[ Page 385 ]

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 1970

The House met at 2 p.m.

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

On the motion of the Hon. L.R. Peterson, Bill (No. 15) intituled Jury Act was introduced, read a first time, and Ordered to be placed on the Orders of the Day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

On the motion of the Hon. L. R. Peterson, the following Bills were introduced, read a first time, and Ordered to be placed on the Orders of the Day for second reading at the next sitting after today:

Bill (No. 14) intituled An Act to Amend the Supreme Court Act.

Bill (No. 13) intituled An Act to Amend the Payment of Wages Act.

BUDGET DEBATE

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Minister of Agriculture.

HON. C.M. SHELFORD (Omineca): Mr. Speaker, I would first like to congratulate you on being chosen the Speaker of the House. I've sat here for some time listening to the debate and I must say it's been very interesting, some of it extremely good. However, there has been some that I will say has been not so good, in fact it bordered on pretty nearly stupid statements, if I might be permitted to say so, and the one particular, the statement that I think went to the top of the list, is the statement by the member from New Westminster criticizing the Minister of Lands and Forests for his statement to tell labour and management to try and work out their differences in a business-like manner. Now, this statement was turned around to say that it was anti-labour and if I've heard of anything stupid, I think it's that statement, because I think practically every member in this House would agree that labour and management should do more of working together as a team, rather than the way they have been going on in the last few months. I certainly don't think there is any place for statements such as that, and I hope the member will do a little more thinking before criticizing a statement which, I think, was one of the better statements made in this House this Session.

Now, in taking my place in this debate, I would first like to thank the people of Omineca for returning me to this House as their representative.

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

MR. SHELFORD: I was here ahead of you, too. I must say the people of Omineca didn't like your statement that you wanted power development to be left until 1984. Then we had our friend from Vancouver East who said in the House that we've been going too slow, and I was wondering whether his policy fits in with your 1984 policy, or whether it starts off from our policy today. You better have a talk to your friend from Vancouver East. He's on a different leadership race, I think, to you.

Now you know, Mr. Speaker, there's no doubt there will be difficult times ahead, at least for a month or so, due to the short-sighted policy of the National Government since World War Two. Now with the progressive policies of this Government, it is plain for all to see that had the same policy of pay-as-you-go been followed by the National Government, we wouldn't be paying out over $1,800,000,000 in interest charges each year before any money is spent on services to people. Just think what could have been achieved in Canada if this amount of money had been set aside in a mortgage fund which could have been used for housing or other desirable projects like hospitals and schools. $1,800,000,000 a year for all the years since World War Two, you can see, would have been a mighty healthy sum of money that could have been used for these services.

There's no question, speaking of my own particular area, that rural electrification, communications, road and rail, schools, and hospitals will be all vital problems in the years ahead, but I'm quite sure that the long term future is bright as long as we watch and don't borrow too much money at high interest rates.

Speaking about northern development, and I know my friend from Vancouver East will laugh, because his development of the north extends to New Westminster, but mine goes up as far as Atlin. I was very interested in my visit to the Atlin area, and the tremendous potential of this area in hydro, mineral, timber and other resources, and I agree with many things that the honourable member said in this House the other day, that this does have to receive a priority to get this part of the area opened up. But I would like to just remind the member that he said we were advancing at a snail's pace.

In resource development, for instance, in Alberta the Federal Government paid out over $76,262,000 towards the extension of the railway up to Pine Point. In the province of Quebec the Federal Government spent a further $7,431,000. The question I would ask, what has happened to grants in assistance to the Pacific Great Eastern Railway, in our endeavour to get communications up into the area of Atlin, which my friend spoke of the other day? I hope my friends in the Liberal group will send a message back to Ottawa. What happened to the Liberal policy that got bogged down in a swamp 50 miles north of Prince George, because the Federal Government did pay a subsidy on the P.G.E. to 50 miles north of Prince George? Now there happens to be a swamp north of Prince George, and so I guess their policy got bogged down in this particular swamp.

Now what about the extension of the Pacific Great Eastern Railway from 50 miles north of Prince George to Dawson Creek, Fort St. John and on up from Summit Lake to Fort St. James, and Fort St. James up to Takla Lake and on up to Dease Lake? Now why, if one rail line in one province should qualify for subsidy, why shouldn't the Province of British Columbia and the Pacific Great Eastern Railway?

I hope to see, in the years ahead, as my friend from Atlin mentioned, that all of these northern areas will be opened up and made accessible so that we can take out the vast timber and mineral resources of these areas. It's an absolute must in Canadian development in the future, and I hope our representatives in Ottawa will recognize that this is a must and we should move forward as quickly as possible. I hope to see many new rural areas served by rural electrification, as there's still many farm communities that are not so concerned about the rates of power, but they are concerned about the need for power at all. One of the problems, of course, that is facing the rural areas, is the fact that the cost of construction of lines is increasing so fast. In fact it was not many years back when we were considering the cost of

[ Page 386 ]

$4,000 a mile, and now we're up to over $6,000 a mile, which creates the real problem in the development of power to the farming areas.

I hope to see the completion of paving on various highways in my riding during this season, but I would like to say how much the people of the area appreciate that Highway 16 is now completed and they can drive clear through from Prince Rupert right through to Jasper, and I think the results of the last election indicated how much the people did really appreciate this work that had been done. I don't think the day will ever come when we don't have problems on highways, and we'll have to continue to build as we go along.

I hope one of the things that comes in the 70's will be a better understanding between all peoples in our communities, especially between the native Indian people and the white communities in the areas throughout the north. In many areas, and I hope all people within these areas will take note, that in many areas the only way they can advance is with mutual co-operation. As I mentioned earlier on management and labour, mutual co-operation, because one group can't go ahead without the other, and I would hope that there will be closer working between the two groups in the years ahead.

I was interested in my friend the Minister, Mr. Munro, from Ottawa, when he visited Indian communities and said there wasn't any real problem in housing in British Columbia, and I would urge him to go up to Fort St. James, Takla, and some of the northern areas of this Province, and I'm quite sure he wouldn't go back to Ottawa and think that he'd solved all the problems of housing in British Columbia.

As I mentioned earlier, the only way we can advance is with a team approach, and this type of approach is why countries can do so much in times of war when all groups can get together and work hard for a common goal as a nation, and in my opinion right at the moment it doesn't appear that Canada does have a national goal, and it's something that I think we need very badly, so that we'll all be striving to do something better in the future. No one, for instance, in the time of war would stand for ports to be tied up and locked out by lockouts or strikes, as it would damage the war effort, but last year we saw our ports closed three times, damaging our ability to deliver to our customers on time and, of course, our reputation as being reliable suppliers. 40,000,cases of apples had to be re-routed to Seattle at a cost of $1.40 a case to the farmers of the Okanagan, in order to carry out delivery commitments to New Zealand. Now it had taken many months or even years to negotiate a sale to New Zealand, and we could have lost it at a moment's notice if it hadn't been that we could have got a movement of these products out of Seattle. We lost 23 head of cattle which were being shipped to Korea, partly due to delay in shipping. $75,000 worth of cut flowers were lost during the Air Canada strike, and these markets were lost to other countries. The whole world is within our reach as far as our agricultural products are concerned with air freight, but we also have to remember that our competitors can reach here, too. It's a two-way street.

We certainly won't solve our economic problems, in my opinion, by the high interest rates and high taxes recommended by the National Government. You'd only add to the spiral increase of inflation, because those that are trying to build homes with the high interest rates, of course they have to demand more in order to pay these rates. And by these policies, of course, it puts people out of work. I think we should all remember that for every 100,000 that are put out of work, it's 100,000 less that can buy back production, and there's no point in production at all unless it can be used by people, and by this it further creates more unemployment.

Now we've heard a great deal about the White Paper and no one can stand up here and say that it would help Canadians develop their own industries or their nation. Being as we haven't heard many ideas out of Ottawa lately, I'll try and give a few hints that I think might be helpful to my Liberal friends back there. My personal opinion is that it would be a better approach, instead of the taxing methods that they recommend, that it would be a better approach if the individual or company would have the opportunity either to invest the money that he would be paying in taxes back in Canada, or pay the taxes — he'd have the two choices. This you might call an "invest in Canada" policy. Or an even better approach might be that the taxable amount should be paid into a Canadian Development Fund, with a reasonable interest share going to those who pay, and the Fund used for needed development projects. Now this should be done, in my opinion, on a regional basis, because if the people of this Province pay a great deal in taxes that would go into this development fund then, of course, the development money should be used in the western part of Canada and, of course, there would be at least three areas or more in Canada.

But I do think we do need a fund where we can invest in our own country and keep the control here. Millions are needed in the mortgage field for home builders at reasonable interest rates, and by this method thousands of Canadians would soon be part owners in their own industry. This would soon build up and could be loaned out to Canadians who wish to start businesses, and they would no longer have to rely entirely on foreign capital. This type of a fund would be, I am sure, welcomed by everyone, from the farmer who is trying to diversify from wheat production to beef cattle or feed lots, and the contract logger who wants to go into the pulp harvesting business, or the other thousands of Canadians that want to start businesses of their own. By this method, which may have some weak points, but certainly not so many as are laid down in some parts of the White Paper, and after several years at least over 25 per cent of the people of Canada would have a direct share in the ownership of this fund. With the extra capital coming in year by year, plus interest, this fund would help bring interest rates down, or I would hope it would, and it would soon build up from not just millions of dollars a year, but would finally end up to billions and over, which could be used for the development of Canada. I think we want to rely on ourselves, a little bit of self-help is a lot better than anything else.

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

MR. SHELFORD: That's why I said it should be done on a regional basis, because that's what it would boil down to, that is true. No doubt my friends in the Liberal group would not support such a suggestion, as they didn't support the possibility of British Columbia owning 25 per cent of the shares of the Bank of British Columbia. Now it is odd that they should oppose this, and the first members of the Senate opposed it a lot more, when we have here a clipping out of the Province of Monday, February 9th. It's headlined "Share Buying proposed by Ontario Liberals". At least the Ontario Liberals acknowledge that they goofed. It says, "The Ontario Liberal party believes that the Federal and provincial governments should buy up to 40 per cent of the common

[ Page 387 ]

shares of holding companies specializing in mining ventures, northern development, general industry activities and such like." So it looks like at least the Ontario Liberals are taking a new look at their policy.

Now in speaking on the Department of Agriculture, I would first like to say how much I appreciate the hard-working staff in this Department. I would say it's the best group I've worked with since my days in the army, because they are a group of people dedicated to doing something for people, and I think they deserve a great deal of credit.

In 1969, and I don't intend to go through the whole report from the Department of Agriculture, but I intend making copies available to the members and they can go over my comments and, of course, they'll have an opportunity in not too long, when they will be able to ask questions on what it really meant. I know they are all waiting for this moment, and I would too, if I was sitting there. If I was sitting there, I'd be meaner than you are.

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

MR. SHELFORD: I always speak for the people of Omineca, and that's why I'm a little bit mean sometimes, even with you. To my friend from Cowichan-Malahat, I was quite interested the other night when we had a strike, and all the members left the house excepting two, and my friend from Cowichan-Malahat, he quit leading the N.D.P., but I have noticed he's taken on a new role of leading the Liberals, because when he got up he signaled to the Liberals.

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

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

In 1969 the gross farm cash receipts from the sale of agricultural products were $206,000,000, down slightly from the previous year for the first time in many years, and this drop can be attributed to the reduction in receipts from the tree fruit industry which got hit so hard by frost last winter, grapes, berries, and especially the Peace River area, when they were hit by severe weather conditions. I would like to point out that the farm community is not adding that much to inflation, when we get discussing inflationary measures, because the farm groups are not contributing to this, and the income from grain sales in the Peace River will be down from around, the farmers in the area tell me, from around $12,000,000 down to about $3,500,000 this year, which is a terrible drop of income.

It was for this reason that I recommended an emergency meeting of the governments across Canada to discuss ways of moving our surplus grain to the markets of the world. I've received support from several provinces in Canada: Quebec, Ontario, Saskatchewan, and Alberta. But I would point out right now that the support has been really disappointing from the farm organizations across Canada, and it would seem that this is where the real push should come, is from the farm organizations trying to push both Federal and provincial governments into trying to get out and sell Canadian products, because that is exactly what we have to do.

Now in speaking on the problems of the Peace River area, I must tell you a story of what my friend sitting across the way was doing the other day in his spare time. He went out to a hardware store and bought a hammer for a dollar. The next day he was back and he bought two hammers for a dollar each, and the next day he was back again and he bought four hammers, and this went on for a few days and finally the fellow in the hardware store said, "What goes on here?" he said, "how come you buy all these hammers for a dollar apiece? What do you do with them?" The farmer said, "Well," he said, "I go out and" — my friend across there — "I go out and sell them for 75 cents apiece." And the hardware merchant said, "Well, that's kind of odd when you buy them for a dollar and sell them at 75 cents, you're sure not making much that way." And the fellow said, "Well," he said, "it sure beats farming!"

I would like to point out that the British Columbia farmers, even though I'm not satisfied with the income they are receiving, I would like to point out that in 1967 they achieved the highest net income per capita in Canada and have maintained this position ever since, and they have received less in the line of Government subsidy. For instance, the average net farm income in British Columbia is $4,260 per farm, and the lowest in Canada is Prince Edward Island with only $913 per farm. Now as far as subsidy per farm in British Columbia, we are the lowest in Canada, where we receive only $72 per farm in subsidy payments, compared to Quebec with $572 in subsidy payments per farm, and these net income comparisons would be even more impressive if our figures were based strictly on commercial farms. However, we have a large number of retirement and hobby farms in this Province, and their inclusion tends to reduce some above the averages. Now, for instance, we do have more part-time farmers in this Province because it is a nice place to live, and so it does bring our average down, and I'm quite sure if you use just a commercial farm basis, of those actually fanning and making their living on a farm, that the figure would be closer to $10,000 or over, rather than just $4,000 which is shown by the Federal statistics — this is not ours, by the way, either — this is done by the Federal Government.

We expect, in the very near future, a report by the Federal Task Force, which we would hope will lay down some policy ideas for future agricultural policies. Now, I don't know whether we should be too hopeful. We have a group carrying out this inquiry, and goodness only knows what recommendations may come out. But one thing we do not want to see is prepaid assistance be discontinued from this Province, because so many of our farms base their whole operation on freight moving from the prairie regions or Peace River region, better still, so this is one policy we are watching very closely in the department.

I have got enough material on agriculture here, on the things that are being done in this department, to keep us going on all afternoon, but I think most of these things could wait until my salary vote comes up and we'll be able to ask questions and, I hope, some answers during that time. We've been working very closely with the Federal Department of Agriculture on the joint programme such as ARDA farm labour for each crop insurance acceptor, and a new ARDA agreement, we hope, will be signed in the very near future. One of the newer programmes that's coming out is Canfarm, which will put the computer to work to show a farmer where he makes his money and where he loses his money, and quite a number of farmers show interest in this programme, and we are quite hopeful that it will be of great benefit to the farming community in the years ahead.

Another thing we are moving into as quickly as possible is public information, to try and get information from the department, because as I mentioned earlier, we have an

[ Page 388 ]

excellent staff in the Department of Agriculture, but I'm not altogether satisfied that the information that they have available is always getting out to the farmer that can use it, and the information here in Victoria is of no use at all unless it gets out to the farmers. It's just a waste of time and we have so many competent people that can give this advice, I think the farming community should take advantage of this service.

A great deal of research is going into trying to get rid of pests, and I don't refer to the Opposition when I mention this. We don't have a spray for that yet, and we don't want to see you out of there because we kind of like some of you, especially on that side of the House, and we intend keeping you there. On our pesticide policy we have made many changes during the last year, tightening up regulations so that people can't go out and buy freely and another thing, we have a collection agency so that if people want to get rid of pesticides they can turn them over to various agencies for collection — Department of Agriculture, Health, Recreation and Conservation offices, etc., because we don't want to see poisonous pesticides poured down toilets and such like, which might get out into water systems. This is something we don't want.

Now we've made many changes during this last year which no doubt, we can discuss in detail later on, but D.D.T., aldrin, dieldrin, endrin, and heptachlor, are all taken off our spray calendars this year on recommendations of what farmers should use. Some of you saw a picture the other day on pesticides, which I am disappointed a few more weren't able to come over and see, because I think it was quite worth while to show what is being done. I think we can show a better picture in British Columbia than what they do in Ontario, I'm quite sure of it. We have set up a new committee to study this problem which is made up of Agriculture, Lands and Forests, Highways, Recreation, Municipal Affairs, to find out what types of pesticides are being used now, and what type can be used in the future, because I pointed out at least five that we call hard pesticides that we've taken off our spray calendars. If other groups are not using these types of pesticides to any extent, then there is no good reason why they are still marketed, and maybe we'll have to pick them up later on.

