[ Page 469 ]

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

Prayers.

MR SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Burnaby-North.

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby-North): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Once again I would like to thank the Honourable Premier for the very delightful Valentine gift of flowers. Thank you very much.

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

MR. J.D. TISDALLE (Saanich and the Islands): I would like the Members of the Legislature to welcome a group of students from Salt Spring Island and especially all of the other Gulf Islands where they attend a high school on Salt Spring Island. There's 47 in the gallery with their teachers and we welcome the Grade 11 students.

Introduction of bills.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE VANCOUVER CHARTER

Mr. Vogel on behalf of Mr. Merilees moves introduction and first reading of Bill No. 50 intituled An Act to Amend the Vancouver Charter.

Motion approved. Bill No. 50 read a first time and referred to the select standing committee on standing orders and private bills.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE
TRINITY JUNIOR COLLEGE ACT

Mr. Vogel moves introduction and first reading of Bill No. 51 intituled An Act to Amend the Trinity Junior College Act.

Motion approved. Bill No. 51 read a first time and referred to the select standing committee on standing orders and private bills.

Orders of the day.

ON THE BUDGET

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

HON. W.N. CHANT (Minister of Public Works): Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to rise on this occasion and participate in the budget debate, particularly in view of the fact that this is the 19th year I have had the privilege of representing the City of Victoria in this Legislature. Some come and some go — some of us stay here quite a while.

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to represent the City of Victoria because I say without hesitation, it is one of the finest and I am sure the best places in all of Canada in which to live.

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

HON. MR CHANT: Kamloops is their dry arid region. Those who like it are welcome to it. Victoria, like many other centres in British Columbia, has grown and expanded tremendously in recent years and like other cities it also has growing pains and some problems and this will always be the case because it is a part of life.

The fact is, if it wasn't for the fact that there are problems to be dealt with, there wouldn't be any of us in the House. There would be no need of us being here. If everything was in perfect order and life ran smoothly, what would be the purpose or point of having a government?

Governments are elected to govern and are elected to make decisions. It does not become organisations here in the province or out of it to declare that because a government makes a regulation that they have the right to confront the government and say "you don't dare do this". This is a condition that is developing in the world today and I am just making this comment extemporaneously, but this condition and the continuation of it throughout the western world will lead to revolution. Law and order must prevail — otherwise anarchy, following which comes dictatorship.

This is the sequence of events in history and it will be in our own experience because democracy can only live and survive — live, move and have its being — when individuals will accept responsibility without having the police or others breathing down his neck, and obey the laws. Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I will now move on.

First of all, I've been interested in listening of course, to the remarks of the Honourable Opposition Members, in the N.D.P. But in listening to their comments, I found nothing new.

The concept is as old as human history and they have nothing new or modern to offer for this modern age. The gist of their proposition is spend more and tax less, destroy the profit incentive.

Social Credit tries to run the affairs of the country so people can run their own business. Not run it for them. But the N.D.P. super-planner Socialists, they have the idea they can run everybody's business and of course in the end result run it into the ground. Which there are all too many examples of throughout the country.

Also, they make numbers of comments in regard to mining and some royalties. Surely it's a nice thing to collect royalties when world markets will permit prices so that royalties can be charged. But we live in a highly competitive world and prices must meet competition.

I glean from their remarks that they would forgo the millions of dollars in revenues from coal mining and other mining in this province for the sake of collecting a few thousand dollars of royalties and kill the goose that lay the golden egg.

This is the policy that they propound, the policies they would like; to see mining companies run into the ground so that they can take them over and run them. And our friends — I call everyone in this Legislature a friend, and I think we all are, we have differences of opinion — but the leader of the Liberal Opposition, as usual, brought forth what he calls a budget. There's no use in going into a lot of foolish details about it such as he propounded, but in sizing up and summing it up, I called it a kind of kid's budget, that spends everything as fast as you can, as fast as you get it. Saturday night rich, Monday morning broke.

Yes, and many criticisms also of some of our perpetual

[ Page 470 ]

funds. The perpetual funds are a great blessing, a double blessing. First of all they accomplish a great deal of construction which is an asset and a remaining asset and they will have a continuing earning power in the future which will be a tremendous help to many people and in many fields of endeavour and need.

They are not something that is here and gone tomorrow. We've had certain experience with the federal government on some occasions where they have said: "Yes, we'll help you out and we'll pay certain costs for vocational schools et cetera". Then all of a sudden they back out of the picture. Here today and gone tomorrow.

Perpetual funds are a recycling of the funds loaned to the people in the economy of British Columbia and are a fundamentally good sound Social Credit economic concept.

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

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

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR CHANT: Yes, debt and more debt. Their counterparts down in Ottawa are leading Canada in every case into turmoil, national and international, and I don't think anyone can see the light of day out of it, let alone they themselves. I don't like to think of Canada becoming a French-oriented-Socialist-Communist-tainted-republic. I've no liking for it at all.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR CHANT: Yes and a lot more. Now, Mr. Speaker, a certain Honourable Member in the House has moved about quite a lot. In fact after he heard the budget he said that it left him speechless, but apparently he made quite a rapid recovery, being a doctor possibly he found a wonderful medicine of some kind that's good internally, externally and eternally or something of this kind.

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

First of all, he said, it's a completely new ball game. New ball game! Well, I've lived a little longer than he has and I've seen politicians come and go and governments come and go, federal and otherwise.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR CHANT: I quite well remember when R.V. Bennett came across Canada and said how he was going to blast his way into the markets of the world. What he was going to do. Along comes our friend Diefenbaker, a great man in his day and way, but if the jaw bone could win and get the work of the country done he would certainly have it all done also.

I want to just say, Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Member in bringing forth the policies that he has enunciated, is nothing more nor less than the old bag of Conservative jelly-beans, a big jaw-bone exercise.

I recommend that before he wants to be recognised as a leader of a party in this House that he be elected by that party in his constituency. Otherwise, Mr. Speaker, claiming himself to be the leader of a party in this House and not elected as such, it reminds me very much of the fellow that was telling people: "You know," he says, "I'm half married." "Oh," he said, "how so?" "Well," he said, "I have my own consent."

The electorate have not approved the Hon. Member, and until they do, I think he'd have been much wiser to have sat as an independent which he could more properly have done. Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR CHANT: I have another rather interesting happening in our capital city. A recent fledgling has been elected to public office, political fledgling, and has taken it upon himself to criticise the government and its record.

He thinks because he's been suddenly elected to office that he has become very knowledgeable in public affairs. I'm not claiming the man is not a fine man or knowledgeable man and so forth, but it is one thing to have knowledge and it is another thing to have intelligence. Even Solomon had enough sense to tell you that, and a whole lot more.

Of course, I refer, Mr. Speaker, to His Worship the recently elected Mayor of Victoria. But I trust that his recent success at the polls as Mayor hasn't gone to his head. I would simply like to advise him that pride may puff a man up but it won't prop him up. (Laughter).

Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, this gentleman as reported by the Press has stated that the Greater Victoria M.L.A.'s have accomplished nothing during their terms of office.

Now either he speaks from ignorance or disregard for the truth — take your choice. Because this cannot be backed up by facts and just because certain individuals may not make a great noise about everything they do doesn't say that they're not working.

After all, Mr. Speaker, the machines that accomplish the most work usually run quietly. And if a barrel is full of accomplishments it doesn't make nearly as much noise when you move it about.

Well, Mr. Speaker, the fact is that as a government and M.L.A.'s we work as a team. We don't try to go out and clothe ourselves with a lot of honour and glory — that "I'm the great, I am, I am, I am." Oh no, this is not our policy, nor is it a proper policy nor is it a proper attitude for an elected representative. After all, we should be humble in our representation.

In fact I would say that the opposite is the case, Mr. Speaker. The Members of the Greater Victoria area have a record of achievements of which to be extremely proud and we share the credit one with another. No one trying to take it all on himself at all.

Because a government is a government, it's a team and whenever, if you've noticed in an orchestra, the leader leads, each person doesn't take his own horn and toot his own notes. This doesn't work and it doesn't work in life, neither does it in football, neither does it in hockey or anything else. We work as a team and we will continue to work as a team, Mr. Speaker, and we'll succeed in doing so.

But, Mr. Speaker, I'm sorry to say this but I think our detractors have degraded themselves and their creditability to a low level when they have resorted to such false allegations.

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

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

The first I will mention is Government House. I think

[ Page 471 ]

quite a number of the Members here remember when we had the bad experience of the old Government House being burned, caught fire, and we had to build a new Government House which we did. I think it's a credit to the province and certainly has served a very necessary and useful function in our way of government and life.

Then also, Mr. Speaker, there are the Law Courts in Victoria. I well remember an Honourable Liberal Member saying when we started on that: "Oh, it will never be anything more than a hole in the ground". Of course, they're crepe hangers from beginning to last. They said the P.G.E. would never succeed and a whole lot of other things as well.

There's the Law Courts. And I want to say that was a building that was put up at extremely low cost considering the quality of the building.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. CHANT: Yes. And furthermore the same Honourable Member has written to me since complimenting me on it. Yes, we constructed that building, and building costs were lower at that time but we got extremely good values. It cost the taxpayers of this province in the neighbourhood of $14 a square foot. This is a fact.

Now, along with that also, doing nothing for the City of Victoria, there was the old Law Courts or what's known as Bastion Square. I recall, Mr. Speaker, when the City of Victoria were putting an addition on to their Municipal Hall and also renovating the old hall they were desperately in need of some space.

I obtained for them an excellent deal for the old Bastion Square Court House, which they're now the proud possessors of. I'm very pleased that the City of Victoria has it and is making good use of it.

There's also the purchasing of the Gordon Head University campus site. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that some of us that proposed this, we met with very, very strong and at times vicious opposition on what was then Victoria College becoming a university and moving out to the Gordon Head campus, the now campus site. General Pearkes was then the Minister of Defence and myself and others through him obtained that at a very reasonable price.

I will say, Mr. Speaker, but I say also God bless them, but there were some of the people that strenuously and viciously opposed that move who later tried to cloak themselves with the honour and glory of having proposed it.

I'll say that the Members and the M.L.A.'s of the Greater Victoria area with the help and assistance of the government it became an accomplished fact.

What about the Provincial Museum and Heritage Court? And the Carillon Tower? Yes, the good Dutch people in British Columbia have donated the bells for the Carillon, but the Department of Public Works designed and built the tower as well as the museum and the archives and the curatorial buildings. Now I think it is a very creditable result. Mr. Speaker, in this last year, there has been as far as I am aware a million or more people visit that museum this year. Greater than any other Museum in the whole of Canada, the attendance.

Also Glendale Hospital, another multi-million dollar project. Not quite one of the number, Mr. Speaker, that when this was opened some of the news media didn't even mention it.

You'd have thought it wasn't anything more than somebody had built a home and opened it, I mean a private home. So these are the means by which they tried to play down the accomplishments and what has been done for the City of Victoria or in the City of Victoria.

Then there is Helmcken House, a very interesting house with a lot of historical tradition. Yes, Mr. Speaker, we spent $30,000 or $35,000 to rebuild that house and bring it up-to-date so that it will be a place of interest and historical significance for generations to come.

Ever hear of the Point Ellice Bridge? Yes, it goes back a few years when His Worship, Mr. Scurrah, was the Mayor of Victoria and the government very kindly gave me a $100,000 cheque to present to them on the opening of that bridge, to help defray the costs of that bridge.

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

HON. MR CHANT: Never mind, you're the taxpayer and we're all taxpayers and that's why we don't take all the credit. They know where the money's well spent.

Also, Mr. Speaker, there's a vocational school and we're also enlarging that at the present time by adding to its cafeteria facilities, et cetera. This is a great asset to the Greater Victoria area.

There is also started and under construction at the present time out in the same vicinity a 150-bed nursing home for elderly citizens. This is presently under construction, Mr. Speaker.

Then there is the Capital Improvement District Commission. This is going back a few years. I remember having with a delegation attended in council chambers — this was before I was a Minister — and asking the government to institute a fund for the Capital Improvement District Commission and it's been in operation ever since and millions of dollars have been spent on improving and beautifying the Greater Victoria area and the capital City of Victoria.

Is this what they call doing nothing? Well, let's go on. There's also the Thunderbird Park, what we call the smokehouse there and the place where the Indians meet and hold their pow-wows. If you go down and take a look around, you'll see it there, and we're going to improve it some more this year and bring it up to better standards and the area around it.

There's also in back of the Parliament Buildings a lovely fountain that has the eagle, the bear, the raven, and the wolf as emblems of Indian lore and their culture, emblematic of them, at the back of the buildings here, a lovely little fountain which we built also.

Then just to the west we have the centennial grounds and fountain that was built also and constructed for the pleasure of the people and the tourists coming to Victoria.

Also at the present time, Mr. Speaker, we have reserved an area, which we hope to enlarge out in the Burnside-Admiral Roads area and which I have suggested that it be called the Major Comfort Homes Park and we reserved a certain area there and we hope to be able to add more to it and it certainly will be a great service and help and, I believe, a pleasure to the people in that area.

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

Also, Mr. Speaker, just recently to provide facilities for the various departments of government for material headquarters, et cetera, we purchased what was known as the Hudson's Bay Warehouse in the City of Victoria and it's under renovation at the present time as headquarters for

[ Page 472 ]

materials and carpenter shops, and forestry and recreation and conservation. There's four-and-a-half acres of land and about an acre-and-a-half of warehouse building — one of the best warehouses and most substantial you'll find anywhere in British Columbia.

We've been busy through the years as occasion arises purchasing properties throughout the precinct area. This has gone on continuously and is still in process.

Mr. Speaker, I think we can quite properly speak of the ferries. I well remember when C.P.R. employees went on strike, Black Ball was apparently proceeding to do the same. The then Honourable Member for Nanaimo, Mr. Westwood, and myself, we took a very active part in getting the Black Ball ferries to continue to operate under the Civil Defence Act.

Furthermore, following that, Mr. Speaker, there have been the ferries that have been built and operating between Swartz Bay and Tsawwassen now for a number of years which people take for granted, but which I well remember we debated back and forth in cabinet on many occasions wondering about the advisability.

We approached the C.P.R. and the Northern Navigation and others to see if they would build ferries and operate them. The answer was no. We said we'd build the approaches and the wharves if they would build and operate them. They said no. So we had to proceed to do it. We proceeded with considerable temerity to do it, we weren't experienced in the field but we proceeded to do it.

Now I want to say, Mr. Speaker, it's one of the most outstanding successes in North America in that type of service, if not the most outstanding. And I'm sure that the people of Greater Victoria appreciate it.

Or there is also the highway leading out there, and the up-island highway. You know, to get out of the city here, at one time, you had to wiggle around like this out through Langford and all over the place almost like a snake trail. Later on, there was the highway built out by Thetis Lake Park and Goldstream and up that way. Yes, we were all a part of that, also.

Then there is also out on the University Campus what's known as the Science Building, it's now called the Elliott Building. I am told by certain people at the University it's one of the best, if not the best, planned and best constructed buildings on the whole university site. I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that my department people or the department people of the Public Works, our department, they planned and constructed it.

