. These streams now produce rainbow trout

running from 3 to 5 lbs. They are being taken out of that lake right

now ( interruption ). Fly fishing or small spinners.

Mr. Speaker, there has been an attempt, I think, by the Leader of

the Opposition to play down the development of the north. He made a

trip up that way this year, I guess, although I didn't see him in Fort

St. John. It was a very fast trip and, so, after making a very fast

trip through the area, he became another one of the ten-minute experts

who we have to deal with. Everything that he saw was terrible. There

was no progress taking place in the north, according to his statements.

I would like to spend just a few minutes talking about a few of the

things that are going on right now.

For instance, the town of Chetwynd. Sure, they have a problem, that

they are overcoming with regard to housing for native people. They are

making a genuine attempt to overcome it by creating a subdivision,

especially for those people, by getting a low-cost housing project

going. There's also the prospects of a very large coal mine, a few

miles from Chetwynd, and they are gearing up for that. He called it a

shack town. He couldn't be further from right. He mentioned Hudson Hope

and said that the place was collapsing and falling apart, mainly,

because of the reduction in the work force. Certainly, there has been a

reduction in the work force up there but, also, there has been a great

increase in the tourist industry into that area. There is a prospect of

a very large coal mine. It's being actively looked at by a firm of

consultants, engineers and the local people, Mr. Speaker, have sunk a

considerable amount of their own money into a survey to determine just

how feasible this coal mine will be. It looks good on paper, the

financing is being arranged and this is another one of the projects

that could be off and running before long. So there is a tremendous

amount of development taking place in the north.

Fort Nelson is a town that's gearing to receive the benefits of the

rail extension which is being pushed northward. It already is a centre

servicing a tremendously large area. Its population will grow by leaps

and bounds in the next few years and, I think, it's good to see that

happen.

I'd like to spend a few minutes if I may, Mr. Speaker, talking about

the Budget, with respect to the Department of Highways. I see that

there is a slight increase in the amount of money that will be

allocated for highways this year — $8 million, if I am correct. It is

interesting to see that, because that's about what I really need to get

on top of some of my secondary and market road problems in the north.

So, I am sure, he must have allocated that especially for those of us

who have a tremendous amount of roads to look after. As a matter of

fact, I checked the road register, here, just the other day. All of us

talk about roads and road problems, so, I thought I would take a look

to see just how many miles of road some of the different constituencies

and areas in the Province have that must be serviced.

In Saanich, there are 559 miles of road open that are the

responsibility of the B.C. Government. North Vancouver, 608;

Chilliwack, 394; Kamloops, 1,235; Kelowna, 603; in the Nelson area, the

Minister's own area, 601; but, in Fort St. John, 855. So, if you go on

the basis of the number of miles of road that we have to service in

relation to some of the other areas, it's not much wonder that I stand

in my place in this House and tell you I have highway problems till

they are coming out of my ears.

I'm also happy to see the allocation of $15 million for parks and a

parks programme in the Province. I'm sure the Honourable Minister is

going to put this to good use. I would like to know, though, if,

perhaps, the whole $15 million are going to be allocated to, perhaps,

two large park projects in

[ Page 399 ]

the Province, such as Long Beach and Cypress Bowl.

Perhaps, he would take my suggestion, which would be to develop a

hundred smaller projects and put $150,000 into each one of them. I

would think that that would be a better way to handle the matter, or,

if he can't do that, put half of that money into some of those major

projects and the other half into some smaller projects within the

Province of British Columbia throughout the whole area.