I think I should say a few words on our crop insurance programme. I think crop insurance is a very good programme, and I would hope that the farmers throughout this Province wig recognize that it is good to have protection in case of disaster, because I've farmed too long, and know that disaster can strike; I think any of you that watched the picture last night of Pan Phillips on the cattle drive from over in the Nazko into Quesnel, that he even had disasters over there in the form of grizzly bears eating up his cattle. But there are so many types of disasters that can strike agriculture, from bugs to drought to frost to too much rain, like in the Peace River, that I do think a crop insurance programme is necessary, and we are trying to carry out improvements as fast as we can that will make it fit modern agriculture. We paid out, I might say, a lot of money during this last year to help out, and in the Peace River alone nearly $2,000,000 will be paid out, and if all farmers had insured, we would have been paying a total of pretty near $6,000,000 into the Peace River region, and we also are paying out over $1,000,000 into the fruit crops in the Okanagan.

One thing I just should mention, as a point of interest, is that an agricultural college was started in Saskatchewan to train veterinarians, which is a joint project among the western provinces. I think it is an excellent approach, because there's not that many trained, but it is interesting to note that there are 26 students enrolled in this college and at the present time 13 come from British Columbia. Because our students stack up so highly among the other provinces, the ratio is high enough that we get half of the total, which is a pretty good record, and I think we can say congratulations to our friend in Education.

As mentioned the other day, an investigation was carried out by another Federal Royal Commission, on farm machinery. Now the findings of this Commission really weren't too surprising, because we sent out this information to farmers and to the Federation of Agriculture and others, pretty nearly a year before the report came out, and so it didn't surprise us too much to find that the farmers could buy machinery in Great Britain for about half what they could in Canada. One of the interesting things, I think, in this report, and I think everyone should take note of the fact that Barber mentions that since the farm machinery companies were international in scope that it was questionable what action the Federal Government could take. I think this is a point that is worthy of note. because it is something that should concern all of us.

Now it is very possible that the same might be said in the field of fertilizers, and I don't mean the kind that you fellows are thinking of right at the moment, but no doubt the farmers of Canada are questioning the wisdom of the Federal aid to small businesses, because when a farmer has to buy his fertilizers and finds that they are far more expensive than they are in other areas, he starts asking the question, "Why should the Federal government be encouraging small industries?" I mention these small industries, because the farmers' union mentioned some time ago the fact that the Federal Government had paid $5,000,000 subsidy to Imperial Oil to set up a fertilizer plant in the prairies. Now I'm not questioning whether there should be area incentives for poor areas, but I do question paying out $5,000,000 as a subsidy for fertilizers, when we could obtain the same products from Japan for $20 less and pay no subsidy at all. I don't think subsidies such as this solve anything, whether you call them a subsidy or a tariff, they amount to the same thing.

When you're speaking of farming, there's no question in the very near future we'll consider fish farming as a part of farming, and I would just like to quote you from a Scottish scientist, where they did some more experiments with controlled temperature sea waters, and found that 20 flat fish can be raised per square foot. Between them, the experiment shows that a tank ten feet by 20 feet could produce a ton of fish in under two years. The cost would be one-quarter of a cent per pound, and there you can well see by this here again, production is no problem as long as you can move your products to the markets of the world. A fish farm. A fish farm on these lines, covering three square miles only, could produce as much fish as the entire British in-shore fishing fleet, the scientists claim. "That is one population explosion that the world should be glad to see, " it ends.

One of the programmes that we are extremely proud of in the Department of Agriculture is our 4-H programme. We think this is one of the best programmes for training young people to be leaders in the years ahead, and it is a good programme and we try to encourage more people at the local level to assist in this programme. When we are talking about inflation, sometimes agriculture is being condemned for being inefficient, and I must say I resent these charges very much,

[ Page 389 ]

because I would point out that in 1928 a dozen eggs cost 31 cents and today they are only 38 cents. And you can go back to the turn of the century and you can find out that it would be less. So agriculture doesn't contribute to inflation, because I don't think you can point to another industry that is more efficient than agriculture.

We produce a good product at a low cost, and if anyone thinks we don't they should take a look at the Federal booklet on food costs which I supplied to the committee last year, and I hope they will give it another took this year, that the number of hours an individual works to buy his food is far less today than it was 20 years ago. In fact, he only has to work 13 hours today for the same amount of food, the same quantity and of better quality I might say, where he had to work 20 hours back in 1949. So I would say the consumer is getting an excellent product at a reasonable price, but I don't think you can say the same for the automobile industry, farm tractors, fertilizers and various others. None of them can show the efficiency of the farmer, where he has produced at this level and maintained quite a low price over the years, and one of the reasons is that he is one of the few that doesn't practise price leadership of some form, which I have maintained for many years is detrimental to the consumer.

I am skipping through a lot of the material on agriculture — I am glad to see someone happy when I sit down — but I thought the members would be interested to have a little information on the Agricultural Aid and World Disaster Fund and where it stands at this moment. Now at this time I would like to report to you as chairman of this Fund. We had many interesting meetings with foreign representatives this year, not as many as I would have liked due to my accident last summer when I was laid up for some time. One of the best meetings was when we had the Colombo Plan Conference here in Victoria, which gave us contacts with many governments from the Pacific Rim areas. Following this, we hope that the agricultural leaders of this area, we have invited them — my Deputy did just recently — to hold their convention here in 1971 Centennial Year, because we feel that it is only through co-operation with the other Pacific Rim nations that all areas can move ahead together, and no doubt it will help our markets also. I hope all nations in this area will come, because according to statistics, which are not altogether accurate I wouldn't say, in this regard, but it is certainly better than 1,426,000,000 within this area, which is a very large trading block if we can get sales in this area.

The potential for trade is unlimited providing that these nations improve their standard of living. Some people, I must say, have the mistaken idea that if this is done it will damage our trade because they will produce what they need. But I would point out that the reverse is true and we only need look at Japan and Korea to see the increased trade goes along with the increased standard of living. Last year Canada exported, through British Columbia ports, $337,875,000 worth of food products, and there is no question that this is only the start. As the standards of living of these areas improve, the demand for meat and such like will increase a great deal, along with wheat to a certain amount. Eric Moore from the B.C. Fruit Growers Association had this to say, "At the present time there is no opportunity to sell our apples to the People's Republic of China. We regard this market as having a great future potential as the standard of living improves." Some will no doubt say, "Well, what has this got to do with agricultural aid? "It has a lot to do with agricultural aid, because the more we can help them to help themselves to improve their standard of living, the greater opportunity there will be to trade. It is not easy to sell a ton of wheat to someone that is starving with no money, but the someone that has a higher standard of living and wants to purchase goods from this area. Some object to trade with some of these countries. I don't. I certainly don't, as I developed the philosophy, while I was overseas during the war, that if a person didn't shoot at you he was a friend, and if you treat him properly at least some day he may be your friend, even if he isn't your friend right at that moment, and that is the philosophy I have always worked on ever since I was overseas.

In meeting with the Colombo Plan delegates we found that their problem, like ours, as I mentioned earlier, was money. They received loans from various countries at high interest rates and often found they were worse off than they were before, as nearly their total revenue was going to interest payments. But I would again like to point out that the real wealth of a nation is not money. It is the services you can give to people which is the real value.

I would say the money-lenders have the farmers beat a mile. The best a dairy farmer can do is to skim off between five and seven per cent butterfat from his milk, but the money-lender is certainly doing an awful lot better than that, he is skimming off between eight and a half to 24 per cent, and he makes us farmers look like a bunch of pikers, I might say. I would say it is the same as being in a poker game, and I know quite a lot of you have never been in one, but some of us have that bad habit once in a while, but it is the same as being in a poker game and the house taking away 10 per cent of every pot. I think you all know what happens if you have ever been in these games. The house ends up with all the money and the players all broke. This is what is happening on the international development field, that the money-lenders are taking off too high a percentage and all of the development countries are not doing too good, and they will do worse when some of these payments come due. It is something that can't continue too long. I would say this condition can't last, and the financial institutions of the world had better sit up as they can't keep the developing nations down just because the western nations controlled all the credit at the start. Because otherwise it might be something like in a poker game, someone finally gets hurt if this kind of a thing stays too long.

I think the first principle of agreement, and this is speaking as far as the world community is concerned, we must arrive at during the 70's should be that all people must have the right to food first, and second to shelter. I don't think there would be anyone in this House stand up and contradict that. The question would be how to achieve it. Some try to make out that this is impossible, but this kind of thinking is not supported by the World Food Organization's recent report from Rome, where they say right at the moment there is sufficient food for all if it was properly distributed to many of these nations. Even if there isn't sufficient food today, we have so many capable people in Departments of Agriculture and in science that can show us what can be done in the very near future, and I don't mean by 10 years or anything like that, I mean a year or two years, because most of the high-producing nations right at the moment could produce six times as much in a very short time if it was possible to move it to other areas.

A second question someone may ask, well, the problem is transportation. I don't really think this is a problem either, even though it is more difficult than production. So this leaves us one hurdle to the goal of food for all, and that is

[ Page 390 ]

again money, and again I repeat that this has to be solved. The young people of the 70's won't stand what the young people of the 30's stood for, and I hope they won't, where you see starvation in the midst of plenty.

There hasn't been anything new come out of international finance for the last 100 years on how the developing countries could be helped, and I think it is about time that they sat down and started doing some real serious thinking. Our aid programme is in two parts. One is to disaster situations such as Nigeria, Tunisia, and some others. The last part is the most valuable, and we hope to help train people in their own countries in the methods of modern production. Now we think this is a sound principle that we should be training those people in their own countries rather than bringing them over here to train them in Canada, and we have such a nice place naturally they want to stay here, but this doesn't help the developing countries. So we think it is a far sounder principle to try training them in their own countries. One type of aid which is being considered and, we hope, with the help of those in the Federal Government and other aid agencies which we are working with, is to provide scholarships and such like. We are told that there is one area in the mid-Pacific where they have a beautiful university but no students because they don't have any money to pay for tuition fees. Now we are proposing to give it at least $75,000 in scholarships to help these students get into universities and learn modern production methods.

In discussing foreign aid and improving the standard of living of developing countries, there is one thing we don't want to forget and that is the fact that without family planning there is no long-term solution. I think we all have to accept that. One grant we made last fall was a grant of $5,000 to Korea. That was to buy milk here in Canada and ship to Korea. That was one of our first under this fund.

I would like to announce right at this moment, Mr. Speaker, that Mrs. J.J. MacKinnon, chairman of the B.C. UNICEF Committee, is in the House today, and I would hope that she will stay for at least 15 minutes after I sit down, because I have a cheque for $25,000 that British Columbia is donating in aid to Nigeria.

I would further like to mention that already 16 metric tons of K-Mix milk are on the way or are already there. These supplies were purchased in Denmark because they could be moved to Nigeria far quicker than they could from Canada, and speed is something we have to consider in aid along these lines. I was doing a lot of work and looking into possibilities when the Biafran situation was about at its worst, and I met with several in Ottawa with possibilities of aid, but about that time the war ended and so this followed on that there is still a real need for aid and I know the people of British Columbia will be very pleased that they are doing something in aid. If it is possible to obtain whole milk powder, which right at the moment there doesn't seem to be any available in British Columbia, we will send a further $5,000 worth of milk to Nigeria.

Another area we are studying at the moment is Tunisia, where they had a disaster late last year and it wiped out 50,000 homes in one flood. In this case food is not the real problem because they are close in to the surplus food production areas of Europe — France and such like — where they have large surpluses and so there is no need for food, and so in this case we moved to my second principle. I mentioned earlier that the first in the 70's has to be food for all, the second shelter — and in this area we are considering aid in the form of plywood from British Columbia which will be shipped to Tunisia, and we are already negotiating ways and means of trying to get it there if the need is still there.

I hope to report from time to time on this Fund and also hope it will be possible during this year that I will be able to visit some of the areas involved. But I want to stress, again, that one of the first principles I think we should work towards is as much self-help as possible, because you can see by the experience of the Americans, that by giving people something quite often doesn't bring you friends. But the Canadians are regarded very highly in practically all countries because they believe in the principle as much as possible of self-help, and we certainly want to move in this direction. We are trying to keep the administration costs down to nil because we want every dollar possible from this Fund to go to needy people somewhere in the developing countries.

Again I would like to say how helpful the contacts were when we had the Colombo Plan people meeting herein British Columbia, and I would also like to acknowledge the co-operation from the various agencies involved.

I would like to acknowledge the help of the Federal Government — and I hope my Liberal friends are listening to this one — because they have worked very well with us, and I think it is in programmes such as this that we should always work closely. I would further say that the Federal Department of Agriculture and the Provincial Department of Agriculture work very closely in all fields, and we have had very good relations and I hope to maintain those good relations with our friends in Ottawa, even though I criticize their policies sometimes and they criticize mine. I thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Kootenay.

MR. L.T. NIMSICK (Kootenay): Mr. Speaker, fellow members, I've been up on this debate a good many times in the past years, but each time it always gives me that much more pleasure to have the opportunity of making my contribution in all debates in this House, because I feel I'm doing it in the interests of all the people of British Columbia.

I was very interested in the Honourable the Minister of Agriculture's speech. I always look ahead to his talks. He gave a very good talk, but years ago I looked to his speeches with far more interest than today. That was the days when they called him a maverick, but the Premier learned by experience what to do with mavericks, anybody that gets to be a thorn in your side. Because the Premier was a thorn, if I remember when I was first here, a thorn in the side of the Coalition Government for awhile, and they failed to act. At that time they should have put him in the Cabinet and they would have solved a problem. So this is a lesson to all you new members, don't be frightened to be a maverick because the best you can do, the worst you can do, is to get to be a Cabinet Minister.

In commenting on some of his talk, I notice that he referred to the speech made by the honourable member from New Westminster, and he said he made a stupid statement. I think that he wasn't listening as well as he should have listened at the time that the member for New Westminster spoke, because at that time he was critical of the honourable Minister of Lands and Forests for his statement, not on co-operation between management and labour, but on the fact that he made the statement that a dark cloud was hovering over British Columbia for 1970 in regard to labour problems. I thought at that time, when he also spoke about the strikes in British Columbia and the damage that has been done by strikes — and I was listening the other night to

[ Page 391 ]

somebody and they said that a lot of business people were not coming to British Columbia on account of the labour unrest — I thought the Minister was going to once again strike out as a maverick and advise the Government that they should take out the compulsory clauses in Bill 33, and we probably would bring about settlement in strikes a lot quicker than what you're doing at the present time, and better co-operation between management and labour.

The strike that was settled just the other day by Bryce Mackasey, I'd like to say I was very pleased to hear Bryce Mackasey give a great deal of credit to Harold Winch in the settlement of the strike with the longshoremen. Harold was a leader in this House for quite a long time, and I think he's got a lot of credit coming to him with his knowledge and understanding of the people. This is what this Government fails to have, is understanding of the people in regard to these matters. They think that they can wield a big stick and they can bring about solutions. You can't do this. You've got to have an understanding of the problem before you can bring about proper solution.

In regard to pesticides, the honourable the Minister said he has taken them off the calendar, these hard pesticides. I thought he was going to say that he had banned them, or that he was intending to ban them altogether from British Columbia, and this is a move that should be made, not just taking them off the calendar. I didn't understand that they were banned altogether, and as far as I can understand the farmer can still use them and he will use them, in some cases, as long as they are on the market.

When he was speaking of the farmers not being inflationary or causing inflation in the country, I think he was correct, because I think the farmers are a victim of big business, and this Government represents big business, and although I know that the honourable the Minister is really representing the farmer, but he's got a tough gang around him to do any business with.

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

MR. NIMSICK: You said, Mr. Minister, that there was plenty of food in the world if it were properly distributed. I can't quite understand how you can follow a policy of the present Government if you really believe that we should properly distribute the goods in the world, because you are not going to do it under the present economic setup. You are going to have people starving right in your own back yard. You've got people on the prairies today that are really in a blackout because they cannot get rid of their wheat. You've got people right in our own Province. We talk about sending shelters to Biafra or Nigeria or some other place, but we've got lots of people living in shacks that are not fit to live in right in our own Province, and we are doing nothing about it. I don't hear you say anything about it to the rest of the Cabinet, to tell them that something should be done in this regard.

Now the one thing I noticed in listening to the talks by a great many members from the other side of the House, and some of the new members, is their criticisms and their very harsh criticisms of some member of the Opposition, that is the honourable second member for Vancouver East. I want to say to you, to the members across the way, and especially the new members, that you do not know what the duty of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition is. They have got to be the watchdogs of the Legislature. They've got to see that justice is not only done but that it appears to be done.

I want to bring back to memory some of the things that have happened in this House over the years. Back in 1956, when there were charges made in this House and they denied it, they called "smear" across this Chamber time and time again. They went to the country crying in their beards that we were nothing but a smear party, that there was no truth in the statements that had been made in this House. Prior to that there had been a police investigation. The Government sat on the police report for two years and did nothing about it.

AN HON. MEMBER: And knew all about it.

MR. NIMSICK: And knew what was going on. Then they went to the country and won an election on it. Following that we had a by-election, because somebody made another charge in this House and, finally, one of the Ministers had to go to jail for it. I'm surprised Mr. Speaker, when I listen to members criticizing the Opposition when the honourable member from Vancouver East had discussed the conflict of interest that went on, and brought it to the attention of this House, and I say, Mr. Speaker, that a warning is far better, far better, then having to cure things later on. And if this is only a warning….