It's an extremely intricate building and with very few extras. They had plenty of time to work on it and it's a very satisfactory building. Yes, it is a very nice building.

Also, Mr. Speaker, the Department of Public Works passes on plans for elder citizens' homes. Now this has been a programme that has been going on for years. The funds are provided through the Provincial Secretary's office. There are millions of dollars have been provided in this manner — outright grants, 33 1/3 per cent, now 35 per cent. No loans, like the federal government gives them, and charges them interest forever and a day afterwards. We give an outright grant to them. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I'm sure we can take a great deal of pride in participating in these projects also.

And, furthermore I'm quite sure that in the not far distant future or at the present time under study are programmes for improved and extended administrative facilities in the government area in Victoria

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

I haven't referred to other parts of the province, Mr. Speaker, because this is the area of which certain individuals have had the audacity to say nothing has been done. Because we haven't been out there crying to high heavens, "look how great, great, great I am." We've been busy getting on with the job.

Mr. Speaker, in these fields of expenditure there's no exact figure but I know in what I've mentioned there's well over $70 million been spent in these fields and this doesn't include contributions to hospitals, schools, et cetera. Not at all, this is entirely separate from that.

So, Mr. Speaker, to say that nothing has been done in the Greater Victoria area — I would venture to say that, relatively speaking, no place in the whole of Canada has had more done than the City of Victoria in the same given length of times.

As one of the Members…

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

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

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

HON. MR CHANT: Victoria City is the capital.

AN HON. MEMBER: Go on back to Lillooet.

HON. MR. CHANT: You've said so many foolish things, Mr. Member, we can't pay any attention to what you say. Now, Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say in summing this up a little, that the Honourable Mayor would be very wise to attend to his own knitting, and not all of a sudden just because he gets into office realise there are public problems, and then he wants to throw them all on the government door step and say: "Come and solve these for me please."

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

HON. MR CHANT: Oh, well I'll give him credit for saying that anyway. I wonder if the Honourable Mayor realises the provincial grant given toward the Ocean Cement acquisition and which my colleague attended many meetings to promote it also. I wonder if he does. I think his worship would be well to give consideration to the fact while he gives lip service to protection of environment — and at the same time selling cars as fast as he can, the greatest pollutant there is — to prove he's sincere, he might try improving on automotive and industrial pollution. So I'll leave that, Mr. Speaker, now I'll go on to other matters.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR CHANT: This is my speech and I don't need any help from you to make one at all. You make so many bum ones I wouldn't want to be part of it. Your assistance is not appreciated at all.

Mr. Speaker, speaking of the Department of Public Works I'm pleased to report a very sizable increase on projects under way, as well as projects out to tender. Our division has been extremely busy, in fact I can say really overloaded. It's been an extremely busy year. It shows a total of 104 major

[ Page 473 ]

projects have been or are being called for tender. And there are also 100 informal contracts. These are smaller contracts that are done under maintenance.

Our construction in the maintenance division was awarded 133 contracts to date. This is by a do-nothing government of course, as some people say, Mr. Speaker. Just listen. Our activities in this field alone amount to over $12 million in this present year.

The department has been extremely busy in this past year. Our increased volume of work has created a programme of works projects which has assisted in promoting a greatly increased amount of employment in the Province of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, if there is any field of endeavour that gives a high percentage of employment with a dollar spent I think the field of construction and building and particularly renovation spends a greater percentage of the dollar on labour than practically any other form of employment or projects of undertaking in the whole province.

Yes, we have something to show for an asset for the generations to come. In this budget, Mr. Speaker, there are several commitments which will not only reinforce this government's determination to create more jobs, for those who seek one, but it will greatly add to the financial resources available to make this end possible and we look forward to an even busier year ahead of us than that which has just passed.

Now, Mr. Speaker I know the time is slipping by quite quickly. There are a multitude of other things that one could discuss, but I intend to give those who follow me a fair opportunity also and therefore, Mr. Speaker, I am going to conclude my remarks.

The budget which we have under consideration is the best budget ever brought down in this province. It's a budget to be proud of. More Social Credit in it than you've ever dreamed of. It's a real Social Credit Budget. It brings to the people the results they want in the management of their affairs. And when they vote they so recognise.

First of all it's a balanced budget, that's a Social Credit budget. It's a liquid budget, that's also a Social Credit budget. It's a social service budget — $1 billion or more going directly to social services, that is a Social Credit budget. It's a realistic budget, that is also a Social Credit budget. And it's a budget that the Opposition would be very proud to vote for if they had brought it in. But Mr. Speaker…

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR CHANT: Mr. Speaker, if the Honourable leader of the Liberal Opposition knew half as much about finance as what our Honourable Minister of Finance does he'd be twice as wise as he is today, and that adds up to 25 per cent.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to say that our Minister of Finance is to be highly commended in presenting a budget to this House without a peer in North America and I'm sure it will receive unstinting support of this House.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Kootenay.

MR. L. NIMSICK (Kootenay): Mr. Speaker, Honourable Members, I get up with little trepidation as to whether I will be able to speak or not. So I'm going to go right into my speech for fear somebody says I'm out of order. I'll tell you I want to warn you of one thing that being that I was denied the right the other night my speech probably will be a little longer than usual.

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

MR. NIMSICK: So I hope you will bear with me for that time. I didn't know that the government considered me such a heavyweight that they sandwiched me between the two Ministers, and they figure that what I'm going to say probably warrants an argument from another heavyweight to follow me.

The speaker that just sat down, I don't know whether he's in the leadership race or not but I think he came up a few points during his talk. When he was praising himself and telling you all about what happened in Victoria and taking credit for it as the M.L.A. along with a few more M.L.A.'s in Victoria, it made me think of when I did that in my area and told the people what I had done since I had been in, I was criticised for it. By that side of the House.

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

MR. NIMSICK: You're not going to tell me, Mr. Premier, that only the government Members get anything in regards to their area. I'm not that naive. When the Honourable the Minister spoke about mining and royalties, and then he spoke about believing in free enterprise and competition, I'd like to ask him if he believes that a business should be able to run a popcorn stand you must pay for the corn before you can pop the corn. And I say that in the mining industry, a mining industry cannot run without the ore — and of course they can run far better if they can get the ore for nothing. And that's exactly what they're doing in the Province of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to deal with one question in regards to talking about a balanced budget, and no debt. We heard last week that the consumer of electricity in this province pays 34 cents of every $1 — 34 cents of every $1 for interest, interest to the debt.

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

But it's the responsibility of this government and I'd like to ask the Honourable Premier through you, Mr. Speaker, who pays Hydro in this position of high-priced power? Who gave away the opportunity of British Columbia to enjoy cheap power? None other than a so-called financial genius, the Honourable the Premier.

Many people talk about the Honourable Premier as the financial genius in this province. This is the financial genius that brought high-priced power to the Province of British Columbia.

I wonder if you remember…and I don't think that he'd like to reminisce about this great edifice the Columbia River Treaty and what he did about it.

Well, remember that picture when he signed the treaty and told what a wonderful treaty it was. I wonder if he remembers the Press report. And I'd like to read some of it to

[ Page 474 ]

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

Today Premier W.A.C. Bennett released the new details regarding the Columbia River treaty. Great benefits to Canada and the United States from the development of the Columbia River will result from the agreement announced today by the Government of British Columbia, Canada, and the United States. The United States has agreed to make payments…

Now get this…

to British Columbia which are equivalent to $501 million.

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

When the period of dam construction is finished in return for these payments British Columbia will construct three large storage dams at Duncan, Arrow Lake and Mica. 274.8 million for the Canadian entitlement to its half share of the increased power generation in the United States, which has been sold for 30 years.

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

this payment is to be made on October 1, 1964, the expected date of exchange of ratification, $12 million on completion of the Duncan project, $56.3 million on completion of the Arrow project and $1.3 million on completion of the Mica in 1973. The United States payment for power and flood control compounded at 5 per cent will have a total value of $501 million by 1973 when the three dams are completed.

In December 1970 we only had $10 million of that so-called $501 million left. How can you compound the interest to 1973 on something that you have already spent? You compounded the total construction costs of the dam invested. Invested? You borrowed money against it to build the dam.

including full compensation for all persons affected…

Mr. Premier I wish you'd give recognition to the fact you and I came in this House about the same time, and I wish you would stay for a few minutes to hear what I've got to say.

Surplus revenue of $53 million will therefore be available for application against the cost of the Mica generators. $53 million — full compensation for all persons affected.

Even the farmers down in their little area where they're clearing out for the Libby dam can't get a settlement. You have taken people's rights to their business away with that dam and you've no compensation for them, and this I think is ridiculous when you make an announcement like this.

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

Now, don't forget that the total cost are to pay for the storage dams as they occur, and don't tell me that money can be invested and also spent.

Pay about half of the capital costs of the generators at Mica. The arrangement ensures that the storage projects in Canada will be debt-free at the end of the 30-year saving.

And that's the great announcement made that January. What has happened since that time? Money received from the United States — and this was in answer to a question last year on the order paper — the original amount $273,000, flood control benefits $68,000, additional benefits $4,489,000, interest $94 million. A total of $441,380,000. Extended to December 31, 1970 $452 million, leaving in the kitty $10 million. This was December 30, 1970.

We were supposed to have, according to the financial genius — and this is a story of a financial genius that people were talking about — $53 million in the kitty in 1973, to pay half the costs of the generators.

The government were supposed to have $53 million in the kitty in 1973 to pay half the costs of the generators at Mica. His estimates in this case were just as far out as his estimate in the budget from year to year.

What the government received from the Americans was payment for our half of the downstream benefits, for 30 years — and this did not complete the two dams let alone Mica.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. NIMSICK: Finished nothing! There was all the $10 million and that included all the interest that you made. And then December 31, 1970 the dam had to be built to produce the downstream benefits. Originally we were to have delivered back to British Columbia our half of the downstream benefits. But we sold them for something like 3 mils per KW. You can't tell me you got 5 mils when the money is spent long before that time. The taxpayers are picking up the balance in increased electric costs.

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

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. NIMSICK: Listen, when they made the big announcement about the Columbia River treaty it was a big affair, it was going to be great for Canada. It wasn't going to cost the people of Canada or British Columbia anything except half the cost of the two generators — machining Mica — that was all that was supposed to cost us. And this is what came up. In addition the taxpayers out of consolidated revenue have got to clear the pondage area for Libby, move the railroad, build bridges and destroy the potential of 18,000 acres of land.

This is the result of negotiations by a financial genius. If we had cleared the Duncan Lake, Mica and Libby like we should have, or they had promised to do, it would have cost a great deal more. If we had recompensed those people flooded and others who have lost their livelihood from the changes, it would have cost much more. We are paying dearly for the wild dreams of a financial genius. When we look back and read the story it reads like a wild night followed by a dream.

AN HON. MEMBER: A nightmare.

MR. NIMSICK: A real nightmare. There is nothing done in regards to providing for the wildlife of the East Kootenay area. To take up that bottom land that you flooded in the Libby area.

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

"By selling this surplus Columbia power at 5 mils here is what we can do: we can build High Arrow, we can build Duncan, we can build Mica, we can install the generators in Mica and other points in British Columbia to produce over 2 million horse power, all at no cost to Canada."

All at no cost to Canada! That, my friends, was the real meaning of cheap power because nothing is cheaper than something that is free. Further, I quote:

"I would like to make one more point. British Columbia will not use any of the proceeds from the sale of the surplus Columbia power to build a Peace River

[ Page 475 ]

project. Every penny we earn from the sale of this power will be spent for the construction of dams, generation facilities, transmission lines within the Columbia River system."

It's going to take a couple of $100 million more of the taxpayers' money to fulfil the requirements of the treaty. Now, who got the 1 mil power? In one area the Premier stated in regards to the Fulton plan that it meant 1 mil power for the United States and 4 mil power for British Columbia and jobs in the United States. "The Bennett B.C. plan calls for an average of 3 mil power for the U.S. and 2 million horsepower of no mil power." No mil power.

AN HON. MEMBER: No power?

MR. NIMSICK: " …and no mil power for British Columbia and new B.C. industries and jobs." Where are they? At that time I asked why there wasn't provision made in the treaty for the escalating of prices and this is what I quote from my speech: "I see no safeguards in the treaty to protect us against inflation of costs with the result that the dam could cost us much more than anticipated."

Now, they might come back, Mr. Speaker, they might come back and say that: "Oh, the federal government didn't put an escalating clause in."

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. NIMSICK: But I asked this, prior to that and the following year the statement was made that the federal government did not put an escalating clause in. It was the duty of the Hon. the financial genius of this province. It was his duty to ask for this protection. He was the one that went down to the federal government and practically strong-armed them — and I don't give much credit to the Liberal government at Ottawa that they could be strong-armed by a financial genius. But that's exactly what he did. He strong-armed them into giving him the right to sell the downstream benefits. I asked too at that time about bringing power back to the East Kootenay and developing industry in that area. This is what I asked: "Will this government promise that the downstream benefits derived in British Columbia from the Libby dam will be used to compensate the East Kootenay in setting up a rehabilitation fund to develop other areas for the loss of this winter range and to develop sites? Will this government promise that these downstream benefits will be made available to the East Kootenay when needed?"

Now you're crying about power. You're crying about building the Moran dam to have more power because you haven't got enough power. We're buying power from the United States in the East Kootenay now to develop the area. Why didn't we do it with the cheapest power that we could have got?

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. NIMSICK: Who got the 1 mil power and who got the 4-plus mil power? Not British Columbia but the United States got it — a fraction of a cent. Because from the water storage, they're multiplying the electricity, by five times. Which Canada does not share in. They are increasing the amount of power. This is the result of the negotiations of that financial genius, the Premier, that you have been eulogising day after day all during this debate.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. NIMSICK: I'd say that the Hon. the Premier after a fiasco like this on the people of British Columbia, Mr. Speaker, that the Premier shouldn't think about an election — he should be resigning his position as both Premier and as Minister of Finance in this province.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. NIMSICK: That's exactly what he should be doing because it'll go down in history as the biggest disaster in British Columbia. The biggest disaster in British Columbia, when you're paying 34 cents out of every $1 of the consumers of electricity for interest, so that we can finance this fiasco, that's exactly what we're doing. I know that those Members don't like to hear about it. I know they don't like to reminisce about finding out about what these financial geniuses do.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. NIMSICK: Now, Mr. Speaker, I'm going to come to another question that the Hon. the Minister of Lands and Forests (Hon. Mr. Williston) is interested in.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. NIMSICK: Those Members hope it won't remind them of how the government sold out the downstream benefits to the United States and got $274 million for it with a total of interest and everything — and it's all gone, and we've got to take $200 million out of taxpayers' pocket.

Now whether you take it in cost of electricity or any other way, nevertheless you're taking it out of the taxpayers' pocket because you made a bad deal. A bad deal, why didn't that government let the United States assist in building the dams? We'd have got our downstream benefits back. They sold it for 30 years — at a flat price for 30 years. Now if that's good financing, I don't know anything about financing at all then.

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

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

Interjections by Hon. Members.