May I comment for a few minutes on the use of snowmobiles in the

Province? You know, I spoke on this matter, last year, in the House. At

that time, I suggested we needed legislation. I'm on my feet today to

reaffirm that fact. There was a mention of it in the Throne Speech

Debate and I hope the Minister does come in with legislation, in this

respect because it is creating a problem, not only in the control of

snowmobiles used in the areas where they can rightfully be used, but

also it's creating a problem of a nuisance effect in organized

communities throughout the Province. Not too many people appreciate

having their next-door neighbour wind up a snowmobile at ten, eleven,

or twelve o'clock at night, and this is being done thoughtlessly by

some people. Not too many people appreciate having a snowmobile roaring

around on the streets of a town or a city, and this is being done. A

lot of young people are using these machines, which now can reach

speeds of 80 miles per hour. They are far too young, really, to be

handling a machine that is that dangerous. Some of them… I've seen

children 10 and 12 years old, on a machine by themselves. This isn't

right, Mr. Speaker, those machines were never built for children to

handle. Yet, parents, for some reason, allow their children to use

those machines. I don't think we can legislate against children using

the machines if their parents, themselves, won't look after them. We

can put something in legislation over the control of snowmobiles, but

we can't legislate parents into looking after their children the way

they should. But it's about time that people who own these machines

realize that they can be as dangerous as any type of motor-driven

vehicle that we use today. They are killing people, today, on

snowmobiles. There are just too many accidents. I think we need

legislation to control them and I think we need not only legislation

but we need people who have a more genuine concern about the use of

those machines, themselves, or when their families are using them.

Mr. Speaker, the Members of the House have all been circulated with

a notation that they would be allowed to bring student groups into the

gallery this year and I think this is a good thing. I, myself, have had

the pleasure of introducing students to this House on two occasions in

the last two years. Those students travelled a long way to get here and

I know they enjoyed their stay in Victoria. This year, however, I

thought I would like to tell you about a special Centennial project

that the high school in Fort St. John is planning. I'll read from a

letter I just received from the supervising principal of North Peace

Secondary School, because I think it is something worth sharing with

the Members of this House. He refers to the legislative trip and says,

"We'll not be coming down this year. Instead, we are trying to arrange

a one-day flight around the Province for approximately ninety students

as a Centennial event. On this trip, we will hope to develop history

and geography of our Province by flying over, around and near

historical and geographical points of interest. Essentially, we plan to

leave Fort St. John, fly down the Rocky Mountain trench, over Mica Dam

to Kimberley and Cranbrook, thence west over the southern part of B.C.

to Vancouver and, after a meal stop, up the coast to Skagway,

Whitehorse and back to Fort St. John." I think it is a tremendous

project and it's going to cost the students in the neighbourhood of

$100 a piece to charter this aircraft. They are working hard on the

problem of trying to raise the money. I would hope that the Provincial

Secretary, who is not in his place, and the Minister of Finance, would

hear my plea, if later on this year, I have to come to them ask them to

help bail out the students and make a grant, not a large one, in order

to see that these students have an opportunity to take a trip, which

they probably will never repeat in their lifetime.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to spend a few minutes talking about a part of

Canada, which is relatively unknown to the majority of our population.

It is called the Green North and it covers an area of Canada running

from Newfoundland through Labrador and Quebec, south of James Bay and

then across northwestern Ontario and through Manitoba, Saskatchewan and

Alberta, where it splits into three parts. One leg goes into the

Northwest Territories, up to the Mackenzie River Valley to the Arctic

Ocean at Inuvik and Tuktoyaktuk; another into the Yukon Territory; and

a third into the Prince Rupert sector of British Columbia. It is called

the mid-Canada development corridor. It is really the boreal forest

area of Canada, one which many experts refer to as the future

mining-hydro-forestry and petroleum empire of this continent.

Today, I wish to confine my remarks to that area in British

Columbia, which runs from Prince Rupert through Prince George to the

Alberta boundary and, hence, north to the top of the Province. This is

our part of the area which we classify as the Green North. The question

most often asked me is this one: Should it be developed? The truth is,

most of the area has been under development for years. Firstly, by

individuals and, often, in a random fashion. Later, by groups and small

companies, who had the initiative and the fortitude to take high risks

and gamble everything they owned in the hope that they would come out

of the venture with a reasonable income. This is an area which I am

more than a little familiar with because I live in it. Conversely, it

is also an area few Members of this House and an equally small number

of residents of southern British Columbia, have ever really visited or

know much about. Many people still consider northern B.C. to be a cold,

desolate, inhospitable land, inhabited by a few white people and,

according to a CBC television programme, a tribe of Indians losing

their traditional hunting grounds because of the rising waters of

Williston Lake.