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

MR. NIMSICK: I'm not saying, but I say if it is only a warning. But he brought up to this House that there was a conflict of interest, and this is the thing that the Opposition has got to do, and this is their duty to do. If they see it and they fail to do it then they are not representing the people of British Columbia the way they are supposed to represent.

Rather than be critical, rather than be critical, we stayed up all night here in 1956 on these issues, and I just want to bring it back to the memory of those, and let those members know who were not here at that time, what had happened and how it happened. But I think the member, rather than be criticized in such a fashion that he is being criticized, you could at least — I know that you don't like to congratulate him — but you should at least keep quiet until you're positively sure what's going on.

Last week, Mr. Speaker, we listened to two very fine speeches in this House. I think that they were very constructive, although the Government side said that the Opposition is never constructive, but they say that, I imagine, with a smile on their face. The member for Yale brought up the question of preventative medicine in the Province of British Columbia, and I am sure that every member of this House took cognizance of that speech, because whether we like it or not, this is what is going to come, and regardless of which Government or what Government brings it in, it's going to come. You've got your pilot plans in the country working today and they're working successfully, and all we need to do is to widen them out throughout the country and we've solved a lot of the problems that you have today.

Then the member for Atlin got up and gave another fine talk, I thought, on Indian affairs. You know, when he was talking it made me think of the trip I had to Hawaii. I was talking down there to a….

AN HON. MEMBER: You go to Hawaii?

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

[ Page 392 ]

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

It put me in mind of a talk I had with a Hawaiian on the shore down there. He was making straw hats. He said to me, "When the missionaries first came here they came with the Bible under their arm and the Hawaiians owned all the land." He said, "Now the Hawaiians have the Bible under their arm and the missionaries own all the land."

AN HON. MEMBER: That sounds familiar.

MR. NIMSICK: And that's quite familiar, that's quite familiar here, too. As I was riding in the bus I talked to a bus driver down there and he said, "You know, when the missionaries first came here they came here to do good," he said, "and they've done very well."

AN HON. MEMBER: That sounds familiar.

MR. NIMSICK: So in Canada we could just pass that on, when the white man first came to Canada, when they got the land from the Indians. I don't know whether the Indians have got the Bible under their arm yet, but the honourable Minister should see whether he couldn't get them to get the Bible under their arm maybe. And now this Government, with our natural resources, are giving those away, too, to other countries, so I don't know, I think one of the things the Indians made a mistake on is not having a strict immigration policy in the years before the white man came, and maybe they'd have a better solution to the problem.

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

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

I think that many of them had probably better organizations than we have today. They looked upon land as being community and for the use of everybody, not just for the use of individuals, and the other individuals have got to walk down the road and cannot trespass into their property.

The member for North Okanagan, and she isn't here today, I was rather interested in her talk about planned families. A few years ago I brought up a question here in the House, and asked that our curriculum in the schools should include a course for married life, a course explaining the pitfalls, and how to budget, and how to look after a family, and planning of the family could all come in this course in school. This is the time to do it. Not after they grow up. That's too late. You've got to do it in the schools because there you have an audience that can't get away from you, and if it's a part of the curriculum then you could teach it to them. I say to the honourable Minister, the member from North Okanagan, that she should appeal to the Department of Education to put a course in the schools…. Well, it wouldn't bother you, Mr. Minister, at your age, at this stage in the game. It won't worry you.

The honourable the Minister also spoke of the future of British Columbia. She said that the future of British Columbia was ripe if we plan properly. I say she was right in this respect, and we have got to plan the future of British Columbia properly, and we've got to plan depletion of our natural resources, and whether they're for recreation or economic interests, in a proper way or we are not going to have a beautiful British Columbia for too long.

At the present time, as I stated in my last talk, we are giving out coal licences all over the place, because there is a sort of a coal rush on right at the present time. One of the big dangers of this is that you are going to build up little towns in different areas of the Province, and if coal doesn't hold up you'll have little ghost towns in different parts of the Province, too. I say that the coal development, and we've got lots of it, should be developed in the proper way and not scattered all over the Province. Use them up as you need them, and move around the Province as you need them, but not until that time. You know, it's a sad commentary on the intelligence of the human species that it is not able to plan adequately for its own survival. Civilized man has become dominant and now that civilized man has become dominant in the organic world and has every advantage, as the honourable, the Minister of Agriculture stated, that we have plenty of food for everybody, it seems rather odd that we should be headed pell mell for oblivion ourselves.

The Minister of Social Welfare, I just got a few words to say to you, honourable Minister of Social Welfare, in regards to your talk the other day. Well, I think your new policy to a great extent is correct because — and I thought that you would at least give me credit for having suggested it several years ago — because here's a quote from the Vancouver Sun, March 29th, 1968.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yours truly, yours truly.

MR. NIMSICK: "Reorganized Welfare Urged."

"Leo Nimsick called for reorganization of welfare for, unemployed employables, widows with children, and handicapped." This was back in '68 I advocated that, and I'm glad that you have adopted this categorizing the welfare. I'd like to see the mothers — of course you're going to change the name, which I understand might help matters some in taking the stigma of welfare out of it — but mothers with children should have this by right. The Provincial Alliance of Businessmen are not too happy about it, because there could be certain privileges given to some business people that wouldn't always be given to others, maybe, and we might run into difficulties.

I'd like to quote a letter from a man from Burnaby, I believe it is, North Vancouver. This man, he's out of a job. He wrote to the Provincial Alliance of Businessmen and he said, "I've been unemployed since last June through no fault of my own. My company, Bering Industries Ltd., was put out into mothballs for two to ten years." Now he's a man that was in charge of this. He was rather worried because another fellow was sent over to see you and you recommended to him to go to a certain job on a wash rack, but they wouldn't accept him because I guess he probably may be classed as one of the hippies today. But this fellow was wondering why he didn't get the chance to go to this job which he would have accepted, and he didn't get that chance.

I'd like to say something about the dangers of your suggestion in regard to rehabilitation, and I agree with you wholeheartedly with rehabilitation in itself. I think we've got to get the unemployed employables, or the people that are physically unfit or partially physically unfit, we should try and get them something to do. But if we're going to help these partially unfit people that cannot do a day's work, I would not like to see the Government start to subsidize industry in these cases, and another man taken out of a job and come around and have to go and apply for welfare some

[ Page 393 ]

place else. Also, if you're going to give this any subsidy at all, let's give it to the Government. We've got a big enough staff and a big enough organization throughout this Province to use some of these paraplegics and people that are crippled and cannot look after themselves. We can make jobs or have jobs where they can be used, and we would be paying the subsidy to the Government, and we could give these people a better standard of living. Because I am sure that these people, if they're put into private business and the private business is subsidized, that it'll create problems in many respects.

The $5 increase that's going to the welfare, I think it is an insult in some cases, especially the single people that are physically unfit to look after themselves at all. They get $75 a month, $75 a month to feed themselves and clothe themselves and to have shelter, and to get $5 extra. You know, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, how much you can purchase with $5 today. You can carry it almost in the palm of your hand, if you're buying meat, to get $5 worth today, and these people have got to live. I say that it's a damn disgrace if we, or a darn disgrace, if we can't look after these people a little better. They should get a little better than a $5 increase a month. I'm not saying that you didn't maybe apply for more than $5, but it's not enough and it's more of an insult to these people than to do them any real worthwhile good.

Now in regard to the Budget I'd like to say the Budget is a sort of a knick-knack Budget — a knick here and a knack there, you know. It gives a little bit more here and a little bit more there, but the whole Budget is not quite keeping up with the increase in population of British Columbia, either in education, welfare, or anything else. We give increases. When we speak of increases to the welfare, we give increases all the way through with the Government, but welfare got the smallest, puniest increase of all, and I think this is wrong. I'm amazed when I listen to the Minister speak about being debt free, and then he asks for us to give permission to borrow $250,000,000 more, which will bring our contingent liabilities up to around $2,500,000,000. When the honourable Minister of Agriculture spoke about the amount of interest the Federal Government was paying, and what it would do in building houses and that, don't forget, on $2,500,000,000 contingent liabilities at 6 per cent you're paying $150,000,000 a year interest on it — that's just at 6 per cent, $150,000,000 a year interest on it. Now how many houses, Mr. Speaker, would that build? How many houses would that build? It doesn't matter whether you call it direct debt or contingent liability, that interest has got to come out of the consumers of British Columbia through light bills and taxes on the schools and other needs. It's got to be paid.

In education, what did they do for education? Actually, they've fallen behind on education. They didn't recognize any equality. The students in the Interior have been asking for equalization grants for years in order to put them on an equal basis with those that are living in the proximity of a university, and they haven't got it yet. With all the wealth that this Province has got, why don't they do these things that are going to help the people? There are those who talk about equalized education throughout this Province. Why do we not have equalized education then? Why does a child in the Interior have less of an opportunity to go to university than a child in Victoria or in the City of Vancouver? And nothing is done.

There's no indication in the Budget that the Government is giving any consideration to taking over Notre Dame University. The Notre Dame University blazed the trail of colleges throughout this Province. They blazed a trail. It wasn't until after Notre Dame College started and then became a university, it wasn't until then that the Government woke up to the fact that we needed colleges throughout this Province. We need a university in the eastern part of the Province, and this is an opportunity, and don't forget this university was paid for and built by the people of the Kootenays with some help probably from other areas too, but the principal part of the assistance came from the people of the Kootenays. It's done a wonderful job, they've got 600 students going to Notre Dame University. It has been classed as a private university, and our Public Schools Act does not recognize private universities and, Mr. Speaker, this is the opportunity to make a public university out of it, and I'm sure that you'll get it at bargain basement rates, the university, to take it over. I'd like to know whether any consideration is being given to this, because there's one thing we do not want to let go is the Notre Dame University in the Kootenay, because it's doing too good a job for the people there. People go away from home from Cranbrook, from Fernie, from Yahk, they can go to Notre Dame, they can get back on a week-end or they can get back on a long week-end and get back home.

Mr. Speaker, I'm surprised that the honourable member for Columbia didn't speak on this question as well, because it's to his interests as well as mine. And the honourable member for Nelson-Trail — he hasn't spoken yet — I’m sure that he's in favour of this as well. I'm not speaking just as parochial for myself. The Notre Dame University serves all the eastern parts of the Province, both East and West Kootenay, Mr. Speaker, and I'd just like to quote you a letter that I got.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why speak to the Chair? You speak too long.

MR. NIMSICK: "I would appreciate it if you would bring to the attention of Education Minister Brothers the importance of the crisis that Notre Dame University is facing in its endeavour to make Notre Dame University into a public university. It is important to the Kootenays that Notre Dame be included into the B.C. education system to create a number of universities in the southeastern portion of our rapidly expanding Province." Then I got a telegram from the Mayor of the City of Fernie. "The Fernie City Council and the Fernie Chamber of Commerce unanimously endorse the city of Nelson's and the Nelson Chamber of Commerce's support for Notre Dame University's application to become British Columbia's fourth public university. We trust your kind consideration is given this most important matter. — Reno Lenardon, Mayor of Fernie."

I'm sorry, Mr. Minister, that you weren't in, Mr. Speaker, through you, that you weren't in a few minutes ago, but I was saying that I didn't see any indication in the Budget or anything that there's any consideration being given to make Notre Dame University a public university. I'm sure you're interested in this as well as I am, because we've got to have, we've got to continue on with a university in the eastern part of the Province, because there is enough inequality now between the rural areas and the coastal areas, without having no university in the Interior.

Then the Budget gives $10 extra for the home-owner grant. This is a small crumb thrown out and probably their taxes will go up by a whole slice of bread. Municipal aid, $2. Pollution, $5,000,000. $5,000,000 will do very little towards

[ Page 394 ]

pollution in the Province of British Columbia. Recreation and Conservation, the only increase was for the Creston Conservancy that we got a little extra money. But the population of this Province is increasing, and the pressure on our recreational areas, on our wild game, are increasing day by day and year by year, and there is not one provision made for one extra personnel in the Recreation and Conservation Department for wildlife, and I think that's bad. If this Government is interested in people, this is very important. Nothing in there to acquire winter range for our big game.

The other night I heard the Premier state that he was giving out a $250,000 prize to anyone who would correct the smell in the kraft pulp mills. You know, a few years ago we gave a prize for the best house, too, that was being built, but I haven't heard anything about it, what success it was, and I don't know whether it was any success or not, or whether anybody got the prize even. It probably collapsed. But we've got a research department in Vancouver, scientific research, we've got the universities of British Columbia, the three, the four universities. Surely if anyone's going to find out a solution to this problem in the Province of British Columbia we've got ample access to the means by which it can be done without offering $250,000 of the taxpayers' money to private industry to do something that they should be doing anyway. And I say, Mr. Speaker, that this is wrong, that this $250,000 — if the industries want to put up a prize to get rid of the smell out of the kraft pulp mills, if we feel that it should be done, then it's up to industry to do it, and I don't think it should come out of the taxpayers' money. Already we have research for industry, we have the universities that are working for industry, and we're contributing a great deal out of the taxpayers' money to help industry along these lines.

Then there's savings that we could have in other ways. When we look at the travelling done by our Cabinet Ministers it would read like a travel extravaganza. Honest to goodness, it would read like travel extravaganza, the travelling that our Cabinet Ministers do. I don't think that they spend very much time in Victoria at all, but they're wandering around the country, round and round, because $55,872 was spent last year for the Cabinet Ministers, and in addition to that, $14,762 for the Ministers without Portfolio, and I can well see, in sending these, why you send these people around. Why don't you make more use of the members in the area? If you don't like to make use of the Opposition, at least make use of your own members to open — you don't have to send a Cabinet Minister in from Victoria — to open every little outhouse that might be built by the Government. You don't have to do that. You don't have to have a Cabinet Minister come in just to unveil a plaque on a building that was built before this Government took office. That's what they did in Kimberley.

AN HON. MEMBER: They particularly wanted a Cabinet Minister, they asked for it.

MR. NIMSICK: Listen, then, if the Government would tell these people that you feel it's too expensive to send Cabinet Ministers all over the country, they'd be glad to hear that. The reason that they maybe asked for a Cabinet Minister is — and don't forget, like the Premier did last year when he was going to take his film around the country, the Chamber of Commerce didn't ask him to come in — no, the honourable Minister of Education wrote in to the Chamber and asked them to invite the Premier in so he could show his film, and I don't think that this is right.

I don't think that we need to spend $14,000 on the Ministers without Portfolio to go around here to be nothing but propagandizing for the Government. That’s exactly what you do, and I know that you've got to show something for the extra money that you get, but nevertheless I think we could at least save the $14,000 and leave you at home and let the local M.L.A.s look after the job. I say that in all kindness to you because I really believe that. Then if they can't find a Cabinet Minister, who do they send in? They send in either a Deputy Minister or somebody else. They send in somebody else, at the taxpayers' expense. All this is done and you talk about economizing, you talk about restraint, and you're spending money like drunken sailors when it comes to travelling around the country. You think they get in the Cabinet to see the world, that's about what it is, I'll tell you.

I notice in the Budget, too, that the M.L.A.s got an increase. I'm not ashamed of getting any increase. I feel if the honourable member for Point Grey or if the honourable member for Oak Bay feels that he has not warranted that increase, I say that in a rural area you got to be almost an ombudsman, and it's a full time job to represent your constituency. You've got to travel hundreds of miles and you've got to come down here and have a second home during the Session. This is something that the members right around Victoria don't have to do. So I don't feel bad about accepting the increase, because I feel that I can serve my constituents that much better.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words, in the Speech from the Throne there was an indication we were going to have a new Land Act brought in. It hasn't been tabled in the House as yet, and I think that this should be one of the most important Acts that will be brought in this Session, because it deals with land, and land is practically everything. The forests grow on the land, the cattle feed on the land, the lakes are on the land, the people live on the land — it covers everything, and pollution is on the land, too. I think we should give great consideration to this Act, because there is a lot of inaccuracies in it, we might call it today, that should be corrected. We have alienation of land, and some people on the Arrow Lakes are very concerned about the alienation of the land along the new lakeshore that's going to be formed by the High Arrow. These lands, I understand, according to a letter that I've got here, they intend to put them up for option. I would like to quote this letter, "If it is considered desirable to lift or amend the existing reserve, the matter of the disposition of the land will then come under review by the department." This is the land grant. "However, inasmuch as the entire water frontage has been under reserve for a considerable period and numerous inquiries have been received concerning the acquisition of the lands, it is envisioned that any future disposition thereof would be made by way of public competition, due notice of which would be published in the local press."