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

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. NIMSICK: It's all "the United States" and forget about British Columbia. Their main effort at that time was that they had to get back at the federal government for the simple reason that they refused them the right to build the Kaiser dam originally and they had to get back at them. They got back at them in spite of the fact that they sold British Columbia out.

Now, I'd like to deal with another problem and that is pollution. The future of the people of British Columbia and of Canada and probably of the world I think is around

[ Page 476 ]

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

You know, we've had a talk-fest, Mr. Speaker, on pollution for quite a few years now. It's all of 10 years since we were talking about it and even brought a bill in this House first about pollution. We have been talking — the professors at the university and the high men in the federal government and in this government and our fine research men and everything — we've been talking about pollution. They tell us all the time that if we keep on the way we're going we're going to end up in oblivion. That's what they tell us, and it's not too many years.

I noticed here in the Vancouver Sun — this was put in here in 1967, but it was a column 75 years ago, that's before the turn of the century — and I'd like to quote.

Before the Royal Commission investigating the Fraser River fisheries it was suggested offal from the Stevenson and New Westminster canneries be made into fertilizer to prevent it polluting the river.

That's over 75 years ago, about 80 years ago now — 80 years ago they were warned about this pollution and ever since that time we've been talking and talking and talking, promising, and promising and promising.

We didn't heed them at that time, and we didn't and we're not heeding them at this time. We have got to do something about it. We've got to get some action. Warning is not going to do the job.

I've been 27 years living in the area of the East Kootenay and when I came there in 1945, the Kootenay River was clear — even Mark Creek, I used to take my friends down to see the Mark Creek Falls and they were a beautiful sight, until they built the fertilizer plant at Kimberley. Then the black cloud came over the falls and we never took anybody down there after that.

It almost looked like what that news reporter said a few years ago "the land of the purple waters". Mark Creek got completely polluted, St. Mary's River got polluted, it runs into the Kootenay River. We built the pulp mill at Skookumchuck. We're polluting the Kootenay River now from the pulp mills.

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

As I look at the Gazette each week, there are applications in there to further pollute. There's applications in there to have the previous application added to. Never once do I see where an application has been revoked. But we must face the facts, Mr. Speaker, that if we are going to continue to give the right to pollute and keep adding to that pollution as each industry comes in that it isn't going to be long before the waters will not be fit for anybody — because when you pollute a small stream you also pollute a large stream.

The pollution control board — this government talks about what a wonderful job they're doing on the pollution control board. I look at the pollution control board as a bureau for issuing licences to pollute Buttle Lake, Fort Hardy, over in Nelson, dumping…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. NIMSICK: You're only dancing on a picket fence right now, whether it's the board or whether it's the committee they're all the same. I say that they're all in the bag. It's an area for issuing permits to pollute.

When you see headlines such as "We Are Killing St. Mary's" "Kootenay Marks Creek dead." "Action Demanded on Pollution." "Live Up to Election Promises, Health Boards tell Bennett."

Bennett promised during the last election campaign that his government would strive to clear the air, purify the water, and protect the soil of the province on pollution.

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

Then we come to these different places and all of them are of the same nature. "Kootenay, murky, bad odour, almost covered with a scum of bubbles. Major East Kootenay River seen as sewers." This is the report from the pollution committee of the southeastern municipalities.

Major East Kootenay River Seen as Sewers. A charge that the Kootenay and Elk Rivers among others in their present state are of absolutely no value to man except as sewers, was made in Grand Forks at the Association of Kootenay and Boundary Municipalities meeting in Grand Forks by Kimberley Alderman James Ogilvie, Chairman of the A.K.B.M. pollution control committee.

The Regional District of East Kootenay — these districts that the Hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Campbell) talks so praisingly about — he doesn't give them any power. When there is an application to pollute a river, that application, Mr. Speaker, goes before the regional district asking if it would infringe upon their area. What do they tell them? "R.D.E.K. told no interest, can't object to pollution control board permits." I'd like to quote. The specific application over which the correspondence arose was by F Coal company for a sewage treatment system for the Village of Elkford.

The R.D.E.K. on advice of its pollution consultants objected to the application on the basis that the lagoon should be large enough to avoid any discharge into the Elk river during the winter months. It said that new installations should be required to meet the higher standards if existing systems are expected to be upgraded to the highest standards.

This was the R.D.E.K. taking an active part. The pollution control board said they had no right to say anything in regard to the application.

They are running into other difficulties, to the regional districts. I think the regional districts, and I know that the regional districts, in my opinion has been that they have been a buck-passing area for the provincial government, to do jobs that they don't like to handle themselves.

But in this case I want to say that their regional district has taken their responsibility very serious, very serious and they've gone out to the extent of even hiring somebody to investigate so that they can make a comment on application with some basis of fact.

But the pollution control board now says they have no right to take that action. "In answer to a letter from the regional district pollution consultants about the state of surface water within the district, W.N. Venables, director of the B.C. pollution control branch had indicated that he would not be willing to make his branch's information available to R.D.E.K."

The monitoring that you take of those rivers over there, why aren't they available to the regional district? Why aren't they made public and available to anybody that wishes to see them?

I went into the office of the pollution control board in Cranbrook and I asked for these monitoring records. They told me I had to go to the Minister to find out if I could get them, or to the chairman of the board.

[ Page 477 ]

I quote further:

Decision to commission a survey of the available data on quality of the lakes and rivers and the lakes of the East Kootenay was made in 1970 by the R.D.E.K. board who felt that they would not be properly representing the people of the regional district if they were to let applications for permits to discharge effluents pass without knowing whether or not the board should object, as they can under the Pollution Control Act.

This is what an editorial says:

Pollution Control of Parks. The Kaiser and its pollution issue isn't really clear yet. But so far few people are to be congratulated for their concern and efficiency.

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

There is nothing the pollution control branch can do about effluent spills at the East Kootenay coal operations of Kaiser resources. There's just not enough power in the present legislation for the pollution control branch to force Kaiser to clear up their pollution problem.

That was said by Venables.

If by April 6 — this is 1971 — the Pollution Control Act says, "any company that was not prior to January 1, 1970, discharging effluents, sewage or other waste materials on, in or under any land or into any water without a permit" — and that includes Kaiser's Elkview Plant and its hydraulic coal mining experiment in Natal — "shall not discharge sewerage or other waste material on, in or under any land or into any water without a permit," from a director. The time set is on and after January 1, 1970.

When the Regional District of East Kootenay questioned Mr. Venables as to why the two operations were allowed to proceed without permit it received no answer. It did receive the copy of a letter to Kaiser which told Kaiser that the R.D.E.K. was dissatisfied and would Kaiser please take steps to bring its operations within law. That was very early this year. I further quote:

Pollution of the Elk River. Regional biologist R.B. Hyndersack has been quite straightforward in his warning that something must be done or there is doubt that the river can be saved. However, his Minister, Honourable Kenneth Kiernan, says that it is extremely difficult to set up a case under the fisheries legislation and he thinks that control if it does not come from the pollution control board, must come from the mines department under the recent amendment covering reclamation.

And they go on…

in the field of theatre farce is considered far from tragedy. In government the distinction is not so clear.

And we go on with this, into the question in regard to this conference that's coming off, this mining conference that's coming off this spring in Cranbrook. I think it's coming off in different parts of the province.

The R.D.E.K. wanted to put a brief into this conference. They were told only a technical brief would be accepted. You're not going to get technical briefs from the lay people throughout this province. You've got access to all the technical knowledge that you probably need right now. If we're going to have a hearing why don't we make it open? I think it's time, Mr. Speaker, that we've got to draw the line and say "no more permits to pollute our waters".

To continue giving permits to pollute, to certain levels, spells disaster because if you keep on giving them it is eventually going to be 100 per cent. It may start out that you can get away with it. But eventually — and each industry that comes along and asks to pollute they'll use the other industry as their background and they'll want to pollute too.

AN HON. MEMBER: But people have to work.

MR. NIMSICK: It's all very well, Mr. Speaker, to pass the buck to the people. But you can't tell me that Mark Creek, that St. Mary's River, that the Kootenay River, that the Elk River is being polluted by people.

Kimberley cleaned up their pollution, but these industries, every week there are new applications in the Gazette asking for further pollution of the rivers. I say that we should say to these industries that we must recycle the water that's being used, not run-off from one pond to another and then finally into the stream. One pond to another and then back through the plant again — that's the way we should be handling the water situation.

I don't think these tailing ponds that are built up like the one around Salmo are nice things to look at. Or around Princeton, these huge tailing ponds. And sometimes those tailing ponds break away as they did in Kimberley, and pollute the whole river. This is what happens. I say that it is time to say to those industries that "you've got to recycle".

The tailings could be run into different places and moved by trucks and shovels because the tailings once it's dry, it's not hard to handle. But to build up these huge mountains of tailings to me is a rather ridiculous situation.

I say that it's time that this government now quit the talking about pollution. Quit the promising what they're going to do about pollution and let's do something about it. Maybe the air may be a little bit more difficult to handle but let me tell you that can be handled too. But I say we got to make a start. Let's make it on water and let's say "no more applications to pollute water in the Province of British Columbia". Whether it's by people or whether it's by anybody else.

Another problem, and I'm glad the Hon. the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brothers) is in at this time. This is in regards to the vocational school in Cranbrook, the need for a vocational school in the East Kootenays. This area is a fast growing area, 11,200 square miles. It covers up into the Columbia riding — my friend, the Minister of Labour's riding — down into my friend the Minister of Highways's riding, and all my riding. It covers them all.

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

MR. NIMSICK: Well, he wouldn't know whether he was riding or sitting, and when you're riding you're sitting so don't try and get away from the subject.

Golden to Creston and to the Alberta border, we've got a population of 51,200 people. We had 36,000 in 1966 and it's projected to 93,000 in 1980. Six municipalities, six school districts, Fernie, Cranbrook, Kimberley, Golden and Creston.

Economic activity — forestry, mining, agriculture, service industries employing 18,000 people and all the different industries. These industries would like to have a vocational school in that area, so the people that are being trained can be trained within the area. You don't force the students to go to Nelson or to Prince George or some other place. I don't think it's fair to say to the East Kootenay that "we're going

[ Page 478 ]

to cut you off at Nelson and float you over to Alberta" or something. You know, we've got separatists up our way too. A few years ago they suggested that the East Kootenays should join Alberta. We've got them up our way, just like the Hon. the Premier is sometimes talking about separating from the rest of Canada.

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

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. NIMSICK: Well, he's trying to indirectly build a fence around British Columbia because you don't want to recognise anything that's Canadian in British Columbia.

You don't want to recognise a highway across British Columbia that's part of the trans-Canada Highway. You don't want to recognise it.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

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

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. NIMSICK: Don't forget that we've got to fight against this. You've got a problem in the East Kootenay the same as Canada has with Quebec.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh, oh!

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

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. NIMSICK: I've been your problem for a long time in the East Kootenays. Don't be too sure, my Hon. good friend, don't be too sure that you'll get rid of me.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

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

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. NIMSICK: The travelling to other areas is costly. We've got adult education, 486 students. Graduates from secondary schools 443, that's not counting Golden and Windermere.

AN HON. MEMBER: More than that.

MR. NIMSICK: We offered a site, we offered the St. Eugene mission a school where they could have a vocational school. It's already built for them. Kimberley offered free land, Cranbrook offered 150 acres…

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. NIMSICK: The Manpower Department says that we should have a school. I'd like to read you a letter from the Manpower Department, and I quote:

Our office area runs from Creston to the Alberta border and north to Parsons. In this area we estimate a population of 45,000 and a work force of 18,000, of which some 4,235 are members of the labour council. During the past 12 months, we have referred a total of 458 clients to full-time training. Of these some 219 have received their training in the East Kootenays, in courses of one week duration. The balance of 239 attended vocational schools in other parts of the province for periods varying from three weeks to 11 months.

It should be noticed that we are only reporting in respect of available B.C. vocational department courses and no records are kept of the many clients who might have been sent to training had there been a suitable course available or space available in any existing course.

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

In the past eight years 45 of our members have gone through the apprenticeship programme with all their training in Vancouver. If a school was situated in the East Kootenay it would be a considerable saving to our apprentices.

At the present time, we have 21 apprentices indentured to the Kootenay district council, carpenters, and woodworkers. We feel with the amount of construction in this area this figure could double in the next year or two.

… and so on with the United Steel Workers, transit, housing, right on down the line. And what happened to the brief that was developed? The Hon. the Minister of Education said that June 30 was the deadline. They worked hard to get that brief together, and it was a good brief. The Hon. the Minister, I think, said it was. If he said it was, then it should have been a good brief. They presented it to Mr. White. This is the letter they sent on September 13 after sending in the brief a few months earlier:

On June 22 of this year, myself and the members of our committee made a presentation to Mr. J.S. White, Superintendent of Technical Vocational services for the Province of British Columbia, outlining what we considered was the feasibility of a technical vocational school here in the East Kootenay. Since that time we have not heard back from any member of the department regarding our proposals and we are curious as to whether any progress has been made in reviewing the report and whether the department is in a position to reach a decision on whether the East Kootenay does qualify for a vocational school.

Then a reply was sent back to Mr. Ron Powell, chairman of the East Kootenay vocational school committee and it says in that — this is from the Hon. the Minister:

I wish to advise that the report will in due course be studied carefully by me and my colleagues in terms of need, priority, finances, et cetera.

This was October 14, and the Minister asked for a deadline in June and he hasn't even read the report yet. On November 26, a letter was sent to the Hon. Minister of Education and I quote from it:

You may recall and I am sure Mr. White will recall that our committee was given a deadline of June 22 to prepare an in-depth report on the feasibility of a vocational school in this area. The area has offered to purchase and donate land to the Crown-provincial for a provincial vocational training school. This is still very much a part of our agreement. But the problem does exist that due to the rapid expansion of the area any one or all of these

[ Page 479 ]

favoured sites may be sold at any given time.

Then we come to January 18 — from June 22 to January 18, Mr. Speaker — and this is from the Hon. Minister of Education and this is what he states:

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

(b) Heavy financial demands and prior commitments in the field of adult education have been met. These prior commitments must take precedence over any new scheme presented to the government for implementation and further

(c) The schedule of priorities and new construction in the adult education field have been met, enabling the government to consider the proposition and make a wise decision on the merits of a provincial vocational school in the East Kootenays.

For the above reasons I am not prepared at the present time to commit my government to a promise that a provincial vocational school will be built in the immediate future. To do so would trigger the responsible municipalities and/or city to option the selective property for eventual purchase and turn-over to Crown-provincial. Therefore until our priorities have been fairly dealt with the matter must rest where it is for the present.

That's a letter from the Hon. the Minister. This took him over six months. The reply doesn't indicate that the brief was ever read, Mr. Speaker, it doesn't indicate it. I don't think you need to read the brief to realise that the East Kootenay is entitled to a vocational school which you state. But when you say you haven't got the finances, I looked up the public accounts of 1970-71 and I find $5 million unexpended in the vocational schools, capital expenditures. Then I looked up the nine months that end December 31, 1971 — $15 million was allotted, and do you know how much was spent, Mr. Speaker? — $3,364,000 out of $15 million; $11,600,000 was unexpended and a lot of the money that we could spend on these schools are federal money too.