Both concepts, of course, are completely false. Anyone who has spent

part of his life in the Prairie regions of Alberta, Saskatchewan or

Manitoba, immediately realize that weather conditions and life,

generally, is comparable and compatible with what he has experienced

before in those areas of Canada.

To some extent, those of us living in northern B.C. must accept part

of the blame for these uninformed opinions. We, apparently, do not sell

our story often enough, or tell it well enough, or tell it to

sufficient people to convince them differently. This is unfortunate,

Mr. Speaker, for, in my opinion, British Columbians, including all the

recent immigrants to this Province have one of two choices, really.

Either they will join with those people willing to take some risks, in

order to accomplish goals in life which are not readily available to

individuals, today, and will join in the ever-increasing number of

people occupying the growth centres of north and northeastern British

Columbia, or they will

[ Page 400 ]

become

part of an ever-increasing population in the lower mainland areas of

this Province, a population whose density soon will become such that it

will suffocate us in our own pollution. It is a serious problem. You

cannot continue to pile ever-increasing numbers of people into the area

between Hope and the sea, without multiplying many times your social,

psychological and economic problems, which are beyond your capacity to

deal with. We will add another two million people to our population

well before the turn of the century. As a matter of fact, by the turn

of the century, it is estimated that our population will be in excess

of eight million. I hope that, for the benefit of ourselves and the

children who will follow us, that density of population is spread out

into the whole length and breadth of this Province, spread out in 20

cities, each with a population of 100,000.

The undeveloped areas of this Province are rich in minerals, forest

products, gas, petroleum resources, we have water in abundance. It will

be with improved transportation facilities, a tourist's paradise. The

climate is acceptable for working and living conditions and, I think, I

can attest to that. The terrain is accessible and suitable for

development. The resources are abundant and well distributed. Many

settlements upon which we could build modern cities already exist.

North and south transportation routes already exist in most of the

Province. One of the only missing links, not presently on the planning

boards or under construction, is a road from Fort Nelson to Fort

Simpson. Believe me, Mr. Speaker, when I say this is a matter that I am

working particularly hard on.

All we need are people, capital, foresight and initiative to develop

the greatest Province in all of Canada. This should be our goal for

Centennial Year. What better way could we honour the pioneers of

British Columbia than to set our sights on developing the whole

Province, not just the southern section? This is why, Mr. Speaker, I

make no apologies for placing upon the Order Paper the motion I did,

concerning regional disparities, and I completely and irrevocably

reject as just so much claptrap the remarks of the Leader of the

Opposition, when he said B.C. was negligent in their duties by asking

for Federal aid in development of these great resource areas.

The development of northern British Columbia, and for that matter,

all the great Green North, should be part of the National development

policy. The development should be a total Canadian undertaking,

financed by both public and private funds. We should not accept

anything less. Mr. Speaker, we are not a bunch of carpetbaggers going

to the National Government, hat in hand, asking for a hand-out. We are

part of a great Nation, whose greatest concern at this time is to find

jobs for unemployed people, and we want part of the money back that we,

at the present, distribute to Ottawa.

You do not provide jobs by increasing the number of welfare

recipients. You do not provide jobs by increasing the amount of money

that we dedicate to welfare purposes. You create jobs by developing our

natural resources, by creating instant towns, with all the attendant

services and vocations, where a few years ago there was nothing. Look

at the Budget. The blueprint for a prosperous British Columbia in the

next decade and, really, for many decades to come, lies in the map

shown on page 13. This Government's contributions are told many times

over, in pictorial form, starting with the cover and continuing through

the full 56 pages of the Budget.

Mr. Speaker, living in northern British Columbia is just as normal

as purposeful minds and competent hands can make it. True, we need

planned, co-ordinated and orderly action. If there ever were to be a

Centennial project, worthy of testing the metal of every British

Columbian, this is it.