Now these people in Slocan Valley, and the honourable member for Revelstoke-Slocan will understand this, and I'm sure it is probably going to apply to some of my area as well, they are quite concerned. The Pacific Command of the Canadian Legion have gone all out in regards to the disposition of the lands along the lakeshore. Down in the United States they don't allow aliens to buy Crown lands, they don't allow them to buy Crown lands. I do not see why the request of the Pacific Command of the Canadian Legion — they're not asking it for their own members — they're asking that this land should be set aside, first option on all the

[ Page 395 ]

Crown land should go to Canadians and residents. This is the first option for a period of probably five years, and I think that this is a good point, because most of the people who come up here from the United States and ask for land along a lake, they are wealthy and they can practically offer any price when it's up for bids, and the local residents have very little chance to compete against them. I think that we should give the Canadians the right to these lands if we are going to sell them or lease them, and I'm more in favour of leasing, because I think the time is going to come when all lands in British Columbia will be on a lease basis rather than selling them outright. This is a question that could be considered in this new Land Act that is coming up at the present time, and I feel that we should be having somewhat the same laws.

Also they tell me that there's an organization, an American organization, which notifies about all tax sales in and around these areas. They can be picked up quite easily sometimes, too, sometimes it is a little more difficult. But any tax land that goes up for tax sale in British Columbia, in my opinion, should revert to the Crown and become Crown land from then on. I don't think we should have tax sales where people can get hold of good land and valuable land at a very cheap price sometimes. To me it seems reasonable that we should revert all land that is going up for tax sales back to the Crown.

Then there is access problems on land. Much of our land that is Crown land is behind private land, and it is difficult to get access to these areas, whether you want to go hunting or fishing or hiking or what you want to do. People buy land away out in the wilderness, nothing on it, Mr. Speaker, and they then put up a sign, No Trespassing, and there is nothing there at all, you couldn't hurt anything if you wanted to, and this is a question that has always bothered me. It is my opinion that no Canadian, or no British Columbian, should be deprived the right of walking on land in British Columbia providing he does no damage to it, providing it isn't a cultivated area. If it is wild land, a sign should not be there, a No Trespassing sign, providing he doesn't do any damage.

AN HON. MEMBER: What if a bull gets them?

MR. NIMSICK: Well they can say, "Watch for the Bull," just as I've been doing for the last few weeks in this House. I've been watching you all week.

Then along streams and around lakes we should have certain marginal areas reserved to the Crown, so that when people want to go fishing along a creek they can walk along the shoreline without interfering with the private property of the individual, and they couldn't put a No Trespassing sign on there. Around the lakes there should be so many chains so far back from the lake, before we have private land. These are questions, I think, that should come up under the new Land Act.

The ARDA Report — a land inventory to know what we should do with our land, because today we don't seem to know, it's just a haphazard system. We are destroying valuable farm lands for building industry on and to have subdivisions and all the rest of it, when we should be conserving that valuable arable land for the future use of the people of the world, not only Canada, but of the world. So the ARDA Report we were promised last year, it was going to be out last spring, and we still haven't got that ARDA Report, I don't know what is in it. I don't know whether the Government is trying to doctor it up or what they are trying to do with it, but I hope that it comes out as it was researched and as the recommendation was given to them by the committee that investigated the ARDA Report.

Then we've got expropriation that could come in this Land Act. I think, Mr. Speaker, that consideration should be given that this Land Act should come in early, and should be turned over to a committee, so that we could give it great consideration. Because land is so important, I think it is one of the most important Acts in British Columbia today, and let's get the opinions of everybody, because it concerns us all whether we are in the Opposition or the Government, and we could discuss it in committee and maybe come up with some recommendations, so the Act will be the best Act that we can devise at this time. I don't think that even the Government thinks that they've got all the knowledge that should go into an Act such as this. I don't think, Mr. Speaker, that the honourable the backbenchers even have any knowledge of what's going to be in that Land Act to this day, and I think we should consider it.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I am going to deal with that item I said should be considered in the Land Act, and that's expropriation. In 1963 we had a report of a Royal Commission on Expropriation, and this was at a cost of $63,000. $63,000 of the taxpayers' money, and you may as well have thrown it down a drain as far as it doing any good. Nothing has been done with that Royal Commission Report for that seven years, and I say that this Government is derelict in their duties, when they do not take cognizance of what the recommendations were in the Royal Commission's Report. Mr. Clyne was quite definite at the time he wrote that report and we've got 29 Acts, 29 Acts dealing with expropriation at the present time. 29 with the Land Clauses Act — who said 28?

AN HON. MEMBER: One of those Liberals.

MR. NIMSICK: 29 with the Land Clauses Act, and this one dates back, Mr. Speaker, all the way back to 1848, Mr. Speaker, 1848. Mr. Clyne stated that in England compensation was based essentially on the market value, together with additional compensation for disturbance, severance and injurious affection, and I would like to quote you what it states there. "The Minister of Highways, under the Highways Act may, in his absolute discretion, enter and take possession of land or take gravel, timber, stone or other materials without notice to, or the consent of the owners. The present law does not protect the land owner by requiring that notice must be given him before an expropriating authority can enter upon his land and conduct studies and surveys which may or may not fore-shadow expropriation of all or part of his land…."

AN HON. MEMBER: Did the Minister of Lands do that?

MR. NIMSICK: This is the Highways Department. Mr. Speaker, there are a good many members in this House that weren't here in 1963, and it might be of interest to them to listen to what Mr. Clyne says in this expropriation report, the new members especially that have never heard what was in it, because this is very important.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Clyne stated that in the United States, this is what they do. "The constitutional right of an American landowner entitles him to fair compensation and due process of law. His Canadian counterpart across the border has no such written protection of his civil rights. The Legislative Assembly in each Canadian province, under the

[ Page 396 ]

British North America Act, decides what his civil rights are." We can't even sue the government in this Province if they feel they are being hurt. After perusing all these statutes, Mr. Clyne stated the following, and I quote, " In the public interest and to achieve uniformity and the elimination of injustices, I have come to the conclusion that it is desirable, subject to possible minor exceptions, to repeal all existing expropriation legislation in British Columbia and in its place enact a statute governing expropriation."

The report recommended certain rules for assessing compensations, and I quote,

"(a) Where expropriation of an entire parcel of land takes place, compensation paid shall be based on market value (assuming a willing seller and a willing buyer). No account shall be taken of value peculiar to the taker nor of any effect on value attributable to expropriation or threat of expropriation nor of any increased value arising from unlawful or unhealthful uses. The practice of adding a percentage to value by reason of compulsory purchase or otherwise, should be abolished. In special cases where the property has no real market value (for example, with churches and schools) an alternative rule should allow compensation based on reinstatement.

"(b) Where the taker expropriates only a portion of a parcel of land." and I'm still quoting from the Royal Commission Report, Mr. Speaker. "Where the taker expropriates only a portion of a parcel of land, compensation should be paid for the portion taken and for consequential damages to the remainder through severance or other injurious affection. Against such compensation should be set-off any increase in value to the remainder attributable to any act or acts of the taker. The 'before and after' method of valuation should be used to determine the net compensation due namely: the amount of compensation due is the difference between the value of the whole parcel before taking and the value of the remainder after taking. If the 'before and after' method results in compensation being payable less than the value of the kind taken, the taker should be required to either pay compensation equal to the value of the land taken or to expropriate the whole parcel and pay compensation accordingly.

"(c) In any expropriation of land, compensation should be paid for all disturbance attributable directly to the expropriation.

"(d) If an owner's land is not taken in an expropriation but is nevertheless in some way injuriously affected by the expropriation, compensation should be paid for such injurious affection and for loss of business profits, provided such loss is permanent. When market price reflects loss of business profits no separate allowance for such loss should be made."

His recommendation, Mr. Speaker — that's the end of that quotation — his recommendation as to procedures to expropriate were as follows, "In the event of disagreement by the parties as to the amount of compensation, it is recommended that proceedings be instituted by the taker by filing a Notice of Expropriation in the appropriate Court Registry and by service on the owner."

Mr. Clyne also recognized the rights of the expropriating body to obtain possession of land before final determination, and I quote again. "It is recommended that the expropriating body be enabled to obtain possession of land before the compensation is judicially determined by payment into court of such amount, as the court summarily determines to be the probable just compensation, and that the owner be enabled to withdraw such moneys without prejudice to his right to dispute the sufficiency of the compensation offered."

Then Mr. Clyne outlined the procedures that must be followed after this to its final conclusion, but he also said, and I quote, "In my view expropriation is a last resort to be used where lands necessary for public uses cannot be acquired by private agreement. It follows that bodies with authority to expropriate should have the fullest possible freedom to obtain land by negotiation and private purchase.

"The acquiring authority generally has an advantage in such negotiations because of its greater resources and its knowledge and experience in the valuation and acquisition of land. For this reason it is desirable that an acquiring authority should, in making overtures to owners — for the purchase of their land, advise those owners of their legal rights in respect to compensation, including their right to have the matter determined by an independent tribunal." That is the end of the quote.

At the present time the Federal Government is putting through a new Expropriation Act. Now this what I quoted from Clyne was seven years ago, brought out in a Royal Commission Report, and nothing has been done so far. At the present time the Federal Government is putting through an Expropriation Act that is even more forward looking than what Clyne suggested. I would like to quote from the Vancouver Sun, November 8, 1969. "Ottawa. Federal expropriation procedures, largely unchanged since 1896, came a stage closer to major revision Friday as the Commons gave second reading to a Bill described by an N.D.P. member as 'a good Act 50 years overdue'." That is just like some of the Acts we get here. I quote further. "The new Bill specifically provides for compensation for home-owners large enough to enable them to buy an equivalent dwelling elsewhere. The home for a home principle." Now this is the principle that has been adopted by the Federal Government. "It also requires an expropriating Federal department or agency to notify the property owner in advance of any action, and guarantees public hearings and imposes a financial penalty on the agency that is judged to have undervalued the property it seeks to take." That is the end of that quotation.

So what has this Government done, Mr. Speaker? It has done absolutely nothing in this regard. And why has nothing been done? Because you represent big business, the big pipeline owners, and big government. You want to be able to roll roughshod over the private individuals of this Province any way you like.

I would just like to give you a few examples of your policies, of what goes on, and how you do it, and I am going to use two examples. One is relating to Natal-Michel and the other one is relating to the Libby Dam Pondage. First, I think that the prices offered in Natal-Michel for people's homes were ridiculous. The highest price offered was under $10,000, the highest price for a home. I would like to ask any of you, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask any of the members to go home tonight and look in the paper and see what they can get for $9,000.

I will read you a part of a letter and give you a description of a house that was appraised at $6,300. This party's place, his lot was 60 by 100. His house was stucco on the outside and dry wall on the inside, three bedrooms, one bathroom, kitchen, hot-air furnace, living-room with hardwood floor, breakfast nook, porches front and back, unattached garage, full-sized cement basement, sidewalks one-half cement and one-half wood, and completely fenced. That man was offered $6,300 for that. Now it would cost him at least $2,000 for a

[ Page 397 ]

lot in Sparwood, $2,000 for a lot in Sparwood. Now what chance does a man with a house like that, given $6,300, have of getting an equivalent house in Sparwood? These houses are being pushed under the urban renewal. The Federal Government is paying the big put of the shot. So what is the reason for this kind of statement, Mr. Speaker? If we had a decent expropriation guide the people would know where they stood, and know what was going to happen.

I would like to ask — I am sorry the honourable the Minister of Municipal Affairs is not in here at the present time, but I hope he listens to the tape afterwards — I would like to ask why should a man that owns a 60 by 100 foot lot in Natal, why should he not receive one in Sparwood? You subtract that $2,000 from the $6,300 and all he is going to get for his house is $4,300. A three-bedroom house, hardwood floors in the living-room, full basement, a garage, all fenced, $6,300. I'll bet the honourable Minister without Portfolio wished she could find 100 houses like that so she could set them all over the Province. But it is a long way for this man from getting a home in Sparwood. I think it is a disgrace that this Government doesn't do better than that. The honourable the Minister is back. I am just going to go back to this house. The highest price, Mr. Minister — Mr. Speaker, through you — that was paid in Natal for a house is under $10,000. Here is a house they offered $6,300 for. They didn't accept it yet. 60 by 100 foot lot, house is stucco on the outside, and dry wall on the inside, three bedrooms, one bathroom, kitchen, hot-air furnace, living-room with hardwood floor, breakfast nook, porches front and back, unattached garage, full-sized cement basement, sidewalks one-half cement, one-half wood, completely fenced. $6,300 for the lot and the house combined. It is not good enough, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister can pass this buck on to the Regional District and say he can't do anything about it.

When I put questions on the Order Paper last year asking for the amount of money that was paid out for houses in that area, you said you couldn't give it to me. You mean to tell me that this Government is contributing and the Federal Government is contributing and you don't know what is going on? I ask the honourable Minister through you, Mr. Speaker, to get on the ball and get us the information so we'll know what is going on.

They should at least receive a lot, in the first place, for any lot they owned in Natal. Because you are going to take these lots and you are going to sell them to Kaiser to try and reclaim the money that you are paying for the house, and probably sell them for a lot more than you appraised them for. How you appraise a house that size at $6,300, and when you subtract $2,000 for the lot out there, at $4,300, is beyond me. Whether the Regional District does your dirty work or not, that's not good enough. You're the man — Mr. Speaker, the honourable the Minister is the man that's looking after this job and he is the man that should be responsible.

It was this Government that promised the people of Natal in 1964 that they would be relocated to Sparwood without any cost to themselves. They were promised that. And they failed. They failed in that regard. Mr. Speaker, when they saw it was going to cost them some money, what did they do? They turned around and handed it over to the Regional District. They passed the buck to the Regional District and now they say that it is the Regional District's responsibility.

It is not the Regional District responsibility. These people have a right to the same treatment as the new Federal Expropriation Act gives, a home for a home of comparable value, and any of those homes that can be moved, should be moved at the expense of the Government over to Sparwood.

So I say, Mr. Speaker, that it is really something that has got to be considered. The business people of Natal have sat pretty tight. I don't think they have purchased many businesses in Natal. You don't offer them enough that they could start up without any building, in a tent. You don't offer them enough, so I think it is time that this Government fulfilled their promise to the people of Natal-Michel and do justice to them.

Secondly, I would like to take you to the Pondage area of the Libby Dam and see if this Government has been any more responsible in this case. All the farms in the Libby Pondage area will be flooded by December of 1971, and I would like to read you a few clippings that portray the treatment that has been given to these people. This is a picture of a fellow — the men came along and cut the fences around his property and were entering it. He came and he had to have a fist fight with them to get them off his property.

"Bitterness and frustration is growing among the 25 south country ranchers who face flooding in the Libby Reservoir area in 1972. This frustration broke through the surface Friday when eight of the ranchers gathered at the home of Bob Totten, nine miles from Waldo on the west side of the Kootenay River, ready to do physical battle to protect the fences. On Thursday Totten, who has spent 22 years on a 400-acre ranch, came back from riding on the range and found two members of a B.C. Forest Service crew cutting down his fences. 'They had taken down about 400 yards of my fence,' Totten explained. 'I saw the two men working and I went up to them and told them they were on the wrong fence. They said they thought they were taking down the right fence. I said they weren't and I told them to hit the road or I'll lick you right here! One guy said, 'I don't think you can,' and, he didn't go. So, I cracked one guy with a right, the other fellow grabbed me and I gave him a couple in the stomach, then they decided to go down the right-of-way.'

"Totten pointed out that…. Oh, we've got tough people up in that country, don't forget that. I dare say that some of these people I am talking about even were foolish enough to vote for this Government even.

"The Forest Service crew didn't show up the next day, and the ranchers marched down to the office at Waldo. After a short wait they were met by Ray Banta, and the Forest Service apologized to the ranchers for the incident and said it was a misunderstanding. He promised that the crew would put the fence back up. Totten pointed out that he hadn't even had an offer for his place and a number of the other ranchers were in the same boat. He also said that trap lines and other things had no offers. Banta said he couldn't help them on these points, since the Department of Highways is involved in the land purchases."

Now doesn't that seem rather odd, that the Department of Highways is involved in the land purchases for the Libby Pondage area? And you'd wonder why. Just to pass the buck from the Hydro over to the taxpayers of British Columbia to try and save the face of this Government on the fiasco that they created by the Columbia River deal. They wouldn't put it in the legislation when it was brought up.

"Banta said he couldn't help them on these points since the Department of Highways is involved in land purchases.

[ Page 398 ]

One rancher said a south country resident had applied for work for his bulldozer over a year ago and didn't get a job even though a bulldozer was brought in from Merritt." I would like to know what my partner over here from Yale has got, that he gets his bulldozers in my area. "Williston promised us that local men would have the first chance at jobs he could carry."

AN HON. MEMBER: To cut down the fences.

MR. NIMSICK: "Banta said the bulldozer could be the wrong size for the work." That's that.

Then we go to another one. "Ranchers know they can't win." I quote. "The ranchers, about 30 of them all told, are among 70 landowners whose property is being expropriated by the Department in preparation for the flooding of the valley by the $360,000,000 Libby Dam just across the border in Montana. By December, 1971 everyone must be out, because some time in the early spring of 1972 the water will start backing up into Canada.