We're not satisfied, Mr. Minister, with the excuse of heavy financial demands because the money — this Legislature allotted that money for vocational building and you haven't used it. Now, how can you say that due to heavy financial strain you cannot build a vocational school or equip a vocational school? Because if you took over the St. Eugene Mission school all you'd have to do would be equipping it. Sacrificing the education of our young people to fatten the surplus. You admit there is need so let's get on with the job. It's cases like this that creates people howling about the treatment that they're getting in the East Kootenays and I think the East Kootenay needs a vocational school now, Mr. Minister, not at some time in the future. So get off the fat surplus and give the East Kootenays their just demands.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to deal with a subject that the Honourable Minister of Labour mentioned in his speech the other day. He didn't give us any details about what he is going to do but he touched on it. The Honourable Minister of Labour said that there are amendments coming in to the Workmen's Compensation Act at this session. I'm all for it.

But in the first place in 1968 when we went over the Act as it is today, they promised at that time that from time to time a standing committee of this House would review the Workmen's Compensation Act. And I don't think that the Honourable Minister of Labour should take it upon himself to decide what's good and what's bad in the compensation Act. I think it should be turned over to the standing committee on labour to review it once more.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. NIMSICK: The answer is no. You're going against the very commitment that was made in 1968. There was a promise there that it would be turned over to a committee from time to time rather than a Royal Commission. That was exactly what the promise was. So, in that case, if they're not going to go to a committee I'll have to take up your time and give the Honourable Minister of Labour, through you, Mr. Speaker, what is needed in the Workmen's Compensation Act in order to solve some of the problems.

Section 6, sub-section 1, the waiting period. At. the present time a person gets injured, he's got to wait for three days. And included in those waiting days are days that he usually doesn't work, even a statutory holiday where in most cases he's gets paid for if he is working. They make him wait three days over and above these holidays. This is one that I think should be wiped out altogether.

Section 6, sub-section 4. "If the injury does not disable the workman longer than the period of" — this is the one I've been speaking of — "three days exclusive of any day upon which the workman would not in the usual course of his employment have worked from earning full wages at the work at which he was employed, no compensation other than medical aid shall be payable under this part." I think that should be changed.

Sub-section 4. "In cases where the injury was caused by accident where the accident arose out of the employment, unless the contrary is shown it shall be presumed that it occurred in the course of the employment" and "where the accident occurred in the course of the employment unless the contrary is shown it shall be presumed that it arose out of employment."

Now, I know, Mr. Speaker, that I think the intention of this clause was that the responsibility of proving the case was to be on the employer and the Workmen's Compensation Board. But in many cases this has been changed around to mean that the worker is responsible.

In sub-section 5, where the personal injury or disease is superimposed on an already existing disability — I hope the Hon. Minister is taking down notes, because I think that it might assist him…

AN HON. MEMBER: He needs all the help he can get.

MR. NIMSICK: If he's not going to bring it up to a committee then this is only a bunch of eyewash that they're giving the public when he brought up that the other day…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. NIMSICK: Yes, I was. That's all it is. "Where the personal injury or disease is superimposed on an already existing disability compensation shall be allowed only for such proportion of the disability that exists following the personal injury or disease that may reasonably be attributed to such personal injury or disease. The measure of the disability attributable to such personal injury or disease shall prima facie be the amount of the difference between the workman's disability before and the disability after."

Now in many cases a person gets injured, Mr. Speaker, and when the case reoccurs maybe two or three years later, they find some other thing to prevent him from reopening the case. In spite of the fact that sometimes a doctor, most times a doctor, will say as well that it dates back to the injury. This

[ Page 480 ]

is not in my estimation the proper policy.

I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Labour didn't see fit to stay in. He doesn't want to turn this over to the committee on labour and yet he doesn't want to stay in the House to listen to some suggestions that are being made from this side of the House.

AN HON. MEMBER: All he'd talk about was Vallieres…

MR. NIMSICK: Section 7. "Where a workman suffers from an industrial disease and is thereby disabled from earning full wages at work at which he was employed, compensation is payable under this part as if the disease were a personal injury arising out of and in the course of that employment."

Now I've got cases where a person has been injured by an industrial disease. We'll take chromate poisoning. I've got one fellow especially who was injured in 1941. He got dermatitis from chromate poisoning. He could never go back on his own job again. At his age, he was unable to get any job that would pay him that kind of a wage.

Now if this Act was lived up to according to the way it is written that I would say, he should be paid the difference between what he was getting and what he is getting. Either that or he should be getting a disability pension.

But he's getting neither. They say "you're fit for light work or fit for some other duties" and I've seen this in umpteen cases and they'll cut off compensation. And yet right in the Act it tells you straight that they'll pay the difference between what he was making and what he is able to make.

Now I want to ask, Mr. Speaker, I hope somebody over there will take down this, this is a section that should be strengthened so that if it intends that a man should receive the difference in wages that it should be in the Act and stipulated as such.

This conflict with section 28 of the Act, it doesn't conflict with it, but it runs parallel with it, and I quote: section 28, sub-section 1 "Where temporary partial disability results from the injury the compensation shall be in periodical payments to the injured workman equal an amount to 75 per centum of the difference between the average earnings of the workman before the injury and the average amount which he is earning or he is able to earn in some suitable employment or business after the injury and shall be payable only so long as the disability lasts."

I say that there are cases after cases where people are unable to go back to their own jobs, earning a lot less money, and the compensation board is evading their responsibility in regards to this Act. I don't know why they're doing it and I take it that they're doing it on instructions from this government, because they are creatures of this government. I'm not blaming them, I'm blaming this government. If it's not the intention of the Act all the Attorney General has to do is to inform them of that interpretation.

Noise is another question that should be carefully investigated. Deafness. They'll compensate for deafness according to the percentage of hearing that you've lost but they don't compensate the worker for all the other things that happen from that deafness. His social life is injured from that deafness and I think there should be some way of compensating an individual for the cross that he has got to bear throughout his lifetime.

Silicosis is one of the questions. Men are declared 100 per cent silicosic, they received 100 per cent pension. Those men to all intents and purposes as far as going on, they are dead. And they'll receive compensation as long as they live. Their wives stand by and watch them suffer, watch them be short of breath, can't climb a stair, can't do anything but the wives have got to look after them.

And then because they die of some other disease such as carcinoma of the lung or heart disease or even get run down by a car the compensation board says "Well, that finishes the wife." And I think this is wrong. The wife should receive on any of these 100 per cent disability pensions, when that person dies, the wife should receive the compensation pension just as if that man was killed at the time that he got the whole pension. This is the way you've got to look at it.

There are the wives that are receiving $146 a month, way below the poverty level. It's cheaper for industry for a man to be killed outright than for him to be totally disabled because the pension that a wife gets has got no relation to the pension that the family would have got had the breadwinner lived. If the breadwinner is totally disabled they'll get over $400 a month but if he gets killed outright the wife has got to drop down to $146 a month.

And I think that one of the amendments that come in this time should be that the amount that the wife receives should have some relationship to the amount the family would have received had that man been totally disabled.

I think children's allowances are too low. I think that in regards to silicosis. At the present time and if a person doesn't apply five years after they have been in a mine, then they're out. Silicosis can show up many years after you've worked under those conditions and I say this should be wiped out so the person could receive it at any time.

Another point that should be considered is this thing of companies allowing men or encouraging men to go back to work before they're ready or encouraging them to go back to work without even taking one lost-time day so that to protect them from their assessments. And this is why it is done.

I've seen men walk around on crutches, men brought to the job in taxi cabs and just report and sent home again just so the assessments won't be too high. But I saw those same men a few years later when they had a recurrence of the same accident, when they asked to have the claim opened up again. The compensation board said: You had no trouble, you had no lost-time accident at the time that injury occurred."

Now how can you say two years after an injury, that the accident should recur?

AN HON. MEMBER: Exploiter.

MR. NIMSICK: The compensation is paid by the workers of the province. Don't forget that, never forget that for one minute.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. NIMSICK: When you go to bargain for your wages don't forget all these things come into the cost accounting. So don't tell me that the worker is not paying his own insurance in regards to compensation. And the only reason that it isn't done by the company, it was easier to handle. For a long time they paid half each and it was easier to handle.

Then there is this question of dependents residing outside Canada. And I quote: "Where the dependents are residing outside of Canada and entitled to compensation under A, B,

[ Page 481 ]

C, D of this sub-section the board may award the dependents such lesser amounts as in the opinion of the board would at the date of the death maintain them in a like degree of comfort as dependents of the same class residing in Canada."

Should such a dependent subsequently become resident in Canada, this means that if a man's got a wife someplace else we've got to decide, we've got to decide how much it's going to cost that person to live. That man that was working here is entitled to the same consideration as if his wife and family lived in this country or stayed in this country and I don't think just because she moves back — maybe to where her parents were — that she should be deprived of the full compensation.

If you send them, I suppose, down to South America and some of those places they've got no compensation and maybe you'll cut it off altogether. I say that that is wrong. I think if they earned that compensation here, they should receive it.

Section 28. This is in regard to the disability pension of people that were hurt years ago. There's quite a number of people yet that were injured around the 1940's that the minimum they receive is $150 and this is just about the maximum in most cases of those people. I think that $150 is not right, and that the minimum now should, at least, go up to $200 because it's definitely far below the poverty level.

I think that the fishing industry and the farming industry should be added to the schedule in regards to receiving benefits.

Section 55 is another case where I find that many times the board uses their discretion but the person applying for a medical appeal haven't got the opportunity of arguing their case. They get a doctor to write out a certificate asking for an appeal. The compensation board, all they need to say is that there is no conflict of opinion in medical opinion in regard to their case with the board, that the board agrees there's something wrong with them.

I had one case that went down to Lethbridge, was operated on for one part of her back and while she was there — and nobody can tell me that she might not have been injured at the same time — but she had to have her whole back straightened-out or set. When she came back, the compensation board said: "Well, we'll go good for the hospital costs on the one but not on the other." She applied for a medical appeal. She was turned down. And one of the reasons they said was in the first place that there was no argument, that they weren't arguing about that she didn't have a bad back, but that it had nothing to do with the part of the back that she was being compensated for.

I think section 55 could be made a lot clearer. I don't think that when a person makes an appeal through a doctor, gives a certificate then on such slight pretext they can be denied the right of that appeal. I notice in this we give the employer also the right to appeal. We say 90 clear days. In one of these cases 90 days had just passed so they said that it was a 90-day limitation on it. And I don't think that the 90-days can create a problem from a medical report. Because you can argue with the board for 90 days and if it's going to be from one medical report to the other one then they can say that 90 days is up.

So all these things, I would like to think that the Minister of Labour would take into consideration when he's bringing in an amendment on the Workmen's Compensation Act. I feel that the Workmen's Compensation Act is a very important Act to the people of British Columbia. And when you amend it let's try and clear up anything that's not working the way it should be.

One man deciding or one group deciding, I don't think is good enough. I think we should take this compensation Act to the standing committee on labour along with amendments suggested by the Minister. And if there's anything else, recommend them to the Minister. This is the only thing to do.

Now, we come to a question of the budget. You know…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. NIMSICK: Well, this is the main part of the budget. You don't have to spend much time on the main part. When I listen to someone on that side of the House speak about the Premier "the most compassionate man," you know I really expected that there was going to be something in the budget which would portray this.

I think that the senior citizens and the mothers with children and the crippled and physically unfit expected something too. But they really got something didn't they? They got a big zero from the most compassionate man.

With great gusto he announced in the budget that he was going to give $50 extra to those over 65 as a home-owner's grant. I don't know whether he was thinking of his own taxes or not, because he's going to get it just as well as the rest. I don't think that it will make any difference…if he's living in his home he can get it.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. NIMSICK: I wouldn't bet that he wouldn't apply for it. Not such a financial genius as he is. While this goes to him as well as to those who have plenty, or mansions, or all of them, it also goes to those who are receiving $135 a month. And it amounts to $4 extra per month.

What compassion? These people will be getting $139 per month. But only those people that own their own homes. There's nothing else in the budget for these people. And this is that compassion, that the government shows to the people — that people are first.

What has the government done for the elderly? I'd like to give you a little history of the old age pensions. Fifty years ago, you know, we didn't have any pensioners…

AN HON. MEMBER: What about vote 205 and 206?

MR. NIMSICK: I'll come to that.

Fifty years ago without any pensions there was a man in this country who did have compassion for the people. J.S. Woodward fought for pensions for the old people, from 1920 to 1926 when Meighen and Mackenzie King rode into power with the same number of seats. And lo and behold J.S. Woodward and his compatriot Mr. Heaps held the balance of power. And there was a letter sent by J.S. Woodward to both Mr. Meighen and Mr. Mackenzie King stating that their support would go to the one that would bring in an old age pension Act. Mackenzie King accepted and in the following year an Act was brought down. Now, just to give you an idea, I think, of the thinking of a lot of people on that side of the House now…

AN HON. MEMBER: They called it a Communist plot.

MR. NIMSICK: …The same kind of thinking that they had back in those days from the Liberals and the

[ Page 482 ]

Conservatives, and now it's Social Credit too. When the Act was brought before the House one of the Liberals got up — and this is right out of Hansard — he said: "You know I wonder if the Honourable Member that brought forth this Act" — speaking of Mr. Woodward — "if he considered whether the children of these aged couldn't look after them. You know it's the duty of the children to look after their aged parents, and if we give a pension to these people we'll be taking away this duty of the children."

That's right out of Hansard Mr. Speaker. Then a Conservative got up and he said: "You know, Mr. Speaker, it is the duty of the rich to give alms to the poor. And if we give these people pensions we will be taking away that right of the rich."

And I'm sure if there was a Social Credit sitting in that House there would be statements just as ironical as those statements at that time.

The people — the senior citizens of this province and Canada — can thank J.S. Woodward for embarking the government on the role of old age pensions. And since that time there hasn't been anyone that would say, "cut it down." Especially when it comes to near election time "push it up," in order to try and win the votes of the senior citizens.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. NIMSICK: I'll tell you a story some day about that too. But I'm not going to take your time today.

Every time an election was coming along they'd up the pension. And the more elections they had the higher the pension would go. Some of them $2, some of them $5 some of them $10. But every time a senior citizen, when there was an election coming along, he could look for an increase. I don't know how in the Dickens they ever…how this government missed this in the budget — that they didn't do anything outside of $4 per month for the senior citizen. Almost like the 42 cents that you were criticising the federal government for. In the same category, that's about the amount of help you gave senior citizens, and this is only for the ones that own their own homes.

Senior citizens want comfortable quarters no matter whether it's in their own home, or whether it's in an apartment building. Many people when they get older they don't want to be bothered about a home and looking after the taxes and the insurance and all the rest of it. They like going into an apartment where somebody else looks after these things. And they should have the same right as other people.

I think there's a great deal of credit going to the local groups that build these senior citizens' homes. A great deal of credit to them. But I don't think I would overload them Mr. Minister.