It grieves me, Mr. Speaker, when I look around and see many British

Columbians too busy trying to keep up with the Americans, or too busy

trying to imitate the big city slickers, to realize that they have,

within their grasp, the greatest opportunity left in the Western

Hemisphere. The challenge is there and so is the opportunity. But who

are the people that are, really, looking at it with more and more

dedication? I'll tell you who it is. It's not our fellow Canadians,

it's not British Columbians. It's people from across the line, it's the

Americans, the same people we are trying to imitate, today. They

realize the type of opportunity that still exists in northern B.C., at

this time. We have no one to blame but ourselves if, through our

ignorance and our lethargy, we sit on our hands while our neighbours to

the south take full advantage of the opportunities available,

opportunities available to every man who has the guts to grasp them.

They are there.

Northern B.C. residents are fully aware of the development policies

of the Honourable Premier and the Members of this Cabinet. They are not

deceived by the waffling and the smokescreens that are thrown up by the

Members of the official Opposition or the Members of the Liberal rump

group across the House. They are not deceived by that. They know and

applaud the fact that the policies of this Government have always been

predicated on the development of all of British Columbia, not just a

small

section of it. But, today, more than ever before, the residents

of northern British Columbia have their eyes pointed to the south. They

are looking to the south, particularly to the city of Vancouver, Mr.

Member, to the businessmen of the city of Vancouver, to the

industrialists of the city of Vancouver, to the financial institutions

of the city of Vancouver, to the labour unions concentrated in the city

of Vancouver, and to the everyday citizens of this great city. The

question they are all asking is this one, sir: Where do you stand on

northern development? You either support it or suppress it. You are

either for it or against it.

Mr. Speaker, in this respect we are not prepared to accept halfway

measures. We are looking for more than lip service from the combined

business acumen of the greatest city of western Canada. We hope for, we

look for and we expect that, with the help of people from the lower

mainland, we will be able to build British Columbia into the greatest

Province in all of Canada. And that, Mr. Speaker, should be the

Centennial project of every British Columbian. Thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable the Minister of Agriculture.

HON. C.M. SHELFORD (Omineca): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure

for me to have this opportunity this afternoon. I'm sorry to say, first

of all, that there isn't an apple on your desk for your apple a

day,…. I don't want to see everyone leave at once but there is an

apple for everyone in the Sergeant-at-Arm's room. I hope every Member

will do as much as I've done to promote the apple industry in this

Province. I hope you will, when you move around your constituency,

rather than talking about how bad this Government is, you would just do

a little promoting and try and sell some of our products. You can come

up into my area any day you like. We like you up there because you

make…no better time

[ Page 401 ]

than summer to come up…best place in British Columbia to live in

the summertime. We welcome anyone to come up there, whether it be

summer or winter.

I was interested in what my friend from Cowichan-Malahat had to say

yesterday and I'm sorry he isn't in his place. He showed a tremendous

lack of imagination and I suppose that's the reason why he never was

Premier of this Province, because of his lack of imagination. When he

was discussing, in answer to my friend the Minister of Mines,

multi-use, he called over and said, "What else can you use on land from

a strip mine?" I think that was his correct statement and I would refer

him to an

article in the Colonist of February 2, where it says, "Apples

Coming from A Coal Mine." It goes on to say, "Today some of the

juiciest apples in the supermarkets may come from a coal mine,

everything from schools and $500,000 homes to golf courses and State

parks now occupy abandoned strip mines in various areas of the U.S."

Apparently, it is quite possible to grow…( interruption ). You'll never

grow them up in your area. But it does point out that one of the nicest

racetracks in the U.S. was developed from a strip mine. We only need to

look at Butchart Gardens, if you think that nothing can be done from an

old mine. You all say, "So what's a hundred million dollars?"

Another point and I don't want to take too much time…

MR. SPEAKER: The Member from Vancouver East is not in his place.

MR. SHELFORD: If he were in his place, Mr. Speaker, he would

not be in this House. He'll say that about me. The only other point I

want to bring up, Mr. Speaker, which I took exception to this

afternoon, was the remark by the Honourable Member from

Burnaby-Edmonds, when he was criticizing the Member from Delta for his

statement about pushing vocational schools and technical schools, which

are doing a mighty fine job. He went on to say that he didn't think

these peo