"Under the rising waters will go many of the hopes, the dreams, and the livelihoods of men whose families helped carve out the country in the East Kootenays. The area of the Kootenay Valley that could be inundated by the Libby project, the fourth dam to be built under the Columbia River Treaty, extends 42 miles up into Canada. The homeowners know that the flooding is inevitable. They know that sooner or later they will have to settle up, pick up and get out. But they say they'll be damned if they will do so on the kind of terms the Government has offered so far.

"With expropriation imminent the valley residents have formed the Libby Reservoir Property Owners Association and dug in for a fight It is a fight that can have only one winner, the Government. But the losers, the ranchers, are determined to come out with a fair share of the purse.

"To an outsider the folk in the valley may look rough and ready. They are a different breed from city dwellers. A man's word is his bond, and there is a real sense of community despite the fact a man's nearest neighbour may live 18 miles away."

Further to this, just two days ago, 16 — this is two days ago today — stood in front of bulldozers on a farm near Wardner and defied the bulldozers to run over them. I went to the honourable Minister of Highways and I think maybe we have solved the problem. I got in contact with the farmers. I know the Minister of Highways has power to place an injunction against them which was going to be done last Friday, but he was kind enough to postpone it until today. I don't know right now what has happened, but nevertheless I advised the farmers of their rights. I told them that the Act was there, the law was there, and not to defy the injunction if it was placed against them. I don't like to see them go to gaol because then they will be hot and bothered.

These are reasonable people, Mr. Speaker, so why are they treated more or less like a herd of cattle to be driven here and driven there and driven off their land if the Government so wishes? On the advice of the Minister of Lands and Forests, the farmers got their own appraisers to negotiate. I would like to hope the honourable Minister of Lands and Forests is listening to this. Mr. Speaker, I hope the honourable the Minister of Lands and Forests will listen to this portion of my talk, because it concerns him very much. It was on your advice, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, that these people went out and got their own appraisers, and I'd like to quote a letter from the appraisers. The appraisers were Mack Grant Realty Co. in Calgary, and they went in there and they appraised the property and they've got a list of qualifications here that seem to be well qualified to appraise property. And, after the honourable the Minister advised the people to get their own appraiser, I think he should have had the courtesy of listening to them. "Dear Sir," he said in a letter to me. "It was suggested to us that you would be interested in the problems that we are encountering trying to negotiate settlements for the ranchers affected by the Libby Dam." Mr. Speaker, I wish the Minister would at least look up and recognize whether he's listening to me or not.

HON. R. G. WILLISTON: I've heard every word you've said.

MR. NIMSICK: Thank you, Mr. Minister, for the recognition. Up until now, Mr. Speaker, this has just absolutely been, to our way of thinking, a ridiculous situation. These are the words of the appraisers, the Mack Grant Realty Co. "We cannot seem to be able to meet with anyone of authority, qualified and with an appraisal background, with whom we can negotiate. We are enclosing two copies of letters, we have written to Premier Bennett pleading for some type of consideration on behalf of these ranchers who are just about at the end of their patience, not knowing where they stand or how to reach and negotiate a settlement on their ranches." Then they wrote a letter to Premier Bennett to get some action, Mr. Speaker, and I quote, "Dear Mr. Bennett." I do not know whether Mr. Bennett answered this letter or not. He doesn't often answer letters. "Since our last letter to you some events have transpired that we thought you may be interested in. We sent a copy of our letter of January the 26th, 1970, to you in which we made an effort to set up a meeting with the Department representatives through the lawyer who represents, or misrepresents, the Department on occasion." I know that there isn't much love lost there.

"We felt, and still believe, that eight days is sufficient time for the Department to have appraisers meet with us, or at least to set up a meeting date more mutually convenient to you. To quote Mr. Williston in his address to the property owners last year, 'The department would bend over backwards to make settlements.' Our reply from Mr. Graham" — that was the lawyer for the Government — "contained many excuses as to why no meeting would be held, but hardly bent over backwards to further negotiations. None of his statements, including his understanding" — I won't quote that one.

This last paragraph, "Once again we impeach you to use your influence to end this obvious attempt by the Departments of Highways, Lands and Forests to coerce the property owners to settle. Coerce may sound over-dramatic, but the malicious and maligning remarks about our conduct, the cancellation of meetings to reduce our effectiveness, and public statements by officials recommending that owners do not retain attorneys, cannot be construed as anything less than coercion." You may be interested in some of the statements Mr. Williston made as to the acquisition policies at a property owners meeting last year. These direct quotes hardly strengthen the Government's position today because of the apparent disregard for these promises.

I'd like to quote you from the tape, Mr. Minister, and this is what you stated at a public meeting. "I am not an appraiser and I do not know, but you have an appraiser or someone representing you that can point out exactly why his figure is right. I am a fair man, and what I am telling you sitting here

[ Page 399 ]

today is that a reputable appraiser has got it well backed as to what his values are, and you will get attention paid to those valuations if that man is a professional appraiser and knows his business." Then another quote. "You picked them out and I said I would pay for them — and I said I would pay for them. I made this offer this afternoon. I said if you did not do it, if you thought our people, when we assessed this business, I said you picked them out and I said I would pay for them. I said this as I have said it before. I would pay for it because it has to be fair, but what is happening in this situation is that we are faced with a business. You have picked out an appraiser as a unit, and nobody is talking until this appraiser, some day he is going to have to come up and sit down with the appraisal officers and establish this on both sides. Let's get this straight, we are on tape, and let's, and let's get this very straight, you are working as a group. I said if you had a situation where it was not fair, you were working as an individual. You were working as an individual and you suggested an appraiser who would represent you on this business, and was recognized, and was brought into this and who was willing to represent you. I would pay this business That is right." End of quote.

Now, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister, all these people asked for was to meet the appraisers. This Mack Grant Appraising outfit asked to meet the appraisers and they haven't been able to, and what is the hold-up? I don't think it should be necessary that people should have to fight, or stand in front of tractors, to stop the acquisition of their land or the expropriation of their land. I think that we are civilized enough in this country. I know that the white man did it with the native Indians years ago, they didn't care. But I think we've reached the stage today that people should be treated with more respect than that.

For the sake of justice, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask this Government to put a little of that conscience that they talk about into these people's problems and settle the matter. Surely these cases have exemplified the necessity of a proper Expropriation Act. If there was ever anything that recommended a change to our expropriation proceedings in the Province of British Columbia, it is the cases that have been facing us under the Columbia River Treaty, and the case in Natal-Michel. I say, along with the Land Act, for goodness sakes, Mr. Speaker, let's get an Expropriation Act that's fair to everybody, that treats people as individuals and as true citizens of British Columbia. I thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Minister without Portfolio.

HON. GRACE McCARTHY (2nd, Vancouver–Little Mountain): Mr. Speaker, it's a great pleasure to follow the honourable member from Kootenay today. He won't, I don't think, go down in history as being the briefest speaker in this House, but we always enjoy listening to him. I was particularly interested in his remarks regarding the Ministers without Portfolio, because I have a little bit of a personal interest in this particular position. I do want, Mr. Speaker, the honourable member from Kootenay to know that in the realm of my responsibilities as Minister without Portfolio I have never really been asked to open such a building as he described.

The member did make some remarks about our Budget which I didn't think were really a very good credit to the member from Kootenay. He said that this Budget that we are discussing in this debate was the knick-knack Budget, and all I can say to that, Mr. Speaker — some knick-knack! It's a fine Budget that I rise to speak to, today, and I'm proud to speak to this Budget and I am surprised, really, to note that every member of the New Democratic party, the socialists on the other side of the House, have made so many derogatory remarks, because when the member from the Opposition rose in his seat, he did say that we gave them credit for never being constructive. Can I say this, that you make it very, very difficult.

I would like to say too, that it is a very significant day in this Chamber, because this is the 100th anniversary — 100 years ago today that the first legislature sat in this room, and it is significant in that we have — not in this room, but in British Columbia, pardon me. It is indeed a great pleasure to be here and to know that in this past 100 years that very many people over the years have contributed to the well-being and to the history of British Columbia, as are all members on both sides of the House, all members in this House today.

The Budget that I address my remarks today is the most exciting people's Budget that will be or has been presented by any jurisdiction in Canada this year. The socialists on the other side of the House can call it down, they can call it unimaginative, they can call it anything they like, but who are they trying to kid? For the second year, the honourable Liberal leader gave his personal budget, and again may I say as I did last year — if it is so easy for the Liberal leader and for the Liberals in Canada to prepare a budget, why is it that it is costing us so much for a Liberal administration in Ottawa? Why is it, Mr. Speaker, that just today we spend $5,000,000 a day on interest alone incurred by a Liberal administration who this member speaks for, and again, it doesn't give any credence at all to the claim that the Liberals could prepare a budget that is any better or even as good. I would be very pleased to make a few remarks just in correction of something that was attributed to me, and I want to put it on the record, as it were, in regard to drug experimentation. It was a remark that was made by the honourable Minister of Health in this past week where he claimed, and I think I should quote, "That the statements made by the Cabinet Minister and the premier of the Province in regard to drug experimentation, said that it was a terribly irresponsible exhibition." Mr. Chairman, I know about the motion on the Order Paper, because I was the one that put the motion on the Order Paper.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The reason for the ruling in regard to debate is so that the House is not subjected to tedious repetition, and therefore I would ask all members to keep their comments for the proper place.

MRS. McCARTHY: I would be pleased to honour your ruling, and I will bring up the subject under that proper place in the debate. And may I say, that if all members of this House would accept the Speaker's ruling, we could get through the business a lot easier.

What are you getting so excited about? I'm sorry I said that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order please. Will the member please proceed.

MRS. McCARTHY: But I will certainly be speaking on this subject another time.

Mr. Speaker, in regard to another habit, I would like to draw to the attention of the House the fact that this year,

[ Page 400 ]

1970, is the tenth anniversary for the Non-Smokers Association of Canada. I think it would be well to remind the House that it is just ten years ago that the Non-Smokers Association began in British Columbia. The first seminar that was furthered by the British Columbia Government, this Government, was held in 1961. The first annual seminar, 1963, and the first annual Non-Smokers Day was held in 1961. This Government was the first anywhere, and Barry Mather followed our Minister of Health at that time, and may I at this time pay tribute to Barry Mather, to Eric Martin, to the present Minister of Health, and to all those Ministers of Health in between, who gave tangible assistance to a smoking and health programme in this Province. We did, at that time, produce a brochure which is still one of the most effective brochures that has been put out in this area, and I would like to see that that brochure is repeated and that a better educational programme is implemented in our educational system.

But more than that, Mr. Speaker, I think that we should mark the first decade of the Non-Smokers Association of Canada which was conceived right here in British Columbia, by holding a seminar on the effects of smoking in key centres in British Columbia. I think that in doing so we would highlight and would bring to the attention of the young people of our Province the dangers of smoking, and point out the statistics which are very well known, and I'm sure you don't want to have them repeated.

But the thought is that in 1962 there was issued by Great Britain's Royal College of Physicians of London, a damning indictment of smoking, and again in 1964 this was followed by the report of the U.S. Surgeon-General's Advisory Committee on Smoking and Health, and they came to several conclusions on cigarette smoking. These have since been accepted by the major medical and scientific organizations of the world, and these conclusions are this, and I quote, "Cigarette smoking is a cause of lung cancer, that it is associated with heart disease, that it is the most important cause of chronic bronchitis, and that it substantially increases the risk of premature death." I rather think that it is our responsibility to once again lead the way in education in this programme, and I would like to see that seminars are held throughout the Province in this regard, and I would also like to suggest that perhaps the teachers and the P.T.A.'s could get together and call on young people to turn the money over on Non-Smokers Day this year to a worthy cause.

While I'm speaking of worthy causes, I would like to draw attention to the one that was announced today earlier by our honourable Minister of Agriculture, and to commend him and the Government for the $25,000 relief fund to the Nigerian Relief. I thought that was a tremendous tribute to a very, very fine cause, and it was a very good suggestion.

Now following too, on the kind of pollution that we have been discussing, and I suggest that smoking certainly is a form of pollution, I would like to say, as has been reiterated time and time again in this Session and in the last Session and more particularly, I would say, in this year, that people are the cause of a great deal of our pollution. I would commend the very many anti-pollution organizations that have sprung up the past month and the past year. They're doing a fine job at the community level, and I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that these members of organizations such as S.P.E.C. and those people who are on an anti-pollution drive, whether the members in the Opposition want to admit it or not, it was this Government, this Social Credit Government, that gave leadership to the people in making them aware of this threat to our environment. I think again — well anybody that is an authority on pollution, it should be the Leader of the Opposition in the socialist party.

I think that the Provincial Government should continue to lead, Mr. Speaker, and it is that which I would like, to speak to today. One of the suggestions I'd like to make, and this is not the main point in my address today but I would like to pass this on, I think that there should be an educational programme carried on this through the television and through the radio and, when available, through the press — a fact that can be sponsored by the Provincial Government and that a message can be told. Public information can be given and an appeal to the public to clean up, tidy up, and keep British Columbia clean, as our member from Burrard has so ably described. I would like to associate myself, too, with the remarks made by many members of this House, and that is that it is time that this Government took the initiative to clean up that area of pollution which is caused by disposable bottles and by the kind of refuse that is thrown away. The non-returnable bottle is a menace to our Beautiful British Columbia.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I do want to, report — I've heard quite a bit today in regard to what a Minister without Portfolio does not do — I do wish that I had more time this afternoon, and if the last member had not taken quite so much time, I think I could have spent a couple of hours telling you of what I have done. I do want to say this, I do want to say this, Mr. Speaker. I do want to say this, though, that one of the things that I have had the pleasure of working with and working on is trying to get the Olympics for Vancouver and for Garibaldi–Whistler Mountain for 1976, and being the liaison for the Provincial Government with the Garibaldi Committee, I would Re to tell you that they have done a tremendous job, the Garibaldi Olympic Committee, in representing us all over the world. Not only all over the world to visit the I.O.C. members to talk about Garibaldi and the tremendous mountain that we have, the one that Nancy Green described as the best mountain that she had ever skied on, but also, I would like to say that our Committee has done a job for British Columbia, has done a job for British Columbia which we can be very, very proud of.

Later this month they will be in Africa, next month they will be in South America, and before we get to the international meeting in Amsterdam in May, they will have visited every international Olympic member in the world. Their reception has been excellent, and I want the members of this House to know that it is an excellent reception they have had and we should give them credit for doing a good job under the auspices of the Provincial Government, the City of Vancouver, and the Federal Government contribution. As you know, our Government has pledged $10,000,000 to bring the Olympics here — up to $10,000,000, and we say that the eyes of the world will be on Vancouver in 1976. But it continues to be a good campaign for the whole of the Tourist Department, and the possibilities of getting the Winter Olympics are excellent. It could be that after May of this year, then, that each member of this House can say that he or she is a representative of that country which will host the 1976 Winter Olympics.

In conjunction with that, and because of the fine job that the Olympic Committee has done, I would like to say that I think that Vancouver itself, because it has been publicized worldwide as a great skiing centre, is missing the boat just a little. I would like to suggest today that a Ski Information Centre should be created in the City of Vancouver to

[ Page 401 ]

promote the winter sports aspect, and to promote the winter playground effort that we are trying to do through our Tourist and Convention Centre. Perhaps we should give consideration to an imaginative ski hut in the City of Vancouver which could be operated jointly by the Canadian Ski Association, by the Vancouver Visitors' Bureau and by this Provincial Government and, Mr. Speaker, I do wish that the honourable member from Burnaby-Edmonds could keep his voice down just a little so I could get the point across, because I'm trying to get two other speakers on by six o'clock.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order please.

MRS. McCARTHY: With the interest now initiated by our Vancouver Olympic Association, it can be carried forward to bring more people to promote Vancouver as a winter playground, and I would hope that we can give some thought to a very imaginative ski but, not just a store with a sign in it, but something imaginative and exciting. As our good member from Burrard suggested in terms of promoting tourism by a highway of daffodils, I would like to suggest that that was a tremendous spring promotion, and I would like to see the winter promotion as a very imaginative ski hut.

And now, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to turn my attention to something I said during the Throne Speech when I referred to the obvious tendency on the part of the Liberal administration in Ottawa to isolate us further and further from references to the Queen and to our British parliamentary system. I don't think I need to document the obvious, the removal of the Queen's crest, the many references that have been made regarding medals and so on, stamps, the changing of medals, and that sort of thing. I won't take the time to document them today, but it is with real concern that I suggest that while the Liberals in Ottawa are whittling away at our birthright, the very foundations of our parliament system, we in the Provincial Government have a responsibility, have a responsibility, Mr. Speaker, to preserve our heritage. And we should bring this right here to home, and I suggest that the Provincial Government can do this in a very constructive manner.

I'd like to suggest, then, that these very buildings, these buildings which we speak from today and which we have had the pleasure of representing our constituencies in, be made available to the people of British Columbia, and that the Government consider these suggestions, that these government buildings be more accessible more often, during the day and during the week-ends, in the first place keeping the Legislative Buildings open to the public every day of the year except, perhaps, Christmas Day. I include Sundays in this, for I feel that the parliamentary system which we strive to protect and to preserve recognizes the freedom of worship, and without that freedom no system of government is free, no system of government is worthwhile.