Actually you know, the operation of the homes without having to worry about the mortgage and about the cost of construction and everything. The operation alone done locally, I think, is a big job on behalf of the citizens of British Columbia. When those Members praise, and when they talk, and when I listen to the Honourable lady Minister speak about these senior citizens' homes, and about playing politics with them, it didn't take this government long to run around to every senior citizens' home — some of them were built prior to this government — to tack up a plaque stating how much the provincial government contributed to the Home.

This is exactly what they did, and if that's not playing politics the Hon. Minister has got to tell me something else.

Because that's the kind of politics I say is wrong. I think that the government…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. NIMSICK: …Listen, I'm talking about those plaques crediting the provincial government all ways. And you went around and you placed them up in places that this government had nothing to do with. So don't tell me anything about that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will the Honourable Member please address the Chair?

MR. NIMSICK: I know, Mr. Speaker. But again I want to give great credit, Mr. Speaker, to those local groups, that are doing this. I think one addition that should be made to these senior citizens' homes. And the local groups have got all they can do to finance just the bare home itself. I think there should be a hobby shop where a person at 67 or 70 that's in pretty good shape can go out and do a little carpenter work, or other things in those homes too. I think that this government should give more money. I don't think 30 per cent is enough. If Alberta can contribute the whole amount of the capital expenditure, so can this government do it as well as Alberta. Alberta contributes the whole amount of the capital structure, and I think this government could well do this.

Health care for our senior citizens too. You have been around advocating special care homes. You know many of our senior citizens have deteriorated, in the senior citizens' homes, to the point where they need special care. And this government has failed to provide the special care that has been necessary in the Province of British Columbia — that is, intermediate care. It has passed the buck to the local people to create the initiative to build a hospital — and this is exactly what it is, because once you get into the area of nursing care, it's in the hospital area. And this should be operated by the hospital insurance department of this province.

We should not only have intermediate care, but we should have extended care for everybody that needs it in this province, and if we haven't got enough hospital beds, then we should subsidise those private hospitals to the extent that those people would have the same right to $1 a day as the ones that are in the extended care units.

I don't think that it's right that we should have a favourite few people in this province that can go to the extended care units and pay $1, and to the rest of them they say: "You've got to go over to Vernon to the old folks' home or go to some private home, and you've got to pay $500 a month, rather than $1 a day." And this is exactly what you're doing.

Eric Martin when he was Minister of Health in 1957, promised extended care for everybody in this province. And that's 15 years ago and you haven't done it yet. The intermediate care should be looked after by the hospital department too. To put the local people to the expense of having to have a nurse on 24 hours a day to look after these people that need special care is not fair to the community. This government is only trying to evade its responsibility, and with the fat surpluses that it's got it could have all this done, and the people of British Columbia — the elderly people of British Columbia — could have the kind of health care that they need.

[ Page 483 ]

I think that you should bring in free eye-glasses, free teeth, extend the chiropractic treatment for them that they've been asking for. Free hearing aids under the medical plan. You say the hearing aids cost $50. The price of one day in a hospital. Surely we can afford to give them hearing aids to make their life a little more comfortable? We say that we won't give them hearing aids, we'll only give them one eye test a year under the medical plan. I know that the younger people can get more than one abortion a year if they want it.

AN HON. MEMBER: How many a year?

MR. NIMSICK: More than one. That's a fact I've got the clippings to show it. (Laughter). And if we can do that…and this is all done under the medical scheme. Let's do something for the elderly people. Let's give the elderly people the right to hearing aids, the right to eye-glasses, the right to teeth, let's make their life a little more comfortable these are the things they need more than anybody else. And let's do it.

To me the best way to describe the budget is that it was a "scatter-gun budget." The Premier found he had so much surplus money and of course like any other company he had to find some place to put it. A private company, they've either got to put it in share capital or they have got to pay dividends. And there's one thing sure, that the government wasn't going to reduce taxes. Because he raised the taxes last year and this year proved that he didn't need to raise them at all.

He talks about fighting inflation. Raising taxes is inflation, and there was every evidence that he didn't need to increase taxes and yet he did. His phobia for surplus led him to a position where he had to hide the surplus away from the public's eye. So he scatters it into numerous little piggybanks — you know, all these perpetual funds, all these little piggy-banks all over the place.

I remember the time we had a game conservation fund when this government came into power. But it didn't last long, there was plenty of money in the conservation fund. Then he uses these piggy-banks for sort of holding funds so the different agencies such as school boards, and municipalities, hospitals can borrow.

The interest they pay then can be used by the government for a variety of reasons. This means that the people that pay the taxes that built up these surpluses, the only benefit they're going to get is out of the interest on the surpluses.

AN HON. MEMBER: How much do you get for overtime?

MR. NIMSICK: You see, it's all very well for all other levels of government to put themselves in hock by borrowing, except our provincial government. It's all very well for the municipalities to borrow, the Hydro to borrow, the school boards to borrow. We're encouraging them to borrow. But not the provincial government, no, the provincial government doesn't do that. The most damning indictment of this government were the statements made by the Premier when he spoke in his budget address about the B.C. Medical Plan and I quote:

Over 99 per cent of British Columbia's population is now voluntarily registered in the plan, with 26 per cent of the subscribers receiving the low income premium subsidies.

Twenty six per cent of the people making less than $1,000 taxable income. The Premier states that the "surplus will be built up in good time to be used in hard times, saving for a rainy day."

"Saving for a rainy day," he says, when we have more than 26 per cent of our people below the poverty level. In my opinion, this is the rainy day and some of those surpluses could be used to alleviate the situation. In addition huge surpluses do not make the unemployed man happy. The Premier suggests to Ottawa that they should put up a fund from which the municipalities could borrow money at 2 per cent. With the surplus that B.C. got, why don't they put up a fund so the municipalities could borrow at 2 per cent? You would never think that this budget was drawn up by a compassionate man. I find it both cold and materialistic with very little compassion.

I do not kid myself that this government can solve these problems under the present economic system. The best I would expect of this, is enough compassion to lessen the sufferings a little.

Listening to the Premier advocating free trade with the U.S.A. is a little disturbing, unless we take an entirely new approach to economics within our own country. At the present time, Canadians depend to a great extent on exports for their living and if those exports dwindle or are cut off then the people in Canada depending on the export goods for their living must go without the goods they produce. This is one of the most cynical contradictions to good common sense.

If we wish to correct this situation we must get away from the laisser-faire idea and manage our internal economy by proper planning so that every citizen will have the right to share in the Canadian production without depending on what happens in a foreign country. Then the benefit from our extraction of our natural resources and the benefits from the exports will go to all the people and not just profits for a few. I know that the Honourable the Attorney General is going to follow me and one point I would like to call to his attention and I hope he speaks on it and that is in regard to the Fred Quilt case.

The Minister announced that a review would be made, I would like to ask what progress if any has been made. Indians in British Columbia and across the country are not satisfied with just a review. They want and demand a full and complete inquiry forthwith.

What about the transcript that was taken on the evidence at this review? Why is it not made public? Why is it not released? I think it should be released unless there's something that's being hid.

The transcript of evidence, it should be made public because in many other cases it's made public and I don't know what the delay is in this case. I would suggest that in order to satisfy not only the native Indians throughout the province but I think a lot of other people throughout the province that we should have a complete inquiry by this government into the Fred Quilt case. I thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable the Attorney General.

HON. L.R. PETERSON (Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, after listening to the Honourable Member who has just taken his place, I'm reminded of another session of the Legislature some 16 years ago in 1956 when I was first elected in by-election on January 9 of that year and then sworn in as a Member of this Legislature while the session was under way and I was slated to speak on the very same day that I was

[ Page 484 ]

sworn in as a Member.

Preceeding me in that debate was the Honourable Member for Kootenay and I waited and I waited and I waited and I guess an hour-and-a-half or two hours later, just like today, I finally got on my feet.

I want to tell you that in those intervening 16 years his terminal qualities haven't improved one bit and the content hasn't changed that much either. He was talking about workmen's compensation then. Same subject and, you know, never prepared — like the N.D.P. Members, always — never prepared to acknowledge the great progress that has been made. Never prepared to acknowledge that the legislation which we have in this province on workmen's compensation today has been adjudged throughout North America as the best legislation of its time.

So the content hasn't changed. He still comes up with what I can only regard as the unworkable policies of the N.D.P. Policies that may sound fine in theory but cannot work in practice. Like the one today of a person having two abortions in one year. That's the same as all the rest of the N.D.P. policies. Well the N.D.P. are fine on theory but awfully short on practical ideas.

I want to acknowledge my gratitude to the Members who are following me this afternoon — the Honourable Members for Esquimalt, North Peace River and Alberni — because I'm going to encroach on their time. The primary reason why I have decided to speak today is the result of certain comments that were made over the weekend and I want to spend most of my time this afternoon discussing the matter of provincial and federal relations and some specific subject matters under that head.

As I say, my presence in this debate today and my comments on that subject are motivated in large measure by the unprecedented and unwarranted attack by the Prime Minister of Canada on the Premier of this province.

Before I get on to that subject, I do want to make a few general comments on the budget, because in spite of our difficulties, in spite of the unfair treatment which this province is receiving at the present time from Ottawa, Mr. Speaker, this province has produced a balanced budget which is now the subject of debate.

It's a budget which provides for increased amounts of money, increased expenditure for all of the important public services in this province. A budget that will provide more jobs. A budget which is now the subject of debate.

It's a budget which provides for increased amounts of money, increased expenditure for all of the important public services in this province. A budget that will provide more jobs. A budget that will encourage more home ownership in British Columbia. A budget that will help us maintain the healthiest, natural environment of all the provinces in Canada or indeed in North America. A people's budget, because the fiscal policies that are contained in this budget for the next fiscal year will enable the people of this province to enjoy a life that is unsurpassed in this nation and the people from across Canada know this to be true, that's one of the reasons they're flocking here in unprecedented numbers.

The one item that I want to direct your attention to in particular at the outset this afternoon is the substantial increase, a 50 per cent increase, a $5 million increase to the physical fitness and amateur sports fund. As chairman of the advisory committee on this fund I want to report briefly on the stewardship of that fund.

The Honourable Member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. Campbell) I think quite aptly alluded to the motto of this province in describing these perpetual funds — "Splendour without diminishment." Certainly there is splendour in the work that is being done and there is no diminishment because the capital remains intact. The capital fund invested in the construction of schools in this province leaving the revenue to be spent for these worthwhile purposes.

What could be more magnificent or have more splendour than helping young people to maintain sound minds and healthy bodies? That's what this fund is for. Much better, I suggest, to spend public funds on this purpose, on these kind of programmes to keep our young people healthy, to keep them active, to keep them engaged in athletics and physical fitness programme and it is to spend the money trying to rehabilitate them from the effects of drugs, of alcohol and other things that abuse a person's body.

The advent of the fitness and amateur sports fund has opened the door to a whole new era of sports and physical fitness in this province. It started in 1969 and we've had a very consistent growth each year. 1970 first of all: the expenditures there, in 1970, were $590,950 — all disbursed to various sports governing bodies and agencies throughout the province as well as some special projects. Then in 1971 we had a major increase to $735,192 partly due to our centennial activities and the participation of the sports fund in some of the athletic programmes.

One of the key programmes that is just coming into effect now, this year, is a new departure and that is to engage provincial coaches in different fields. After a great deal of planning, a great deal of discussion, we started now on an experimental basis and hired the first provincial coach, I think the first in all Canada in this respect, and that is a coach for basketball that was hired at the beginning of this year — a gentleman by the name of Olsen from Prince Rupert who will be directing and co-ordinating the total programme of coaching throughout the province.

He was selected for qualities other than just the Scandinavian name, I say to my colleague who is muttering to my left.

The function of a coach in this circumstance, is not only to engage in the coaching aspect but also to organise and co-ordinate it and to encourage maximum participation across the province, because really we want to devote the fund, not only to having our top stars, our athletes excel in world competition but we want mass participation by all of the young people and by older people as well. This will be one of the primary objectives of the coaches that are employed to co-ordinate clinics and assist in this work throughout the Province of British Columbia and not just in the lower mainland area where so much of the concentration normally takes place.

During the Pan-American games last year, both the men's team and the women's national team, the Canadian teams, had coaches from British Columbia. So this is one sport in which we are already ranking well in Canada and you need only look at the high school championships which will be taking place again this year in March — March 24 next — when there will be 16 teams competing to know how widespread this sport is in the schools of our province.

We hope to follow this example, if the experiment is successful, in hiring other provincial coaches. This is a team sport, of course, basketball. We are presently advertising for one in individual sports — in track and field, whose duty it will be to co-ordinate activities in the province in this area. We hope that this will lead to more uniform training and coaching throughout the Province of British Columbia.

[ Page 485 ]

Another exciting new programme — and I'm not detailing all of the grants, only to mention a few of the more recent that are just coming into effect at the present time — one of these is the athletic scholarships and awards. Because effective this year, and we're just getting the material out now to the schools at this particular time, there will be new awards. There will be five Premier's athletic awards of $1,000 each, 25 British Columbia athletic awards of $500 each available to anyone attending post-secondary institutions and they are awarded, of course, for excellence and athletics.

Then we've had one award, one scholarship programme for a number of years now, that's the Nancy Greene scholarship. These scholarships are now this year being doubled from five to 10 and the amount of each of the Nancy Greene scholarships is being increased from $500 to $750. This will this year provide for 40 athletic awards and scholarships available to encourage our young outstanding athletes to enter British Columbia colleges and universities and to further their scholastic and athletic careers.

One of the interesting new programmes started this year — swimming. The Honourable former Leader of the Opposition mentioned swimming. We've got one that I hope he will try — he still has until June to qualify in it — and that's swim 25 miles and you have to be medically fit and I know he's that. He has to be an adult to compete in this one and he qualifies in that respect so I'll send this over to him, Mr. Speaker, to the former Leader of the Opposition. By completing this, and we'll treat him on an honour system to complete accurately the number of miles or how far he swims each day, then he will be entitled to some recognition and award on the completion of the project.

I might say that my colleague, the Minister of Lands and Forests and Water Resources, has already qualified for this one. Run 100 miles — he's already got his. What we're trying to do by these kind of programmes is to stimulate interest on the part of everyone in our society. Get everyone jogging, everybody doing their own thing to improve physical fitness programmes in the province. You can also cycle or walk and you can still engage in this programme and qualify. When the people in this province read the achievements of our athletes in last year's Pan-American games in Columbia, Mr. Speaker, they should feel extremely proud to have had a part to play in those achievements. Because of the 45 members of the Canadian track and field team, 19 came from British Columbia which is the best representation of any province.

I would like to quote just one letter received in respect to the aid that we offered in that respect, from the president of the British Columbia section of the Canada Amateur Swimming Association, and I quote:

We are proud of our B.C. swimmer's performances at the recent Pan-American Games and we want you to share our feelings.

The letter then went on to show of the five individual gold medals and one relay gold medal won for the Canadian swimming team, all were accounted for by British Columbia swimmers. Of the four silver medals for the relays won, all likewise accounted for by British Columbia swimmers. The Canadian Golden Girls were our own Leslie Cliff, who won three gold and one silver, a tremendous achievement, and Donna Marie Gurr who won three gold and one silver.