Secondly, in adding to the staff, I would hope that we would utilize the combined talents of the retired people that we now have working so capably with us and utilize them in conjunction with students, recognizing that the melding of the experienced generation and the young generation is the best possible of the both worlds. I did have an opportunity, along with one of the members in the Opposition, our member from New Westminster, in working for the Y.E.S. group in promoting the Government's contribution to the youth employment services during this last summer, and certainly one of the things to keep young people busy during the summer would be to act as guides in the Parliament Buildings.

I'd also like to suggest, as a third suggestion, that we should call on organizations to give lectures on the meaning of our parliamentary system and make them available to school classes and teachers, so that the story and the history of the British parliamentary system can be told as we enact it here. I think, too, that these organizations should do this without charge, if we make the building available. If, through the help of the Speaker's office, a course of study could be set up, I think it would be a tremendous asset for the young people of our country to learn about our system and to respect our system, as do we who have to be here and who enjoy being here seeing it at work every day.

I would also like to suggest that a memento of our Parliament Buildings be given to every visitor, and I think it's too bad, sometimes, that we don't have something a little more colourful. We're entering the decade of the 70's and I'd like to see something colourful, exciting, attractive and if you like, swinging, which shows the vibrant British Columbian attitude and the vibrant British Columbia story that can be told and can be passed on to every visitor. Victoria has an appeal for the tourist that can be envied by very many cities in North America, and we should do more with this billion dollar asset that we have. This is our home during the Legislative Session, and I think the doors should be open all year round to all the people of British Columbia.

We've had quite a bit of statement in regard to social welfare and the change of the name, Mr. Speaker, and it is really in the change of the philosophy, if you will, of social welfare that I would like to speak today. The social welfare change of philosophy is tailored to meet the needs of the people in the 1970's. It has been recognized that the dole system has not worked and will not work in North America today. In fact it will not work in any part of the world, Mr. Speaker, and still retain man's dignity. We have, after 30 years of trial and error and every administration has to admit, not only this administration but every administration in North America has to admit that this way of social assistance and this dole system is not working in North America, that we now have three generations on social welfare to prove it, and it is not working. So we do not say that we have been the only ones wrong in social welfare, but we have all been wrong, and that the system that we have seen experienced in North America this past 30 years perpetuates, rather than lessens, the problem.

So it is to this change that I would address my remarks today and I would ask the Minister and his Department to give consideration to adding another dimension to the Department of Rehabilitation and Social Assistance, to the policy that he announced only last week. Last week it was announced that we are going to help to try to assist as many people back to work who are on welfare, and give them a meaningful position in life, where they would hopefully become self-supporting, and I would like to say that that is one of the best moves that has been made in a long time, and I'm sure we can accomplish it. I'm sure that we can accomplish this, Mr. Speaker, because I have a deep conviction that most men and women who are in receipt of welfare payments today want some other way of life. So this is good, and we will call on labour, and we will call on industry, and we will call on people in all walks of life to set about to do a task which should have been undertaken by them in our free enterprise system a long time ago, and I can refer to the Provincial Alliance of Businessmen, and I can refer to a pilot

[ Page 402 ]

project that I had last year — the Employment Opportunity Programme — that proves that it can be done.

In such an organization as the Provincial Alliance of Businessmen there are two essential elements to success. One is the arousal of a dynamic, sincere interest in the private sector, and the second is a well-organized, efficient, and sincere group of men and women desirous of doing a first-class job. The successful cultivation of these two elements will lead to the natural development of employment opportunities. Once these opportunities arrive there are two present objectives which must be met, and that is rehabilitation where necessary and, secondly, encouragement or development of a positive attitude towards work.

Following this approach it is necessary to criticize methods of the past. Often the hard-core unemployed worker has been so discouraged that he believes that he is not capable of doing anything. This shows that evaluations for employment have been wrong, and when an evaluation destroys a man's self-confidence, you have a system which tells a man what he can't do and nothing about what he can do. A whole new system is needed which screens people in and does not screen people out.

So now that I have suggested that the Provincial Alliance of Businessmen can do the job in this regard and this new philosophy of social welfare, I can say this, that we do need a further step. Once you have the man earning money, going to work every day, your job is not over. He gets cash in his hand after living on a very limited income, and he immediately goes into debt, and not without the encouragement of very many people in the consumer field.

When I made a social welfare study in the City of Vancouver, I found that more break-ups in marriages were caused by the need of financial stability, more than marital instability. I can say this to you with all sincerity, that many of the homes which I was in, and many of the couples that I interviewed who had broken up their marriages and had left children homeless and left children in charge of the State, or the State in charge of the children, needed a financial counselor, Mr. Speaker, more than they needed a marriage counselor. These people enter into unbelievable agreements. They find themselves paying out most of their cheque in cars and appliance and furniture payments until the day of reckoning comes, and I would like to suggest that financial counselors become of prime importance at the local level, and through this new social welfare philosophy that we have that we give more emphasis to this area of financial counseling and financial stability.

I would like to suggest this, that the Schools of Social Work must give more emphasis to this area which is a social concern and becomes a social problem. I think, too, that we have to enlist the aid of the merchant and, if necessary, the Attorney-General's Department and the Consumer Affairs Department to educate these people in better credit practices. We have to enlist the help of all credit bureaus who have the expertise and who can advise people in using credit wisely.

I would like to say this, that if the P.T.A. wants to have another role — and I would suggest that the P.T.A. has done a tremendous job over the years in many, many areas — I would like to see them fill the need in our educational system for more communications with students who are without father or without mother, and their energies could be channeled into this endeavour to help, at an early stage, to guide these vulnerable young people in financial stability and in family life, and I would like to see that that is done.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I have tried to cover quite a few subjects in a very short time and I am going to conclude my remarks today on one that is of very, very deep concern to the people all throughout British Columbia who are in need of housing, and particularly those people who are on low or moderate incomes, and do not find themselves in a home-ownership position, but who indeed find themselves in a very high rental situation, with nowhere to go.

During the Throne Speech debate, I did make brief reference to housing, and we now have copy of Bill 4, to Amend the Provincial New-home Building Assistance Act, and I wouldn't think of discussing it at this time, Mr. Speaker. I do want to tell you, though, that I would like to refer to it later at the appropriate time.

But first I want to make some general comments with regard to certain housing problems in British Columbia today, and the first point I want to make is that new housing being provided today is beyond the reach of the average wage earner. I think that all members will agree that very, very few new houses can be bought today for less than $18,000. Now a house costing $18,000 will require a purchaser with a minimum income of $6,400 per year, even using the most liberal requirements of institutional vendors. Yet some 63 per cent of people who submitted income tax returns in Canada earn less than that amount. In British Columbia 57 per cent earn less than $6,400 per year. Further statistics substantiate the fact that new housing now being provided is beyond the means of the average wage earner. For instance, in 1968, only 7.3 per cent of new houses purchased under N.H.A. were purchased by people earning less than $6,000 per year, only 7.3 per cent. In British Columbia, Mr. Speaker, in that same year, 1968, 6½ per cent of the people in the lowest one-third income bracket, were purchasers of new homes.

I think I have submitted evidence to prove my statement that new houses being provided today are beyond the reach of the average wage earner, yet I contend that new housing, Mr. Speaker, can be provided for people of average income — yes, and at present cost of land, at present cost of construction, and at present cost of money, and without special subsidies from government in British Columbia.

Firstly, lenders must be prepared to lend money on lower cost and smaller units, and they are not doing that today. Today, the type of new housing units is determined, not by what the public and the market demand, but by what the institutional lenders determine they will lend on. For example, in 1968 only one — and I am speaking of only one single-bedroom house in all of Canada — was financed under N.H.A., and only 2.5 per cent of single detached units with two-bedroom units. Yet in 1971, by Central Housing and Mortgage's own statistics, 55 per cent of householders in Canada will consist of three persons or less, so why is it we need four-bedroom homes, and we'll only loan on four bedroom homes? It's a ludicrous situation. It is clear, then, that there is a huge demand for one or two-bedroom homes, and this demand is not being filled, largely because institutional lenders will not lend on such small units for sale. They will, however, loan on apartments for rental, but not for sale. Are we making a nation of renters out of Canadians, and I suggest we are, by the very policies of the administration.

Secondly, by more efficient use of land. The cost of land, including municipal services, has been the major single factor in increased cost of housing. For example, in the last 20 years the cost of land has increased 500 per cent and, incidentally, during this same period, the cost of construction increased only 169 per cent. It is obvious, therefore,: that if three or

[ Page 403 ]

four housing units could occupy this same amount of land as a normal detached dwelling, the land component is reduced to one-third or one-fourth.

Thirdly, by more efficient use of existing construction methods and techniques, and I emphasize the word existing, because I am sure there is vast scope in modernizing present construction methods and techniques. Perhaps this is a subject that can go on for quite a long time, and is a subject that could perhaps fill yet another whole speech, but I say that there can be considerable savings by the use of existing construction methods. I would like to draw your attention, for instance, to an article that was in the Victoria Daily Times just this last Thursday, where it shows that in the east, in Montreal, just 20 miles from Montreal, by industrial type building, a home can be purchased for only $12,950. This is a three-bedroom bungalow, the equivalent of which would cost at least $18,000 to $18,500 in Victoria or in the City of Vancouver, so we could have considerable more use of savings in existing construction methods. I think that any contractor will tell you that by building 20 units at the same time the cost saving, compared to building just one, would be at least $1,000 per unit, especially through the use of common walls, common roof, and other common services.

The three major factors, then, that can lend to more new housing for ownership by the average wage-earner are, firstly, that institutional lenders should lend on smaller and less expensive units, second and thirdly, that more efficient use should be made of land, including municipal services, and more efficient use of existing construction methods and techniques. In short, then, these three factors point to just one thing, namely more condominiums, and of course this American term, being more frequently used in Canada and in B.C., simply means ownership of a unit which has a separate title under the B.C. Strata Titles Act, as we know it. This unit could be an apartment in a high-rise, it could be a unit in a town-house, a garden type development. There are infinite variations to fulfill our wide variety of needs. The type, for instance, that the honourable Minister of Municipal Affairs referred to just last Thursday, was of a special type to meet the special needs of elderly couples.

Condominiums are not the answer to everyone's needs, but it widens the scope of choice, and for young people, or for elderly people and for people with special needs, it can be the answer. And now, Mr. Speaker, with the advent of the legislation proposed in Bill 4, I predict that many existing blocks will be subdivided and many people who prefer to live in an apartment, will be able to buy a suite with the help of proposed legislation, and end up paying less.

(Gavel banging.)

MRS. McCARTHY: I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker, I was hoping that I was not really hitting on that; I'm sorry.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well. I'm afraid the Minister is very close.

MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, my apologies, and I would say this, that I would like to bring that subject up again under discussion of the Bill.

It's rather nice to see the members of the Opposition in their seats. I wouldn't want to see them walking out.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I have said that condominiums are one way of providing owned housing for people of moderate income. It offers, also, an excellent opportunity for self-help by way of co-operatives. As an example, I would like to mention Abbotsford Co-operative Housing Association sponsored by the Abbotsford Credit Union. They have just completed the first 30 units of their co-operative venture. The prices were $13,500 for two bedrooms, $16,000 for three bedrooms, and $17,000 for a four-bedroom unit. These have full basements and meet N.H.A. standards, and I must point out, of course, that real estate agent fees of five to seven per cent were not involved, and the cost has since gone up. Of these 30 purchasers, 27 will obtain most or all of their required down payment from the B.C. Government by way of a building grant. Through this co-operative venture, these families will own a unit with either no, or very small, down payment, and mostly all of these payments will be less than the rent that they are now paying, or paid prior to taking occupancy.

If you would like to look on page 29 of the Budget Speech, it's picture 2 and it's pictured in your Budget Speech, the Abbotsford project that I've just spoken about.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's a co-op.

MRS. McCARTHY: I did say that, I'm glad you're listening, This close attention to my remarks is really, is really overwhelming.

Although condominiums are becoming more popular, and I estimate that last year close to 1,000 units were being developed in British Columbia one of the major difficulties is the attitude of municipal councils, who do not seem to understand that these condominiums are for ownership and are not the same as rental units. I find generally that the planning officials of the municipalities are aware of the need for zoning for condominiums, but councils, with very few exceptions, will need to be educated. Municipal councils must accept the fact that they have a responsibility for every segment of the community, and certainly a significant part of every community will be looking for condominiums for their best opportunity to own a house of their own, so every council in British Columbia is going to be faced with these decisions.

Councils must realize, too, that future housing developments must make more efficient use of land and municipal services. Roads, sewers, the water mains, sidewalks, curbs, and storm drains. An economist in U.B.C. has recently estimated that as far as revenue is concerned, the average single-family detached dwelling on a standard lot of 8,000 square feet is a liability, Mr. Speaker. The council spends three times as much on such a house as it collects in its revenue.

Mr. Speaker, practically all new housing in Canada is being provided on an ad hoc, catch-as-catch-can basis. I have indicated that the type of new housing is being provided to meet the demands of the institutional lenders, it is not being provided to the public demand. Even this contention is made on the basis of deduction from certain statistics and to a large extent it is guess work.

I have two suggestions I would like to put forward to the consideration of our Government, and perhaps a joint Government effort along with the Federal Government and the Provincial Government. First, I would suggest an in-depth survey of the demands for different types of housing. The Minister of Municipal Affairs has made an interesting suggestion in his 5-5-5 plan, to provide a special type of housing, specially for elderly people, and there is no doubt in my mind that this scheme has a great deal of merit. But a market survey would clearly indicate the demand for this

[ Page 404 ]

type of project and how many and when. Today private builders, developers, lenders, the municipal councils, and governments are in the dark as to the type of housing that should be provided. The Hellyer Task Force referred to this, and it is quite likely that some rather startling results may follow such a market study.

Secondly, more research with respect to industrialized housing construction methods. The techniques and methods being used in most house construction today are basically the same as were used in grandfather's time. And, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest this — if we could have this kind of in-depth market survey, that it would give stability to the lenders and stability to those builders who want to know, and want to have leadership from government, and leadership from the community, to enter into the building field.

One of the areas of responsibility that I took in this field as Minister without Portfolio, in this field of housing in this past year, was to convert into reality the concept explained here last spring, when I said that under present legislation the finest home-ownership programme in North America was here in British Columbia, that the people in British Columbia on a low income, or moderate income, could have a home of their own. I set out to do this in the highest density area of our Province, the City of Vancouver. As everyone knows there is very little open land left in our city, but the north-east sector or Kerr Street properties, that property of some 600 acres of city-owned land.

AN HON. MEMBER: South-east.

MRS. McCARTHY: Sorry — did I say north-east? I'm glad to know you know your city. In the south-east sector, or Kerr Street property, has been planned for many multiple types of residential use by the planning department of the City of Vancouver. In this plan, the city has designed boulevards, underground services, they have designed parks and schools, town-houses, senior citizen housing and detached single dwellings, all within the acreage which will give total living and community amenities to all who purchase or rent in that area.

The second step was to have the city co-operate with us to see that the project would take place on this Kerr Street property, and on May 6th, 1969, the city council did approve the plan in principle. It was then left with the planning department to evaluate the land and to offer it to us at market value. We waited until July of '69 and the report was presented to a committee of aldermen and myself. The area known as "Site 10" was suggested by them, an area of 6.6 acres and the price arrived at, including services, was $357,000.

I think there should be here attribute paid to Alderman Bird of our city who heads the housing committee, and Alderman Wilson who worked with him on it, and to the Director of Planning, Mr. Bill Graham, who assisted in all of these endeavours and at all these meetings.

Although the planning and the engineering departments of the City of Vancouver had hoped to have this off the ground by September, and get all of the acreage under way and prepared, I have just heard within this last week that the land is indeed now ready, and so now it is possible for us to go ahead. I am ready to call for proposals on this property immediately, and I'll ask for proposals for a plan which will place 100 to 108 homes, which is the planning department's own figures. I hope that builders will rush to the programme, first of all to fulfill a dream of home-ownership for over 100 families of moderate or low incomes, secondly to inspire, by this example, other projects in British Columbia — and yes, I do mean Natal as well — remembering that if this can be done in Vancouver, Mr. Speaker, it can be done at less cost elsewhere, where land is not at such a premium. And thirdly, to initiate a surge of interest, a whole new outlook to building in British Columbia to begin to find industrialized housing methods and to apply mass purchase techniques to the benefit of the home buyer. This, of course, all has to be done, has been done, and will be done with the co-operation of planning department of the City of Vancouver.

Mr. Chairman, in these past five years the population has grown in British Columbia at double the rate of the rest of Canada. This is a land of opportunity for the home builder, Mr. Speaker. By 1980 — and listen to this — you can laugh while we act. You can laugh any time you want, but this Social Credit Government will act. By 1980, Mr. Speaker, the population is expected to be 3,000,000 in our Province, and this will require an additional 250,000 to 300,000 new housing units in this next ten years.