The letter then went on to say and I quote.

After returning from Columbia, we sent 12 girls and two boys to the American Nationals in Houston, Texas, which is considered the top meet in the world except for the Olympics. If a swimmer makes the finals, he or she is automatically world ranked. At this meet, Donna Marie Gurr won two silver and Leslie Cliff a silver and a bronze medal.

The federal fitness fund pays costs of the international and national competition. But the cost involved in the training and competition programme is a club or provincial responsibility, and the B.C. physical fitness and amateur sports fund must be given credit for a large part of our success. A drawback of the federal plan is inflexibility in failure to conform to instant needs. The great advantage of the B.C. fund is the faith that is shown to our sports governing body. The right of our group to maintain its self-determination of policy and programme within the broad guidelines of the fund has kept us ahead of the rest of Canada and most countries of the world.

Mr. Speaker the next two years are going to be particularly stimulating for British Columbian athletes. The Winter Olympics in Sapporo, Japan, which was just completed — we had some competitors there. I know everyone in British Columbia was extremely proud that Karen Magnussen won the silver medal — which was Canada's only medal — and I'm looking forward to the opportunity later this week of making a presentation to her on behalf of the citizens of this province as well. I'm sure that all of the Members who happened to see the opening ceremonies on television were extremely proud to see her carrying the flag as the opening ceremonies got under way.

This is the second consecutive time that a British Columbian's been given this honour. At Grenoble, France, which was the last one, you recall that Nancy Greene was the flag-bearer for Canada so I think we can take some pride in this.

Then this summer the Olympics will be held in Munich. We had the Mayor of Munich over here this summer promoting the Olympic Games, and I'm sure again British Columbia will be very well represented in the Canadian team.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's a Socialist…

HON. MR. BENNETT: He's not your type of Socialist, my friend.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Next year, Mr. Speaker, the Canada games will be held in Burnaby and New Westminster, and this government has been approached to provide certain grants, and we are providing certain grants to the Canada summer games, which will provide for the athletes of the area some permanent dividends in terms of two major sports facilities. One is the dredging and developing of Burnaby Lake, which will provide the lower mainland area with an international 2,000 meter rowing course which will be one of the best in Canada. This is largely federally-financed, the programme for the Canada games.

We'll also acquire a new 50 metre pool which will be a tremendous assistance to the swimmers in the area.

The opening of the games will take place in the Swanguard Stadium, which the people of this province made some contribution to as well, and the stadium will be converted to an all-weather track which will again serve the future generations in the lower mainland area.

Then in addition to this, of course, we have the continuing festival of sports which has been such a tremendous success in the province — this year going into the winter areas as well. So all told, Mr. Speaker, with the advent of this fund in 1969, I suggest that tremendous progress has been

[ Page 486 ]

made. You're beginning to see the effects now on amateur sports and athletics and fitness development in the province and with this increase in the fund that was announced by the Minister of Finance when he presented his budget, we're assured of a sound base in which to continue to build our young athletes and encourage all of them to play as hard as they work, or indeed harder, in the Province of British Columbia.

Now Mr. Speaker, over this last weekend in his speech to the Ontario Liberal convention the Prime Minister of Canada is reported as having called the Premier of this province a "bigot".

Here it is in this morning's paper, the Vancouver Province. "Bennett a Bigot: Trudeau".

The leader of the Liberal Party for this province said the Prime Minister of Canada was flattering the Premier of this province. No wonder he isn't in the chamber today. No wonder he isn't in the chamber today.

Mr. Speaker, this is the most unprecedented, unwarranted attack by our Prime Minister of this country since confederation. Since confederation. It should be possible for any province in Canada to criticise the programmes and the policies of the Government of Canada without the Prime Minister of this country resorting to name-calling and personal abuse.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. PETERSON: If the Prime Minister of Canada has nothing better to contribute in public life in this country than profanity, the occasional "fuddle duddle", the shrug of the shoulders, the smirk on his face, it's time he resigned Mr. Speaker.

One would think at a time in our history when we have 665,000 people unemployed across this nation, one would think that the Prime Minister would have some other things to say, and some other things to be critical of, and be more concerned with his own responsibilities in Ottawa.

The Member from Kootenay who just took his place had something to say on highways and I was surprised to hear him take up the cudgel on behalf of the federal government in this respect, Mr. Speaker. Because the highway which comes through this area, Mr. Speaker, the southern trans-provincial, cost not a cent of federal money, and yet he has nothing to say about that. He only criticises the naming of the highways here.

The Prime Minister of Canada was skiing in our province recently, and we're always happy to have him holidaying in our province. But when he went skiing I'm sure he travelled up over the Upper-Levels Highway, he would see the great construction programme going on there, millions and millions and millions of dollars on the continuation of the Trans-Canada highway to which the federal government are not contributing one cent, Mr. Speaker. Not one cent.

They started on this policy of contributing to a Trans-Canada highway, and surely the Second Narrows is a continuation, surely the Upper Levels is a continuation? Surely the millions and millions of dollars also being spent on Vancouver Island could be considered a continuation of the Trans-Canada highway. It is in Eastern Canada — do you think the federal government doesn't contribute to the highways in Prince Edward Island?

HON. MR. BENNETT: The full length.

HON. MR. PETERSON: The full length — an island much, much, much smaller than Vancouver Island. But not a red cent for British Columbia and Vancouver Island, Mr. Speaker. And they haven't made any contribution for the last two years. You know, to the best of my knowledge, Mr. Speaker, Canada is the only country in the world with a federal system where the national government does not pay anything towards highways except on the special deals it makes in Quebec and other provinces in Eastern Canada where they not only build highways but parking lots as well.

That's the Liberal Policy, and when the federal government is prepared to change their policy, when they're prepared to drop this horse-and-buggy policy on highways, then we'll change the sign. Then we'll change the signs.

Mr. Speaker, the government of this province and the Premier in particular believe very strongly in the federal system of government. This has been the theme at all of the conferences we've attended.

It's the most difficult of all systems. But it does give the constituent parts of this country a unique blend of autonomy and unity. And it's in keeping with this basic principle, this basic principle of autonomy and unity, that British Columbia and the government of this province recognises its right and duty to participate fully in the federated process even if such participation demands speaking out against the established programmes that are in operation in this country.

Surely it should be possible to criticise the bilingual programme in Canada, without being labelled a "bigot" by the Prime Minister of Canada. What's so sancrosant about the bilingual programme that we're not supposed to discuss it or criticise it, Mr. Speaker?

The reason why we have been vocal in regard to this federal policy, is because the present policy of the Liberal government under the present Prime Minister's leadership discriminates against the people in Western Canada. That's why. A newspaper clipping from the Victoria Colonist of March 10 last quotes the Treasury Board's Charles Drury as saying that by 1975 the government wants 60 per cent of the top 500 in departments and agencies to be bilingual. The article goes on to show that only 15 per cent of that number are now fluent in both French and English.

Now the consequence of this drive towards bilingualism tends to favour the employment and tends to favour the promotion as well of Francophones, many or most of whom by necessity are bilingual to begin with.

At the same time it is discriminatory because it closes the door to unilingual English-speaking Canadians into the federal civil service and considerably curtails the promotion possibility of those who are presently in the civil service of this country.

Of all racial origins, the majority of the residents of Western Canada do not speak French and it is obvious that they are now being placed in a decided disadvantage in Canada from entry into the civil service or promotion once they are in the civil service.

At any constitutional conference where the proceedings have been public, or the question of bilingualism has been discussed, there hasn't been an occasion where we have not received phone calls from civil servants in Ottawa complaining on this subject. Complaining against the attitude against the federal government, Mr. Speaker.

Then, too, it's not just this aspect that we have been critical of. We're critical of the vast sums of taxpayers' money that are being wasted. We are critical of the extravagance of the Liberal government when it comes to this

[ Page 487 ]

question of bilingualism.

And how much more important priorities there are in this country, if you took a poll in Western Canada — I'm sure as the late Ross Thatcher of Saskatchewan, if I recall correctly, said: "if we had 100 priorities in Saskatchewan this would be 101". The last of the list, not only in the civil service but in other areas, Mr. Speaker, where necessity and common sense should warrant the expenditure.

For example, I know our judges in this province enjoy going east at the federal government's expense, to take a course in French — county court and other levels as well. And yet let's be perfectly frank and reasonable, they're not going to be conducting trials in French in British Columbia. But they enjoy it and it's at the taxpayers' expense, and hardly essential I suggest.

I take exception as well to what I consider to be a useless and unnecessary expenditure of public funds in the printing of all federal statutes and regulations in two languages — one column on each page in French, and another column on each page in English and you can't get one version without getting the other.

I'm not objecting to this being available in both languages so that those who only speak French have access to the federal statutes and regulations in the French tongue or those who want it in English, should be able to get it in English, but any schoolchild would be able to tell you that this is a waste of money when you can't get it except in both languages. That is a terrible squandering of public funds.

One could examine the other programmes, the grants that are made by the federal government today of which this province gets some, are a waste of the taxpayers' money of teaching French in Canada today.

It wouldn't be so bad if they confined it — just a waste of the taxpayers' money within their own government service, Mr. Speaker. But what do they do? They're determined to spend the money of producers and manufacturers and those engaged in industry in this country as well.

I'm referring now to the policy of the federal government that was announced by the former Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs in a speech made in December, 1970 — that over the next couple of years drug products, food, cosmetics, patent medicine, pesticides and all consumer products subject to federal labelling rules will progressively have to meet the bilingual labelling requirements.

That Minister said:

These new regulations will increase the number of products labelled in both languages and we expect by the end of 1975 that bilingual labelling should, as a general practice, be mandatory at the point of manufacture for consumer products subject to federal labelling legislation. This legislation is virtually applicable to all packaging and hence the effect is to require by 1975 all labels and packages of products sold anywhere in Canada has to be bilingual.

We had a conference in May of last year on consumer affairs which I attended, and at which I expressed at that time strong opposition to this policy. I said then and I say again now that this idea makes very little sense in our province where, according to Statistics Canada figures (these are the federal government's figures) only two persons out of 1,000 speak French, not English. The figures indicated that there are five times more people in British Columbia that speak neither French nor English such as German, Ukrainian and Chinese than there are that speak French only.

And so to impose bilingual language requirements in labelling and packaging on those western producers who sell their goods primarily in western provinces, or anywhere for that matter outside the Province of Quebec, this, Mr. Speaker, is the height of folly.

It will increase production costs and these costs, of course, are passed on to the consumer. So the consumers are going to have to pay more as a result of the Liberal government policy on labels. And after all in regard to labelling it should be the market place that determines the language that you use in advertising your products unless they are indeed a hazardous product.

I received a lot of letters on this subject. I'm not going to refer to them all, but here for example is one after my statements appeared in the Press, after this conference in Ottawa. One from B.C. Tree Fruits Limited, dated May 28, 1971, directed to myself:

We are very pleased indeed to read in yesterday's paper where the Province of British Columbia is opposed to bilingual labelling.

They go on to set out their concerns in this area. Then another from the Western Food Processor's Association, dated May 27, directed to myself:

The members of this association were heartened to learn of the position you took with respect to bilingual labelling at recent meetings in Ottawa of the federal and provincial Ministers of Consumer Affairs. At a general membership meeting yesterday, the writer was instructed to write all British Columbia Members of Parliament and Members of the Legislative Assembly, setting out the objections of western Canadian food processors to the proposed federal legislation.

Another one from Burns Foods Limited in Calgary, Alberta.

I was pleased to read of your opposition of compulsory bilingualism of packages and labels which I think is unnecessary, expensive, and discriminatory.

For years many Canadian companies have used bilingual packages wherever the market requires it. We considered it good salesmanship in Quebec long before the B. & B. Commission. As businessmen, we would certainly put French on our labels all across Canada if there were a public demand for it. But in western Canada, on the contrary, we find it good business to use unilingual labels on a number of products. Because many people here resent the use of a language which does not really exist in this part of our country.

I am sure you will agree that the opposition in western Canada to bilingualism is not opposition to Quebec, or to our fellow citizens who speak French. I happen to speak French and I have a number of friends and close associates in Quebec but to use a current expression, I'm not looking for an ego trip by climbing on the bandwagon for nationwide bilingualism.

This was signed by the president of Burns Foods Limited, in Alberta.

I'm not opposed, Mr. Speaker, to efforts being made to encourage the development of the French culture or the French language in Canada. This province has never expressed any opposition to that, let's make that abundantly clear. But we do say that it must be done on a reasonable basis, commensurate with the practicalities of the situation having regard to the French-speaking population in any part of Canada. This legalistic approach of the present federal government to bilingualism in Canada, this will not produce desirable results. Mr. Speaker, unless the policies of the federal government change they will build up resentment

[ Page 488 ]

which will be divisive in their effects across Canada; and not lead to unity in this nation at all.

Let's make it abundantly clear as well it's not the people in Quebec that are clamoring for bilingualism in British Columbia or western Canada, this has been made abundantly clear at each of the conferences, not only by the present administration in the Province of Quebec but by former administrations as well. It's the policy of the present Prime Minister of Canada and his cabinet and not the policy of Quebec.

I want to refer, Mr. Speaker, to another matter on which this province has expressed their deep dissatisfaction with the present Liberal administration and with their policies. The Premier has expressed consistently his deep dissatisfaction with the present scheme of unconditional equalisation grants, to provincial governments. When we are critical of the federal government's programme of equalisation grants and when we propose as we have proposed viable alternatives to the present scheme, I suggest that the people of this province are entitled to more than a shrug of the Prime Minister's shoulders, more to an insulting or sarcastic comment of the kind that all too frequently coming from the mouths of our present Prime Minister. Like the kind we saw on the Press this morning.

I want to refer to the opening statement of the Province of British Columbia at the federal-provincial conference — and this is at the last federal-provincial conferences that we've had, Mr. Speaker, Ottawa, November 15, 16, and 17. I quote from the brief submitted by the Premier of this province to this federal-provincial conference:

The government of Canada has paid out over $5.5 billion in equalisation payments since their introduction in 1957, and they continue to increase substantially each year.

One province, Quebec, receives 47 per cent of this amount. There is little evidence these unconditional grants which have been paid to certain provincial governments have increased the relative standard of living of the citizens in the areas in which they have been received. Nor have they reduced the regional gap in individual income. The fact that these conditions persist, despite the infusion of this large sum of money by the federal government must certainly classify this unconditional grant programme a failure.

There are other objections to equalisation payments and I'm sure the Member for Vancouver East will agree that these equalisation payments are not having the desired effect in Canada and indeed they're contributing to the problems that face us in Canada today in large measures. Because one of the chief objections, I suggest, is that these grants going to Quebec and the Maritime provinces make it financially possible for the government in these areas to avoid facing up to the need for basic administrative changes in order to make efficient use of the resources which they have in their province.

Last week, Mr. Speaker, we received support for our stand from an unexpected source, and I refer to page six of Vancouver Sun, Thursday, February 10. Here is the headline "Yes, Premier Bennett, You're Right-on, Man!" written by an economist, Mary Rossen.

I would just like to quote a few passages from the excellent article which I commend to the Members in total. The headline says: "Equalisation Payments to Soar, But It Is Premier W.A.C. Bennett Who Takes Off."

To Mr. Bennett equalisation payments are like a red rag to a bull and his complaints about them account for his probably undeserved reputation for being anti-Quebec.

AN HON. MEMBER: They only need a loan for $100 million.

HON. MR. PETERSON: And if I can digress for a moment, consistently this province has shown that we are indeed friends of the Province of Quebec. The only province in Canada to loan them substantial sums of money when they are in need, over $100 million. What other province in Canada has given that kind of assistance to the province of Quebec?

Provincial governments may be contributing significantly to the disparities either by pursuing policies that raise the per capita revenue of their people or by weaknesses in the policy area that reduce per capita income.

Digressing again, Mr. Speaker, what the article is pointing out that the basis of equalisation presently being used is wrong. It carries on:

So perhaps the mere presence of natural resources is not the cause, perhaps the provinces should experience a sense of guilt, not when they own resources, but when they fail to practice active stewardship. Perhaps the per capita income comparison is a poor yardstick for judging the wealth of the region.

And I would just take out the "perhaps" if I were making these statements myself. Because I think it is abundantly clear that the current system is wrong.

Quebec, which covers an area half as large again as British Columbia has potentially accessible and productive forest land of 141 million acres, nearly twice British Columbia's 78 million. In 1969, British Columbia took in $78 million in forest fees of various kinds. Quebec took only $20 million. Or take the case of minerals. The value of mineral production in Quebec is much greater than it is in British Columbia. For 1959 and 1961 the Quebec figures were $440 million and $455 million and the B.C. figures were $159 million and $188 million. In 1969 the figure for Quebec was $720 million and that for B.C. $422 million.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's the total production.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Yes, total production.

But what does Quebec take in as a resource revenue from minerals? For 1960-61 the figure was $6 million, for 1969-70, it was less than $2 million. The income from British Columbia for the same two years was $50 million and $49 million.

That is to say, on a smaller resource base the people of B.C. are receiving a larger total income and a very much larger per capita public revenue. This is the crux of the matter.

And it is because of this kind of stewardship on the part of these governments, the government of Quebec that they get these large grants. I know the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources qualified these figures somewhat when he addressed this House the other day but nevertheless the principle still remains the same. That shows why this current system is wrong and not good for Canada as a whole, let alone British Columbia. Then the last paragraph. I would like to read the last paragraph of this article.

It is hard not to sympathise with Mr. Bennett, when as

[ Page 489 ]

Minister of Finance of British Columbia, he is on one hand attacked by the Opposition for failing to tap the resource base adequately while on the other hand he must pay to Quebec, a resource-rich province that extracts barely a sou on that account, some millions of dollars in equalisation payments.

So that ends the quotation, Mr. Speaker, and that I suggest points out the current situation and our opposition to the present grants which are abundantly unfair.

It is extremely frustrating and annoying to this province to see some of the extravagant expenditures of other provincial governments who are receiving this kind of social welfare from Ontario, from Alberta, and from British Columbia. In this province we are examining our expenditures in the light of efficiency and economy. We're making a conscious attempt here, in British Columbia, to eliminate any wasteful and unnecessary expenditures. We're trying to keep inflation under control in British Columbia because we do recognise its serious consequences to the pensioner and to others on fixed incomes.

The present budget provides for substantial increases in expenditures on education, expenditures on medicare, hospitalisation programmes, et cetera. Nonetheless there is a necessity to ensure that costs in these legitimate areas of government expenditure are kept in line with the ability of the taxpayer to pay for them on a continuing basis.

What happens? What happens in those provinces that have their noses in the public trough? The provinces — and remember this — the provinces that have to keep that public trough filled at all times are Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia.

What happens there? What restraint are they exercising in these fields? Having attended now for a number of years the federal-provincial conferences, I have come to the very distinct impression that these provinces that are being subsidised have built up a bureaucracy the like of which has never been known in British Columbia. Never been known.

That's right. The office of the premiers in the subsidised provinces across Canada, all have larger staff than the Premier of this province. The province of Quebec…

AN HON. MEMBER: Dead-beats. High-priced help.

HON. MR. PETERSON: I'm not saying that they're dead-beats, Mr. Member, that's your expression, not mine. But they certainly have a large bureaucracy on their staff to have expenditures that I consider most wasteful and extravagant. The Quebec government, the Liberal government in Quebec, keeping a palace in France. Out of our money and we're going to sit quietly and take that kind of treatment, Mr. Speaker? We're certainly not. We're certainly not.

British Columbia doesn't object to helping those less fortunate. We want to make that very clear. We never have. We've always, consistently, taken that position that we want to help those less fortunate. After all, that's what confederation is all about as well.

Because the various constituent units which come together to form the federation have different capacities for economic development with varying physical capabilities, all of the country's citizens do not enjoy equal economic opportunities.

One of the objectives of our federation must alleviate this economic imbalance and endeavour to achieve comparable economic opportunities for all persons within the federation. That's why the Premier of this province was the first to propose a guaranteed annual income plan as a viable alternative to the present scheme of equalisation grants.

This proposal, Mr. Speaker, is founded on the belief that a great disparity exists between the average personal income of many Canadians — that a federal system demands concerted action to equalise this disparity, that equalisation payments to provincial governments have largely failed to accomplish this objective because the payments are made to the government and don't get to the individual who needs it. Only a comprehensive programme of direct assistance to individuals will materially effect this disparity.

At the constitutional conference in Ottawa, in December, 1969, the Premier said and I quote.

A whole new concept to provide for rehabilitation and human betterment is needed — a system void of duplicity of services with uniformity of standards from place to place, designed to rehabilitate people and bring them into the working force of Canada. Such a programme would act as a catalyst to the initiative of low-income Canadians, where ever they might be in Canada, to go on to develop their skills and improve their lot and that of their families by their own effort.

This plan — negative income tax as it is sometimes called or a guaranteed annual income plan — would replace all existing welfare programmes, federal and provincial. It would be financed by both federal and provincial governments.

The federal government would contribute the amount which it presently expends on these equalisation grants and all of the welfare programmes, which it presently funds. The provinces would contribute the amounts which they presently pay on welfare programmes and in the event that the combined sum does not meet the cost of the plan — and it wouldn't — in that event the balance we recommended would be financed out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada as a first charge on personal and corporate income tax.

AN HON. MEMBER: Before distribution?

HON. MR. PETERSON: Pardon me? Before distribution to the province under corporate income tax agreements. Now, some argue that this plan doesn't permit, at least directly, the recipient provinces to spend large sums on government services which is the effect and intent of the equalisation grant. I suppose to some extent that would be true because there wouldn't be any lump sum subsidy payments to the seven provinces because this plan approaches it from a different perspective — rather than being content to make these enormous and annual payments unconditionally to governments, to let them spend it on increased bureaucracy or agencies in Paris, France, or elsewhere throughout the country, or Kitten Clubs in — what province was that? — Prince Edward Island.

Rather than to have our money spent that way, it invests a comparable amount of money with individuals. This enables the individuals to purchase consumer necessities which in turn creates a demand for production of goods which produces jobs.

The net effect, Mr. Speaker, of such a programme is that the standard of living of individuals increases, production of goods and services goes up, and more jobs are created. This in turn brings greater revenues to the province through personal income taxes and corporation taxes, through sales taxes and all the other taxes that exist across this country.

Then, Mr. Speaker, in addition to this proposal of a

[ Page 490 ]

negative income tax the province has recommended that Canada be divided into and I quote: "Five viable and effective units consonant and in conformity with the five economic regions of Canada."

If this idea seemed novel in 1969 when the Premier first proposed it at the constitutional conference in Ottawa, it has certainly gained widespread respect across Canada, not only by individuals in government but other experts across the country as well, Mr. Speaker.

We also proposed a third recommendation. We proposed a common market with the United States which would benefit all of Canada, but particularly the Maritime provinces, Mr. Speaker, and make up for any that they would have from the cancellation of the equalisation grants. It would assist greatly the economy of western Canada and particularly British Columbia.

These three constructive recommendations are complementary. The recommendations made with respect to the five provinces, five economic regions; the reduction of the Canada-United States tariffs; our programme of guaranteed annual income for citizens wherever they may live in Canada. Take all of these recommendations together and they'd form the basis for a comprehensive programme which would reflect the contemporary needs of a Canadian nation today. They would benefit the needy provinces most — those who are presently receiving equalisation grants — but it would enable them to solve their own problems and it would promote and bonus some economy and efficiency. That's what is wrong with the present system today, because there isn't the sufficient motivation to economise and to be efficient in government expenditures.

It would give to these provinces a revenue-producing capacity to fulfil their constitutional obligations without outside assistance and help build a much stronger nation in Canada, help built much stronger provinces from one end of Canada to the other.

Mr. Speaker, I appeal today to the Prime Minister of Canada, to the Liberal government in Ottawa, in the words of the late Ross Thatcher, the former Liberal Premier for the province of Saskatchewan, when he said "Listen to the West, just for once".

Listen to the west, Mr. Prime Minister, just for once. We've had enough shrugs, we've had enough sarcasm, we've had enough profanity from the present Prime Minister. British Columbia's had enough. We've had enough.

Mr. Speaker, it's our contention that equalisation payments violate the expressed provisions of the British North America Act, namely that all provinces were to be treated equally after their entry into Confederation. It's impossible, I suggest, to rationalise the equal treatment principle with equalisation grants to some governments.

This is one of the reasons why British Columbia considers that equalisation payments as we know them today, as they operate today in Canada under the present administration, that they are not constitutionally valid. To demonstrate to the Government of Canada that British Columbia is fed up, that British Columbia is unhappy with the attitude of the present Prime Minister and his government, to demonstrate that we're unhappy with the unfair treatment that is being administered to British Columbia by the federal government, to convince the Government of Canada in Ottawa that we do mean business in British Columbia, I'm announcing today, Mr. Speaker, that this province will attack the constitutional validity of these payments in the courts.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for North Peace River.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Mr. Speaker, as I take my place in this debate I must admit to all present that that's going to be a tough act to follow. But I want to say this, very quickly and very distinctly. All of us feel very strongly about this matter of regional disparities and equalisation payments that are not fair to one part of Canada as related to another.

AN HON. MEMBER: Warn the public, too.

MR. SMITH: The public feels very strongly about it. You know, the leader of the Liberal Party in this House is continually on his feet telling us that he wants to tell it the way it is — he's going to tell it the way it is. Well, I feel strongly enough this afternoon that I may repeat some of the statements that were made by the Honourable the Attorney General. But I'll tell you this, that it's because it is a serious matter that I am on my feet and taking the same line that he took before he sat down.

Ever since 1957 the federal government has operated a programme of equalisation payments. They've done this in an attempt to even out the financial disparity which exists between provinces and regions in Canada.

The theory as I understand it, Mr. Speaker, is to take from the provinces with the strongest economic base and give to other provinces in less productive areas.

The total transfer of funds into the federal treasury through taxation and then out by way of direct payments to some parts of Canada now exceeds $5.5 billion and by far the greatest recipient of funds has been the Province of Quebec, 47 per cent of the total paid out.

Take the fiscal year 1969-1970. Total funds paid out of $673 million, Quebec received $343 million over 50 per cent of the total funds available. And what happened to the Provinces of Alberta, British Columbia, and Ontario? We received nothing, absolutely nothing.

The theory is all wrong. It hasn't worked. No one can get up and honestly say that Quebec is stronger economically today as a result of the tremendous infusion of funds. No one can say that.

If disparity exists in Quebec, perhaps we should take a look in all fairness and without being criticised at their fiscal policy. How have they managed their resources that they have at their disposal? Is there something wrong, other than a lack of natural advantage in some of these provinces? And I suggest that there is.

It's been pointed out by the Attorney General, and I'll reiterate it, that Quebec as a province has a greater resource base, a much larger area than any other province in Canada and yet they have collected less in in the way of revenue for the people of that province than almost any other province in Canada. Regardless of the type of resource that was available to them they have not provided proper stewardship.

All you have to do is look at the figures of mineral production in the Province of Quebec as compared to the Province of British Columbia. In May 1961 the total value of their mineral production was $455 million and out of this they collected $6 million in tax. In 1961, the same year, the value of our mineral production in this province $188 million and out of this we collected $15 million, two and a half times the revenue that Quebec received.

But we get up to 1969, the value of mineral production in

[ Page 491 ]

the Province of Quebec was $720 million. Can anybody guess what they actually got in the way of revenue? From the production of $720 million of mineral they got exactly $2 million. $2 million on production of $720 million. In the same year the value of our mineral production was $422 million and the value of direct tax to this government was $49 million. $49 million on production of $422 million.

Yet, the Opposition across the floor of this chamber would suggest that we're not taxing industries heavy enough, that we're not getting enough profits.

Well, let's take a look at that. In 1956, the Province of Quebec received as a percentage of their total revenue from all natural resources 8.1 per cent. Ten years later in 1966, with increased production value the revenue had dropped as a total of all revenue received in the Province of Quebec to 3.4 per cent. And for 1970, the last figures that I looked at just a few hours ago, the amount of revenue that they received on the sale of all their natural resources in respect to total revenue had dropped to 2 per cent. $78 million out of a revenue of $3,880 million.

Let's take a look at what's happened in British Columbia. The rate of return on the sale of our natural resources for a number of years now has averaged between 14 and 16 per cent and it stayed very constant at that figure. So if we're going to talk about equalisation payments in Canada to some of these provinces, then we must also in all fairness to all Canadians look at the type of job that the province is doing in relation to the value of the minerals and production of natural resources that they have under their stewardship.

We have every reason to question provinces like Quebec when they only receive a $2 million return in the year 1970 and 2 per cent of their total revenue from mineral production. What's the problem? Where's it at?

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. SMITH: Is it poor stewardship? Is it sweetheart production or sweetheart deals with some of the companies that live there and operate there? Is it pork barrel? I think we have a perfect right to ask those questions.

It's not correct, Mr. Speaker, and it's a system that will not work. It was never designed to work. If this province can build a strong viable economy based upon natural resource production — which mainly ours is — if we can do it here then other parts of Canada who have equal natural resources available to them should be able to do it too, and especially the Province of Quebec should be able to do it. They're equal to us in the matter of resources in any tests you wish to use. It's not that they lack natural advantage.

There are other provinces that are in the same position. They have the natural advantage, they have the resources, but they're not extracting from them the type of money that they should on behalf of the citizens they represent. That's why such a system will never work.

No one in this chamber denies the rights of every Canadian to have a liveable income because we are in Canada capable of producing for every individual a liveable income. But we have a right to look at the type of job that legislatures and provinces are doing on our behalf.

If the N.D.P. are critical of the job that is being done in British Columbia, then they should be five times and 10-fold as critical of the job that is being done on behalf of the citizens in other parts of Canada. They should be seeking out answers in respect to equalisation payments.