We stand today on the threshold of a whole new British Columbia. In 1952, we were planning ahead to the challenges of the 60's, and we did the construction job and we did clear the deck. In 1960 we laid the groundwork to give equal opportunity to the north, to the south, to the east, and to the west in our Province, so that the child born in this Province had equal opportunities for economic stability as the child that is born in the City of Vancouver.

In 1970, with the foundation laid, we have already begun on a programme of human endeavour to surpass any in Canada today. With this Budget, Mr. Speaker, we will lead British Columbia into the 70's with experience with programmes, we will lead British Columbia with confidence, and with the security that we are guiding our Province the right way, with a foundation that has been unequalled anywhere in the world. Mr. Speaker, we will do this, not with power, Mr. Speaker, but with the power of people, the power of the individual British Columbian behind us.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. G. B. GARDOM (2nd, Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, there is a matter of urgent public importance, at least to the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, because I was outside a few moments ago and I saw his car and I saw his car in the state in which it is, and his right front has a flat. (laughter) I'd say, Mr. Speaker, that the honourable the Leader of the Opposition is going to need all of his wheels to do the job as commendably as his former boss, so I think he'd better get that filled up.

Now, the honourable lady Minister talked about the evils of the weed and I heartily concur, and there was a very interesting article in the press not too long ago, a statement from a gentleman by the name of Dr. David Rutstein, who is the head of the Harvard Medical School, and he talked about cigarette advertising and he made this statement, and I think it is a very germane statement. He said, "You are faced with the decision as to whether you will give the cigarette industry and its advertisers a permanent, unrestricted hunting licence, with an open season of twelve months, to hook our youngsters into lifelong addiction that will lead to increased disease, disability, and untimely death to them and their babies." And I think, Mr. Speaker, the sooner that we can restrict cigarette advertising in our Province, and in fact in

[ Page 405 ]

our country, the better.

Now, dealing with that, I would like the permission of the House to read a very interesting decision of the Tennessee Court of Appeals, a little bit to the south of us. This was a case that was decided in 1966,

AN HON. MEMBER: Not the monkey trial?

MR. GARDOM: No, it is not the monkey trial. It is known as Clairborn versus Maclean, and the heading to it is this, it says, "Caution — Cigarette Smoking May Be Hazardous to Your Health." These are the facts, and they are quite short, Mr. Speaker. It dealt with a motor-vehicle accident. "Although the driver of the car was clearly negligent in hitting a steel bridge abutment" — I am quoting the reasons of the judge — "the girl who was riding with him could not recover for her injuries since she had been contributorily negligent herself in failing to protest that the driver was not taking proper precautions for their safety. The driver and the girl had been petting until only about a minute before the accident, and the girl admitted that she had been lying in the front seat of the car with her head in his lap and had removed her clothes exposing a portion of the upper half of her body."

The Court concluded, Mr. Speaker, "that the girl had so roused and distracted the driver that he was hardly aware of what he was doing at the time of the accident. However" — this just shows you how ingenious lawyers are — "the Court rejected the argument that since the driver had removed his hand from the girl one minute before the impact and lit a cigarette, her conduct could not have been the proximate cause of the accident." (laughter) "That argument erroneously assumed that in such a short interval of time the driver, with the girl's body still exposed, could have regained his exposure and again devoted his attention to driving. Moreover, the girl was also contributorily negligent in reaching for the cigarette which he attempted to conceal when he saw another car, containing people who knew his father, coming towards him." The boy was concerned, since his father did not know that he smoked, Mr. Speaker! (applause and laughter)

HON. L. R. PETERSON (Attorney-General): I didn't want to interrupt before the finish of his story — it was interesting. But in case he is discussing the "last clear chance rule," this is covered by legislation before the House, and we might like to discuss it later (laughter).

MR. GARDOM: I am surprised to hear that perhaps even in B.C. we have the rule of personal experience, Mr. Attorney-General.

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I had planned to take a great deal of time discussing the dreadful situation that is still pervading the economic strata of British Columbia, and that is Commonwealth, and I received today a letter which is two pages long, and I suppose copies were sent to other honourable members, and I am not going to deal with this at length but I would just like to say this. It is a letter dated February 11, 1970, to the Right Honourable W.A.C. Bennett, and it is under the hand of three people for Commonwealth Investors Action Group. These people say this in this letter, Mr. Speaker, "Dear Mr. Minister:" — and this is just February 11th — "On November 7, 1968, it was announced publicly for the first time that the Commonwealth group of companies was in imminent danger of collapse. Since then several of the companies have been placed in receivership or have been declared bankrupt, and the investors have become increasingly fearful that they will never recover the investments that they had made in trust. Many have been forced to seek new employment after having reached retirement. Many are on welfare, and we have been made more aware every day of the many whose minds and bodies have been damaged beyond repair because of the shameful negligence of your Government in the handling of the affairs of Commonwealth.

"Since November, 1968, investors have lost any hope of recovering their monies through the just operation of Government agencies and the Court. They have therefore formed the Commonwealth Investors Action Group which represents the interests of all investors in the Commonwealth group who have lost or may lose their investments. The Action Group holds the Government of British Columbia fully responsible for all of the monies invested with Commonwealth, in view of the following facts:" — and they enumerate four facts —

"One, section 71 of the Trust Companies Act gives the Government authority and states that it is the Government's duty to revoke the licence of any company not operating in compliance with the best business practices. Two, the Government had clear knowledge of the insecure position and poor management of Commonwealth affairs from '64. Three, the Government was aware that the Company pursued aggressive policies designed to persuade people that the Company was backed by the Government, and failed to stop their practices. Four, the Government failed to disclose the facts to the public before November 7, 1968."

And they say this, "The gross negligence — the gross negligence and mismanagement of the Government in this affair has the same result" — very strong words — "has the same result as a conspiracy to defraud the public. We therefore most urgently request the Government to accept full responsibility for the just and immediate payment in full of the investments of the Commonwealth Group, and that you assume full responsibility for the recovery of assets on behalf of the taxpayers of British Columbia. We ask, Mr. Minister, only for your Government to accept its reasonable responsibilities and to give us justice. We feel we are entitled to an immediate reply concerning this matter." And I do hope, Mr. Speaker, that they receive that immediate reply from the Premier and as soon as he returns to this House from Ottawa.

The reason I am not going to dwell on this any further today is because, quite frankly, I think the House wishes to see the Premier, and I know that I wish to see him eyeball-to-eyeball on this thing. We want to find out whether he is or is not going to announce to this Legislature that he will incorporate a legislative inquiry to investigate this sad and sorry and most foul mess, and to give the people, Mr. Speaker, who have a good cause of action, who have a good cause of action — and there are those people today in the Province of British Columbia who do have a good cause of action against this Government — and we are going to ask him if he is going to give them the right to sue us, which they should do.

Now, tonight, I am going to talk about three specific topics. First of all, the riding of Vancouver–Point Grey, and then something about insurance. What time is the fight tonight? I will be finished in time for the fight if everybody doesn't get too noisy, okay? Riding Point Grey, insurance, and legislative reform.

First of 4 dealing with the former. One would expect, Mr. Speaker, that the climate in the University Endowment

[ Page 406 ]

Lands would be the same as in the rest of Point Grey, but unfortunately it isn't. It is hotter and it is really hot today, and I think understandably so, because it is sore at this Government, and rightly so, and I wish to illustrate five points. Firstly — where has he gone? — the Minister of Lands' proposal to turn the University Endowment Lands over to the city is just not good, and I think, Mr. Speaker, to emasculate the sovereignty of this area and arbitrarily "flang" it into the City of Vancouver without even so much as a how-do-you-do would be most inappropriate. I think that the second member for Vancouver East thinks it is a good thing. I differ with him. And I'd say this, that the citizens in this area have the right to be consulted and they have got the right to be heard and I think the right for an exercise of their choice, a referendum, and I think they should be given an opportunity, to select a course.

I have asked the Minister to stop the music, take a second look for, unless I am misreading the situation, I think the University Endowment Lands' answer would be "No" to moving into Vancouver, because they want their area to remain an atmosphere of alma mater, and I think that is good and I will tell you why. It should be an atmosphere that is dedicated to the University, to the pursuit of knowledge, the pursuit of learning, and surely the best way to permit this to happen is for it to become a university municipality. It is big enough. It is homogeneous. It has dandy bench strength, in fact really an abundance of capable people, and it would be most economically sound. The land could be used, Mr. Speaker, under this sort of situation as a university municipality, in accordance with the original intent and that is for the University, and to generate finance for the enrichment of its purposes. It would continue to be —

AN HON. MEMBER: …free loading.

MR. GARDOM: I don't think the University is a free-loader. You may think so, my friend, but I don't agree with you. I don't agree with that. That is another of your irrational statements.

It would continue to be unique. It would be more definitive in direction. But I say that all of these very, very enviable characteristics could be lost if it is to be consumed by the metropolis of Vancouver and fall heir, among other things, to the city's terrific inconsistencies and vagaries in zoning. I think these people should be granted an opportunity for self-determination, and that the area should be maintained as one that is universally university oriented. The Minister is definitely famous for his second looks — he tells us that, in any event — and I think a second look here would give him a first-class place in Point Grey history. I think we should hear from the citizens out there. What do they want, do they think, is best for their area, best for the University? I would like to hear more from them.

Secondly, in the interim, I'd plead with the Minister that a portion of those lands be set aside for the establishment of a B.C. Scientific Research Park. Now, many members have spoken about this in prior Sessions, maybe some have spoken about it in this Session, I don't know. But it is obviously the correct place. It would be of terrific community benefit. There would be the industrial rewards, and progress in the field of developing secondary industry. I think, quite frankly, it is high time B.C. got off its oars and it swam in the scientific mainstream. We should be a get-with-it Province. We should be improving our technology, and we should definitely be exporting research and not importing it. This is one way to help to decrease the brain drain and keep our Canadian minds at home.

Also, to take a look at it from the purely and simply crass view of dollars, we are a natural products Province and I think there would be a most valuable secondary effect of emphasizing and creating secondary and spin-off industries. For this, you, know, there is a host of complementary precedent. M.I.T. alone wooed about 175 new corporate ventures to its doorstep. B.C. people, Mr. Speaker, are on the whole tired — and I think this is the Government's attitude too, but unfortunately you people are in a position to do something about it, and you don't seem to be doing it — but B.C. people are tired of sending the bulk of their raw materials to others to process. We cut it and we dig it, but what happens? We bag it, we send it away, and we've got to keep some of that here. The site is right. The time is right. The environment is right. I say, go ahead and establish that Research Park. Do it now. You can.

Third point, perhaps a parochial point to the riding, but I have heard a lot of talk about lengths of roads in other people's ridings, and I would like to say a little bit about something here. That is, to talk about Wreck Beach, and that is on the southwestern extremity of Point Grey. It didn't, although the view out there is somewhat popular that it got its name from the Government's performance insofar as parks and beaches policy is concerned in Vancouver. The one thing that is needed is money and that's all. Vancouver is growing like crazy. There are increased demands for recreation and, quite frankly, the Government should be playing a major role in promoting and developing urban parklands.

Vancouver Parks Board indicates, Mr. Speaker, an annual count of nearly 5,000,000 people in Stanley Park alone, and that is a volume greater than all of the rest of the B.C. parks put together. Yet when the Parks Board came here last spring for assistance to get along with the problems of erosion in this Point Grey area, really all they got was a pleasant smile but a deaf ear. I would say this, Mr. Speaker, that the Government must apportion money for the construction of a seawall pathway from the west end of Spanish Banks to Wreck Beach. It could be built along, say, the order of the Stanley Park seawall. It would be for strollers, cyclists, but not for cars, and it would be a terrific recreational credit.

Also, another thing I can tell you, it is becoming a critical necessity to prevent erosion, for if Cecil Green Park and the former Graham home and the Fort Camp parking lot it all fell into the sea, they would make about the biggest $600,000 splash in the history of the Province, and the cost of the cure is about two-thirds of that — around $400,000. It's straight insurance today, among other things. We could retain the ecology of the area, the pathway could follow the natural contours of the cliffs, and it would provide a most scenic attraction and certainly render the beach much more accessible.

Now, fourthly, when one talks about a university there's one word that covers the whole situation, and that's the word "more". More money, more buildings and more teachers, because more students there are definitely going to be. That's fact, not clairvoyance. We all know that. You just have to look, at our primary school population. Every year it's growing like Topsy, and with the percentage of those who are seeking university training increasing and increasing and increasing, and we need more regional colleges.

I think myself the university process should be more decentralized, more moderate-size campuses, to better personalize university instruction. I think it would be a good

[ Page 407 ]

thing to have buffer committees, both financial and academic, to set priorities for the distribution of Government funds for all higher education, and to fix common standards for all of the universities and all of the regional colleges. It would be the responsibility of these buffer committees, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, to determine the financial needs and pass those requests to Government, and themselves play a part in cutting the pie, and eliminate the political maneuvering of the past. Because, Mr. Speaker, the University of British Columbia certainly feels that it has received the short straw, because notwithstanding it has a far, far higher student cost by virtue of the professional and specialty courses, the Provincial grant to U.B.C. for a full-time equivalent student is well under that of Victoria and Simon Fraser. I think this imbalance in the financial formula between the cost required to educate in the professional fields as opposed to time arts has got to be corrected, and have an enriched procedure for those purposes.

Also, along the lines of the member from Kootenay today, a small word for the students. I completely agree with his assessment there, that until such time as we have more facilities available throughout the Province, the students outside of the university areas should receive some sort of equalization assistance, at least travel grants, at least travel grants. You know, even the M.L.A.'s receive some type of equalization compensation in so far as travel grant is concerned. It's not a great deal of money, but I can tell you, the university students would be delighted to receive exactly the same amount that the M.L.A.'s receive and I think that might be even a good form in itself to start off with. Because, as the member illustrated, a student whose resources are marginal and he happens to be living in the university area, fine and dandy, that guy is very fortunate and he can go there. But if the poor chap or girl happens to be a marginal student in the hinterland, it's denied to him.

Now, a couple of words about insurance, and I think one of the primary criticisms of the insurance industry, and I'm talking about the insurance industry in this talk, is its apparent unwillingness to clean up its own mess and promote insurance reform from the inside out. On this point I once had a word with one of the senior executives in Canada, and he expressed to me in very blunt and in no uncertain terms that they were there to do business, and if the Government wished to regulate them they would follow the regulations, but he could not see that it was his industry's responsibility to reform from within, either for the public in general or for the claimant in specific. To an extent, and with every respect, since he's not here, that reminded me of the Premier's attitude to the democratic political process. So to set up a Commission, postures thrown in, in order to keep decisions and responsibilities and perhaps even more so, criticisms, from your doorstep as much as possible.

Well, Mr. Speaker, at some stage, if the institutions, be they public institutions or private institutions, if they themselves do not see fit to put their own house in order, and the public finally responds, then you run into confrontations, upsets, and darned heavy social costs, and all those things can be readily avoided.

Now the Committee on Insurance last year, in my view, worked hard and diligently and I think, on the whole, in a very non-partisan manner, but quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, I think the Insurance Committee last year was taken. There is no way that the Government could have come up with a Bill as quickly as it did following the Committee's recommendations. Those decisions would have had to have been made before, and to me the Committee was a smoke screen, just a smoke screen, and many of its recommendations….

MR. SPEAKER: I didn't quite catch the name that the member gave the Committee — he didn't say fake, did he?

MR. GARDOM: Pardon?

MR. SPEAKER: Did the honourable member say the Committee was a fake? I'm sorry I didn't quite catch what you said.

MR. GARDOM: Smoke screen, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: No, prior to that.

MR. GARDOM: Would you like me to repeat it?

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, please.

MR. GARDOM: I said I think it was taken.

MR. SPEAKER: Taken — I'm sorry.

MR. GARDOM: Yes. And many of the recommendations, Mr. Speaker, of the Committee were ignored. For example, that there be Province-wide motor-vehicle testing and Province-wide driver training, which a lot of the members in Opposition and the odd one on the Government side have been advocating for years. But let's, for goodness sakes, have this thing put in some time or other, let Government have the spunk to stand up and put a Bill in this Session for Province-wide motor-vehicle testing and Province-wide driver training.

But equally bad to me, Mr. Speaker, was this, that there were no real proposals for improvement of the industry from the insurance companies, and where were their recommendations? I think that they should have been lobbying, not just for the financial interests of the industry, but for some reform within their own industry. Dealing with this, there's a very interesting, and, I think, revealing article reported in the Insurance Agent and Broker in Canada — that's the name of the magazine — and the issue is November of 1969, and it's an article by someone by the name of Frank MacDonald, Western correspondent, and I'd like the House to hear a few excerpts from it, and I'm quoting: "At long last the British Columbia insurance balloon has burst, not with a bang but a whimper. Attorney-General Leslie Peterson, often referred to by Premier W.A.C. Bennett as 'this brilliant young man,' made the announcement…."

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the member be seated. The point of order?

MR. H. P. CAPOZZI: The point of order is that a great deal of this is under Committee discussion at the moment, and I think he has some very valid points in referring to….