I say this, Mr. Speaker, if we accept the premise that there are five economic regions in Canada and I think that that is a good precept — we do have five economic regions in Canada — that we represent the western economic region together with the Northwest Territories and the Yukon or a part of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon.

If we can't in the words of Ross Thatcher, the late Ross Thatcher, "get someone to listen to the West for a change" I say that we can go it alone. We can go it alone and we shouldn't have to do that.

We do have the resources available to us, Mr. Speaker, that we can go it alone. But that is not the answer. We take a look also at the programme which was introduced this year to pump money into the economy and I think it was a good programme.

There is an article that was recently in the Vancouver Sun, February 2.

Quebec is getting the lion's share of grants designed to combat unemployment under the local initiatives programme, a spokesman for the Department of Manpower and Immigration said Tuesday. Total grants worth $57 million approved. Total amount for Quebec, $20 million.

That in itself is not too bad a situation, I would say, because they are probably using that money to good advantage. But the thing that's shocking is the statement at the bottom of this same Press release. "Although the department" — this is talking about the federal department — "considers the project a sparkling success, there have been rumours of discontent from Quebec, he said. Groups protesting the plan have demonstrated in Montreal, Quebec City, Hull and Victoriaville. "

All I say to this is, the treatment of people who would bite the hand that is feeding them, is this the type of attitude that is prevalent? I can't see it. If anybody thinks that we're not receiving a fair return on our resources in British Columbia, perhaps they should do as I have done and read a few of the briefs that have been prepared by the mining associations and the timber industry in the province.

I have one here. A recent report that was prepared by the council of forest industry, who I understand represents about 60 per cent of all the logging companies in the Province of British Columbia.

There are some very interesting statistics there. I think if you take a look at page 5 and page 6 of the brief, you get an idea of where they stand and while they're not making a tremendous issue out of it they are asking and questioning how far we can go in the extraction of funds from these types of industries before we reach a saturation or maximum point of return both for ourselves as a province and for them as an industry.

Net earnings of participating companies declined by 65 per cent from 1966 to 1970. Pre-tax earnings declined by 62 per cent from 1966 to 1970 while total taxes declined only 25 per cent. B.C. forest service revenues in 1970 were 33 per cent higher than in 1966, while pre-tax earnings of participating companies were 62 per cent lower than in 1966. The effective rate of taxes on income in 1969 and 1970 was 56 per cent. Stumpage and royalty costs increased by 12 per cent from 1966 to 1970 while earnings available to pay these costs declined by 54 per cent. Property taxes increased by 51 per cent.

You know, the Opposition tell us we never tax the industries — property taxes increased by 51 per cent from 1966 to 1970 while earnings available to pay property taxes declined by 46 per cent. Investment in taxable assets increased by only 34 per cent from January 1, 1966 to

[ Page 492 ]

January 1, 1970.

They're trying to point out, I think, in a constructive way that industry can only bear the burden of taxes in relation to the profit that they make. They're saying politely to the government at this point, as in industry: "We think you've gone far enough. That the rate of taxes that you are levying is equal to the rate that we can pay. If you get any tougher on us we're going to have to relocate and look for a better situation for our investment capital somewhere else in the world," don't think that other parts of the world would not be anxious to have these industries relocate in their particular area. It's time that we, in this House, spoke up once in a while for industry, because they are the people who provide the jobs for the hundreds of thousands of people we wish to have employed in the province. They carry the mail for us, and while they have been very reluctant to put their point of view forward with respect to taxation, they have something to say and as interested representatives of the people of this province I think we have a duty to listen.

Mr. Speaker, may I spend a few moments now addressing my remarks to the used car dealers and new car dealers in the Province of British Columbia? What happened, did they all leave? I guess they must have known this was coming up so they all disappeared. Oh no, there you are. Oh, we have one representative anyway.

It seems to me that over the last year or two, perhaps a little longer than that, it's been the practice of most major manufacturers of automobiles to send along with the automobile to the dealer a typewritten sheet which indicates the model of the car which you are about to buy and the accessories — whether they are included in the base price or whether they are extra. In addition the retail price has been, in most cases, priced out also on a sheet that is attached to the vehicle. Most dealers, I think, leave this list of the type of auto that you are purchasing, plus the accessories, plus the cost of those accessories and the final retail price which is shown on the vehicle until after it has been sold a first time.

It is not compulsory to leave that retail sales slip on the car. It can be removed and I know for a fact that some dealers do remove it. It seems to me that in order to protect all of the car dealers in the province, we should have legislation on our books which makes it compulsory that retail price listing which comes out of the factory with the car to stay on the vehicle whether it be car, truck or pick-up until after the first sale.

It's far too common an experience and practice sometimes for a dealer to increase the retail price and at the same time increase the trade-in that is offered and pad the price on a fictitious figure. I don't think that this is a good business practice. I know it's not a good business practice. It's also detrimental to those dealers in the car business who operate straight on a square basis — leave the retail price on your car and then have to face the unfair competition that the fellow down the road offered $250 more for the trade-in than you were prepared to give me.

That's unfair. It's unfair competition and I think we should require and have on our books, legislation which requires that retail price to be there at the time that car is sold to the first owner.

All of us have heard of a chap in the United States by the name of Nader. He's made quite a reputation for himself and a bunch of people who have gathered around him and they are now called Nader's Raiders. I am not suggesting that the programme that he initiated, which brought to the mind and the eye of the public certain detrimental features about vehicles, was not done in sincerity. I believe it was and as a result of that many of the car manufacturers today, in fact all of them, have installed safety devices which they might not otherwise have been prepared to put in new automobiles.

If Nader's Raiders are going to watch the car business and now they've branched out into every other business endeavour that you can name, who is the group that's going to watch Nader? Because I'm concerned now that the publicity has gone to his head, as well as to his pocket-book.

He is exploiting at this point a situation purely for profit and that he's trying to make mountains now out of mole-hills. It would seem to me that what started out to be a good thing has now gone and grown far beyond the need for that type of a service. As a matter of fact, I would be interested in knowing how much extra money we have to pay today for a new vehicle as a result of some of the features that are built in which may or may not be necessary.

Do you think that it's necessary to have about 4 seat belts in every car, with one from the ceiling and one across the middle of your body and strapped in cross-ways, this way, that way, every other way?

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. SMITH: O.K. Do you use them?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, yes. People say 80 per cent do.

MR. SMITH: That may be only one example, but I would be interested in knowing just how many millions of dollars we pay annually for extra accessories on a car which are now compulsory or semi-compulsory at least — the automobile industry feels that it must provide them — if they really provide the safety benefits that we're all asking for, or whether this hasn't been blown all out of proportion.

AN HON. MEMBER: You'll never make the driver safer.

MR. SMITH: The only solution to the problem of driving is for people to practice more restraint when they're behind the wheel. We know that the greatest percentage of accidents is caused by people who are drinking when they drive. We know that a lot of accidents are caused by people who are in an unstable state of mind, maybe because of an argument at breakfast or something of that nature, when they go out onto the road, and this causes more accidents than anyone would like to mention. I'm not the least bit convinced that all of the things that have come about as a result of investigations by Nader's Raiders were in the best interests of the public.

I prefer more careful drivers and less auto accidents, period. I think that we have got to get to that. The N.D.P. can talk all they like about bringing down the costs of auto insurance, but I'll tell you this, that as long as the accident rates remain as high as they are and we have the tremendous indifferent attitude of people towards driving we're not going to get an appreciable decline in the price of repairing vehicles.

Since I came to Victoria I've had my car nailed, not badly, but creased, twice. Who did it? I have no idea. The car was parked and I came out and a front fender was pushed in about two nights ago and a week before that, a back door was pushed in.

Interjection by Hon. Members.

MR. SMITH: I haven't looked at my cohort's car to see if

[ Page 493 ]

it happens to be the chap who's parked very close to me over at the apartment where I live and see if it was his fault or not. But nevertheless this happens all the time and you and I know it. Now those are just minor examples of what goes on, so having a safer car wouldn't have prevented somebody from creaming my vehicle when it wasn't even moving, it was in a stationary position.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. SMITH: Bumper? On the sides of the door my friend?

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, one of the things that I have often spoken about in this House, is the need for greater attention to transportation links if we're going to completely develop this province of ours. That's why it disturbs me when I read recently in a copy of the Victoria Colonist, that, while speaking to congress, President Nixon said the Canadian government has decided it will not repair the road at its own expense. He's talking about the Alaska Highway.

The message said, new routes now being developed, especially in British Columbia, and the fact that growth of traffic was not as high as expected on the Alaska highway, made reconstruction and paving of the road unjustified.

Let's assume that the U.S. has said in effect that they are not going to participate in the reconstruction or paving of that link to Alaska, and this is their right to say that because it's certainly not in an area under their jurisdiction. But if the report is correct, then President Nixon is aware of the attitude of the federal government towards this same project and I would have to say that those of us who live up there and have been in constant contact with the Ministers involved and with the Prime Minister of Canada, concerning this road, have been getting nothing but the runaround.

They've been playing fun and games with us, because their indication is that they're, you know, going to do something, they're going to reconstruct parts of it. They will possibly get around to doing something in the way of paving parts of it later on. But if the attitude as expressed in this column is the attitude of Ottawa, then why don't they come out and say so.

I was concerned about it enough to send a wire to the honourable Prime Minister, Pierre Elliott Trudeau, and to the Honourable Member for our riding, on February 9, the Honourable M.P., the wire reads as follows.

NEWS RELEASE FROM PRESIDENT NIXON INDICATES U.S. GOVERNMENT HAS ABANDONED PLANS TO JOIN WITH CANADIAN GOVERNMENT IN PAVING OF ALASKA HIGHWAY. SAME RELEASE INDICATES YOUR GOVERNMENT WILL NOT REPAIR ROAD THAT RECONSTRUCTION AND PAVING UNJUSTIFIED. WHAT IS PRESENT POLICY OF CANADIAN GOVERNMENT TOWARD ALASKA HIGHWAY?

That wire was signed by myself and by my colleague from the South Peace. To date, we haven't even received an acknowledgment. Not even an acknowledgment of that wire. It will be interesting to see what the attitude is, this is a federal road. At least the federal government have indicated that. I'll be interested to see what the Prime Minister and the Honourable R. Borrie have to say in reply. However, I'm not going to hold my breath.

More recently a brief was presented in Ottawa by the regional district of the Peace-Liard and while they received, I would say a good hearing by the Honourable Minister, they really didn't come home with anything in their back pockets. And we were talking about the need for incentives to help develop the north part of British Columbia. The type of incentive that would help provide more adequate accommodation, sewer, water, all these things in fast growing communities. The type of incentive that would help us attract more industry to sustain a continued growth in northern parts of this province.

It's ridiculous, Mr. Speaker, that people in Canada view the north as an unhospitable land where no one lives, where in Russia — in Siberia — they are continually building new cities at exactly the same latitude and in similar weather conditions that you would experience anywhere from the northern part of British Columbia right through to the Arctic Ocean. These cities are built and are in operation to accommodate the expanding population of Russia which cannot be looked after and accommodated in the areas close to the large metropolitan city.

Incidently in a book that I am reading called "Sibir" by Farley Mowat — it's a good book, I agree — it indicates what is going on in that area where many people think no one should live. If they can do it there, all I'm saying is that we can do it in Canada.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's all N.D.P. up there.

MR. SMITH:. There are a number of problems that I have brought to the floor of this House many times past, Mr. Speaker, and on many occasions. Some of them I've received the cooperation of the Ministers involved on, and some of the problems still have to be solved. So just in case anyone has forgotten some of the remarks that I have made in previous years, I'd like to remind the Minister of Highways that we would still like to see a road built from Fort Nelson to Fort Simpson, and I don't really subscribe to the idea that this is partially a federal government responsibility.

The road is totally within the Province of British Columbia. We receive annually from the sale of petroleum resources in this province in excess of $30 million, as a matter of fact it goes about $36 to $40 million a year. And it would seem to me that without looking to the federal government we could institute a resource development programme up there that would result in the building of a road.

Not as the Honourable leader of the Liberal Party said that we should pave the highway, which is not in place. But at least a road that could be operated during the summer as well as the winter, and channel all of the commerce of the Mackenzie delta through British Columbia on to the P.G.E. Railway and eventually down to the Coast of Vancouver or out to the Port of Prince Rupert.

We still have a problem in the north with the number of lakes adjacent to the Alaska Highway which we would like to see stocked with trout. We have a great problem with secondary market roads, within my part of the country — the roads that the farming communities use to get their goods to market — and I would hope that we would come up with a more intensified programme of improvement and pavement, in those areas.

If my suggestion that we need a deputy Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources is not acceptable then at least let's get more personnel in the Department of Mines and Petroleum Resources so that we can do a more adequate job

[ Page 494 ]

of looking after the petroleum industry in the northern part of this province.

Mr. Speaker, the budget tells an impressive story. It is a testimony and clear acknowledgement of what one political party with a inspired leadership can do in 20 years. It's a story told in pictorial form from the first page to the last. It's a story of new hospitals, new public buildings, new elementary and secondary schools, new technical and vocational schools, new regional colleges and instant university at Simon Fraser, new homes for the young and not-so-young alike, and increasing grants to help pay property taxes.

It's a story of power projects and the building of a P.G.E. Railway up into the northern part of the province. And incidentally I would just like to bring to the attention of this chamber that if the federal government would like to consider their contribution of $25,000 a mile on all the new rail that has been built as they have in other parts of Canada we have an I.O.U. in the amount of $17.5 million right now which they could pay us any time. But I'm afraid we'll have to tear up that I.O.U. because I don't think the federal government are going to put one nickel into the extension.

It's a story, Mr. Speaker, of province-wide development, it's a story of lower taxes and greater benefits, and particularly it's a story of special perpetual funds. A story of a fund for the first citizens of this province which I believe has done more for the native Indian population than any other programme which ever came into being anywhere in Canada.

It's a story of physical fitness and amateur sports, it's a story of a cultural fund, and it's a story that particularly applies to our part of the country. It's a story of a crop stabilisation fund which in the last few years has certainly bailed out a number of farmers who would be tremendously farther in debt than they are today if it hadn't been for the fact that the crops they lost were written off against an insurance plan which covered them.

When you take comparative tax rates, it's a story of lower taxes in British Columbia than any other part of Canada. The only province that comes close to us is the Province of Alberta — they don't have a 5 per cent sales tax, as a matter of fact we'll give them credit, they don't have any sales tax. But I noticed that in buying a bottle of Canadian Club or V.O. in Alberta with or without tax, you pay more in Alberta than you do in British Columbia with a 5 per cent sales tax, now something must be wrong.

It's a budget, Mr. Speaker, that was meant to provide services for people and I intend to support it.

Hon. Mr. Gaglardi moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Peterson presents the report of the special committee appointed to prepare a list of Members to compose the special committee to study the report on expropriation.

By leave of the House, the rules were suspended and the report adopted.

Hon. Mr. Richter presents the annual report of the Department of Commercial Transport for the year ending December 31, 1971.

Hon. Mr. Chabot presents the annual report of the Department of Labour for the year ending December 31, 1971.

Hon. Mr. Bennett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:59 p.m.