MR. SPEAKER: Any matter referred to a Committee does not preclude its discussion in the House.

MR. CAPOZZI: I would hope that he would rather bring it up in the Committee than bring it….

MR. SPEAKER: The member is out of order. Proceed.

[ Page 408 ]

MR. GARDOM: Carrying on, Mr. Speaker — "This announcement was made, and" — the clipping says — "perhaps appropriately" — this is quite a statement — "perhaps appropriately on Friday, October 31st, "Halloween." Halloween, the Attorney-General's Halloween trick and treat. "The Government's kiss of death, feared by many agents and company men, unlike the Wootton Royal Commission Report on Insurance of a year ago, was so mild it didn't even make the front page of the Vancouver Sun, but was buried in one of the back pages along with the furniture ads.

"Trick or treat. Most insurance men in this rainy, strike-torn Province sought the latter as they ran to the nearest bar for doubles. They were cautiously pleased, and with good reason. It had been a long, hard fight and it looked as if they had won. On Pender Street it was business as usual with gusto. The B.C. Agents' Association can congratulate itself, too, on doing a bang-up job in lobbying against the unpalatable restrictions of the proposed new law." This is what they say themselves. Now, "Peterson also said," and this is an quotation, "that where an insurance policy now in force expires some time in 1970 it will, until expiry, constitute adequate compliance with compulsory requirements of the new legislation and accident benefits, will, with co-operation of the automobile insurance industry, automatically be added to or read into the existing policy until it expires." End of quote. Carrying on with the article, "Accident benefits on a mandatory basis are estimated to cost $12 per year." $12.00 per year. Well, that's funny because, you know, the honourable the Attorney-General, or perhaps tragic is the better word, said on March the 28th of last year, "The Vancouver motorists will pay $24 less for $50,000 worth of personal liability coverage under the new Government auto insurance legislation." Peterson said, that under the proposed Bill the rates would drop to $61 in Vancouver and $41 in Victoria, a reduction of 28 per cent and 21 per cent respectively.

AN HON. MEMBER: That was before the election.

MR. GARDOM: I guess he must have lost his arithmetic book somewhere along the line, because this thing was really a sugar-coated panic Bill, and that's about all it was. Carrying on, he says, "However, accident benefits on a mandatory basis are estimated to cost $12 per year. However, the companies are not likely to spurn the Attorney-General's request at this late date, after all, they're lucky to still be in business. Peterson indicated the Government intends to take a second look at the legislative proposal. It would eliminate the right to sue for damage to a property exceeding $250. The former special legislative committee, or another one, will be asked to review the whole question of whether the Court concept of property damage be maintained, discarded or modified. 'Forget it,' says one prominent B.C. agent who shall remain nameless, quote, 'It's just Government window-dressing.' end of quote. The next Session of the Legislature in Victoria will probably begin in the third week of January. No matter what increases the Green Book put out in November calls for, in B.C. do not look for any rate increases before late February or March of next year. It's just good politics." Oh-ho, the plot thickens a little, eh?

Mr. Speaker, if this Committee of the House is to be Government window-dressing, as this article says, let's hear from the Government on it right now, right now. If decisions have been made behind the green door of Cabinet, let's know what they are. Or if the Cabinet has been in cahoots with industry, let's hear about that. And I'd like to say this, Mr. Speaker, where was all, where was all the materials in this terrific lobby that they were talking about?. Where are the briefs that came to the Government from the insurance industry from the termination of last year's Session until this day? I'd say we demand that they be tabled in the House. We demand that those briefs be tabled in the House.

Now the thing that troubles me, where are the suggestions, where are the suggestions from the insurers requesting that interim payments be mandatory? The three points here, and I'm going to speak about them individually, that all the company adjusters or independent adjusters be licensed, and the claimants be given adequate notice concerning statutory limitations.

Okay, number one, interim payments. Hundreds of injured people, Mr. Speaker, are getting darn rough deals in this Province, and I'll give you a specific illustration. A man and his wife were involved in a car accident which was not their fault at all, they were struck head-on by a car on the wrong side of the road, and they were injured and they weren't able to work. Once hospitalization ceased, the man wanted to recover his car damages, as it was a total loss. He didn't have any collision coverage so he had to look to the other man. Clear liability. He consulted his lawyer. He'd have to have a car so he could get back to work. The question was put to the insurance adjusters. The insurance adjusters said, "Yes, we'll recommend it." Then they telephoned back and they said, "No, the company won't consider paying for the car now. Those people have to wait until they've recovered from their injuries, because the company won't have anything to do with the lawyer in question because of his views on automobile insurance." His views on automobile insurance were that there should be a governmental agency, the British Columbia Automobile Insurance Corporation, to effect or administer the basic no-fault plan, which is essentially an accident policy. His views were that there should be interim payments to help pull people through the kind of rough weather that I'm talking about when they most need it and give them enough to live on. Sure, these interim payments could be on a "without prejudice" basis to final settlement if the companies wished, and I'd say again, only in the case of the clear liability cases — head-on collisions, rear-enders, and things like that. But no, Mr. Speaker, many companies, not all of them, but many companies, irrespective of the hardships, they hold tight until they can get a final release, which pressures the injured person, and it's just unfair.

Secondly, I'd say that under the Insurance Act there are darn good provisions dealing with the licensing of insurance adjusters. They've got to take exams, they've got to meet standards, but for some incalculable reason these requirements do not apply to an adjuster who is a salaried employee of an insurance company. It only applies to the independent. The company man doesn't have to take an exam, no prerequisite for him, and that, to me, is just double standard nonsense. It was also double standard nonsense in view of the lawyer in question. We've got to have one law, the same for the company adjusters, and the same one for the independent.

Now, what about the third point, notice? Talking about statutory limitations. It was also this lawyer's view, that the company took exception to, that where insurance companies or their adjusters negotiate with people, negotiate directly with you, any of you who have had a car accident and the company or the adjuster negotiates directly with you and a settlement is not reached say, within a year, okay, I'm saying

[ Page 409 ]

this. Under those circumstances the company should be required to furnish you with written notice of the fact that if you don't get your action settled within the 12-month period, they're going to rely upon the statutory limitation, and then you're hooked thereafter, and that would be all right. But at the present time you're hooked in any event, and there's no responsibility upon them to furnish you with any notice whatsoever. No end of people are being led down the garden path by the unconventional insurer on these kind of cases. Again, certainly not by all of the companies, but certainly by some of them, and their actions can disappear right into the night. There's all sorts of reasons, Mr. Speaker, why claims aren't settled. There may be squabbles over the cost of repairs, and darn justifiable. There may be continuing incapacity situations, again justifiable, but there's lots of cases where people with perfectly good claims have been left 100 per cent in the cold because there was no settlement within the limitation period of one year.

This is one, and it's an interesting one, just to show you how bad some of these things can get. This was the loss of a small pleasure boat, a fishing boat, not a big thing, I think it cost around $2,500, something like that. It was a deadhead, and eventually it was pulled in and the adjuster saw it on several occasions. Then another adjuster came in and there were all sorts of negotiations about the cost of repairs — no questions whatsoever about liability — and they were unable to reach agreement on the cost of these repairs. The fellow who was claimant, the boat owner, he was a person of foreign extraction and he had a limited knowledge of English. Well, the adjuster eventually got mad at him and he got mad at the adjuster, but they continued to deal spasmodically. What happened? What happened? The fellow didn't sign a formal proof of loss, and he didn't sign one because it didn't have the amount in that he felt it should be.

The year rolled by. The adjuster told the man absolutely nothing about the limitation period, or that it was coming up. The company went ahead and it relied on the statutory period. This fellow paid all of his premiums, the loss was recognized as a proper loss, there was an argument about the amount — I suppose they might have been apart $200 or $300 at the very most — the company knew all about the limitation period, it knew all about its requirement for signing the proof of loss. The claimant didn't, the fellow who owned the boat. Even worse than that, this company was his own insurer, his own insurer. He paid that company his premium, but it just sat by and it let the year roll by and it let this poor man's claim roll 100 per cent out the window.

It was the view of the lawyer that this was wrong, it was his continuing view that there should be some impetus from the industry to correct all of these kind of things. You know, that's almost tantamount to legal stealing. That's almost tantamount to legal stealing, if it isn't legal stealing — if it isn't legal stealing.

These kind of companies that I've been talking about, and these kind of practices, give the whole industry a very poor name, and I'd say to the industry, if they can't police their own industry they've got to request better laws that will police it for them, and you have got to bring in those better laws. I would like to see you bring in those laws dealing with the three points that I've covered.

Now, my last topic, Mr. Speaker, and I feel that this will go for approximately ten minutes.

HON. L. R. PETERSON (Attorney-General): In that event, Mr. Speaker, I'd ask leave be given for the honourable member to conclude his address past the hour of six o'clock.

MR. SPEAKER: Shall leave be granted?

MR. GARDOM: Thank you, honourable members.

I think it's time the shareholders of British Columbia — and who are the shareholders of British Columbia? They are the voters — that they more concern themselves about the parliamentary mechanisms that are used to govern this Province. The lady Minister was talking about this a little bit today, so I thought I'd expand it. Because I tell you this, Mr. Speaker, this old-line old-time Cabinet isn't the slightest bit interested in parliamentary reform. It's like any executive that's too long in the tooth, too centrally powered. They do only what they think is useful, and as long as it's been done before it's right once again. I say, that with a mandarin-like tenacity, they refuse to delegate either power or responsibility, and I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that there is no better example in B.C. that we are without a society that is one of participation and involvement, than of this legislative process itself.

I'd say, firstly, we have got to return to the acceptance of the principle that the rules of parliament are the servants of parliament and not its master.

MR. SPEAKER: Order. Order please.

I have no objection to the member touching lightly on an amendment to the rules of the House, but he realizes, I am sure, that there is a motion on the Order Paper asking that a committee be struck to revise the rules of the House. As long as he stays outside the terms of those references, he may proceed.

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I did take a careful look at that, and I will accept your wisdom and ruling throughout the motion of the honourable the members for the formation of a committee to deal with the Standing Orders. I'm not talking about the Standing Orders, I'm talking about legislative reform in the generic sense. (laughter)

MR. SPEAKER: I'm quite clear on the subject now. (laughter)

MR. GARDOM: Secondly, Mr. Speaker, we need to restate and contemporize our parliamentary process in order that it can do the job that's demanded of it, because it's the largest and the most complicated and the most powerful and all-encompassing business that is, or ever has been, in this Province, and, quite frankly, I think it's extremely poor to continue to see it operated by corner-store methods. You know that was fine and dandy in the days of hat pins and buttoned shoes, but I think today we need an effective and a modern way of programming and doing the business of the people.

I'd suggest a nine-point programme for reform. Firstly, to completely unmuzzle the Legislature and have a proper report of the debates, and if the people want to have them televised or broadcast, I'd say fine. Quite frankly, I don't think it would ever outdraw Gunsmoke or something or other, but people….

AN HON. MEMBER: Laugh-in.

MR. GARDOM: It certainly wouldn't outdraw Laugh-in! Which one's Goldie, that's what I want to know.

[ Page 410 ]

Democratic government has got to be answerable to the people and it's got to be fully answerable, Mr. Speaker. As the member for Kootenay who came out with many, many gems this afternoon, not only should a government govern, but it should appear to govern, and the public have a right to fully know what goes on. The emphasis of that statement is in the word fully, and if they want to take notes in the gallery up there I'd say more power to them. Let them do it. This is their Legislature. This is their Legislature. We're here with sufferance. We're just here by sufferance. This is the people's palace.

AN HON. MEMBER: We're suffering now.

MR. GARDOM: This is the people's palace. Why doesn't the Government remember that?

Secondly, I'd establish an Ombudsman to help the poor old Joe Q. Public wade through the red tape and bureaucratic snarls. Thirdly, I'd incorporate, and suggest you should incorporate, a daily question period, and make it the duty of Cabinet, who have so many, many ready answers, to be answerable, on matters of moment, instead of hearing the old, old saw, "Wait until my Estimates come before the House, and ask me then."

And, Mr. Speaker there should be an end to sneaking behind the corporate veil. The members of this House who are directors of a Crown corporation should be answerable in the House for all matters dealing with that Crown corporation, and all the matters involving Government policy dealing with those corporations, which up to now has been more like a parliamentary Punch and Judy show. Ask a Minister. Ask a Minister. One of you is Judy and the other one's the other one, I suppose. Okay. You ask a Minister why something was not done. We ran into this example last year. We asked the Minister of Municipal Affairs, "Say, why aren't you doing anything with that block to the south of the Court House in Vancouver?" Then another Minister popped up like a parliamentary Judy, and he said, "That's not the responsibility of this Minister — that's the responsibility of B.C. Hydro." Mr. Speaker, the responsibility of the Government of the Province of British Columbia is the totality of all matters over which it has control. All matters. It's this Government's duty to permit and request specific public scrutiny of all of its sections, and specifically including the Crown corporations, which carry nearly the total debt load of the whole of the Province, and it's got the highest per capita debt of any province in Canada today.

Fourth, in order to reduce repetitious and perhaps sometimes uniformed debate, I think we should shore up the committee system and have all important legislation in front of the committees two months before it ever comes to the floor of the House. There it could be sifted and it could be screened and the i dotting could be taped. You see, the Minister — which is he the Minister of now?

AN HON. MEMBER: I'm not sure.

MR. GARDOM: The Minister of Welfare is a real old war horse in something like this, Mr. Speaker. No siree, he doesn't want people to find out what's going on. Just release it to them and shove it through, and we think that's wrong. I think that the people of British Columbia are the ones affected by the legislation. Let it be sifted and screened by the committees, let the i dotting take place there, and let's talk about the ands and the ors in the committees, and the shalls and the mays in the committees, instead of wasting the full time of the House on something like that. The responsibility of enacting legislation is still that of Government, but both it and the community at large can well profit, well profit from perusal and suggestion by all interested sectors long before it ever gets to the floor of the House…. You're going to miss the fight if you keep interrupting.

Five. Mr. Speaker, let's establish an appeal procedure from the ruling of committees and do away with the bulldoze sort of tactics such as was experienced in Public Accounts in '68. Permit a ruling of a committee to be appealed to the House, by the leader of the House, fine and dandy, but let's get it in here. Let's have the filing of minority reports. Hearing the finding of only the majority side of the committee, I don't think is fair. The general public pay the shot, and they are entitled to know both points of view, the majority and minority. Now, dealing with something that is fairly close to my humble heart, is the Bill of private members. I think that they've got to come before the House, I think they've got to be properly debated, rather than being squashed into the final day, with the majority of them always dying on the vine. The representatives of the people are elected to establish priorities, and when they prepare and file Bills, those Bills should be given a fair and a complete and an impartial hearing. In the event the Government side doesn't wish to or doesn't have the initiative or the wisdom to bring forth the measure, that's absolutely no reason for putting a stopper in the bottle of a good principle and a good idea. If you want to have a free vote, fine, and if a private Bill is worthy of becoming law, let it become law by virtue of a free vote, and let that happen without the downfall of Government.

Seventh point, research facilities, I think, and researchers should be made available for all of the elected members, which they are not.

Eight. Now a word about the Cabinet, another word about the Cabinet, they've got to be restructured. There is no question of a doubt about that. They've got to be restructured. The Attorney-General over there, Mr. Speaker, should be Attorney-Generaling, and a Labour Minister should be labouring, and a Finance Minister should be financing, and a Premier should be premiering. And for environmental control, let's find that under one Minister and incorporate a massive programme, because I tell you, border skirmishes are no longer the order of the day. Let's produce tax incentives, have environmental control funds labeled, better control of products. Increase the penalties, increase the public awareness of the problem, and better advertise the means of solution. Now everybody knows that these are overlapping areas and that there are overlapping responsibilities, and the whole field is very complicated. Everybody knows that, too. But, surely to goodness, Mr. Speaker, the only way and the best way, and the best place to start is with correct emphasis, and correct emphasis is leadership, and under a single portfolio, under a single portfolio. What's a camel? Does anybody remember that story about what a camel is? It was a horse designed by a committee, and that's your approach to environmental control, that's your approach.

The last point, Mr. Speaker, is this, that I think we should produce a regularly printed official synopsis of all Government programmes and I think, that when the strike is over perhaps, and seek and request the comment and advice of the people of B.C. so that they will know, and that they can be a part of what's going on in a group sense, rather than continue to be looked upon merely as vehicles to provide an election

[ Page 411 ]

majority. What I call a B.C. Report should be published in the press where every citizen could find it on a weekly basis, and they would know from it where the money was going, where it came from, and what was being done, rather than having to rely upon the vagaries of Cabinet statements.

I think also, Mr. Speaker, we should bring back one set of rules for all members, and not one for the Premier and one for the rest of us. It's high time, Mr. Speaker, that we stopped trying to run a space-age economy with procedures that are horse and buggy, that are remote from the times and remote from the citizens, and I think would serve as little but monuments to bad organization and poor planning.

On the motion of the Hon. W. M. Skillings, the debate was adjourned to the next sitting of the House.

The House adjourned at 6.11 p.m.