[ Page 495 ]

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 1972

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Attorney General.

HON. L.R. PETERSON (Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, would you join with me in welcoming a number of students that early in the day were seated on the floor of the chamber? Now they're in the galleries — the constituency of Vancouver–Little Mountain attending Grade 12 in the Sir Charles Tupper Secondary School.

MR SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition.

MR D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, this is a very special day in British Columbia. It is the birthday of the deputy Leader of the New Democratic Party, the Member from Burnaby North. (Mrs. Dailly).

HON. MR PETERSON: Would the Honourable the Leader of the Opposition say which one?

MR. BARRETT: Twenty-fourth as I recall!

MR SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Esquimalt.

MR H.J. BRUCH (Esquimalt): Mr. Speaker, few people in their community gain a reputation for public concern and dedication and public involvement. However, we had across the Malahat one such man and although he continually fought the Cameron Report the school district up there saw fit to name a school after him — the George Bonner Secondary School — and from that school we have today 60 students with their principal Mr. Owen, teachers Mr. Wilson, and Mr. Vonerhause. We have them in the gallery visiting with us, and I'd like the House to welcome them.

Introduction of bills.

FAMILY RELATIONS ACT

HON. MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a message from His Honour the Lieutenant Governor.

MR SPEAKER: The Lieutenant-Governor transmits herewith a bill intituled the Family Relations Act, and recommends the same to the legislative assembly. Dated at Government House February 14, 1972.

House in committee on Bill No. 30 intituled the Family Relations Act.

On the recommendation of the committee, Bill No. 30 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

AN ACT TO AMEND
THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS ACT

Hon. Mr. Peterson moves introduction and first reading of a bill intituled An Act to Amend the Chartered Accountants Act.

Motion approved. Bill No. 29 read a first time and ordered to be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

Orders of the day.

ON THE BUDGET

MR SPEAKER: The Honourable the Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement.

HON. P.A. GAGLARDI (Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement): Mr. Speaker, I would like to be not only brief in stature, but I'd like to be brief in speaking today because there are many, many things that could be discussed but I believe that most of the budget items have been talked about. A lot of water's gone under the bridge, and time's a wasting and there's lots of things to do and it would be nice to be able to see the work of the House carried out with all dispatch so that we might be able to get down to the business of giving to the people the fruits of the budget.

There are some things that I have seen on the floor of the House this year that have rather disappointed me. The Premier some years ago made a statement that I thought might have been partially political when he said the former Leader of the N.D.P. was a wild man. But I saw some actions on the floor of the House a few days ago that lead me to believe that the Premier's statement was really an understatement.

I don't know in any time in my life when I had seen a man so completely possessed by temper, and completely unable to control himself, and make some very unwarranted statements and unwarranted attacks upon the democratic process of the affairs of this House.

I'm not suggesting for a moment that that Member's always had my backing. I have felt that the N.D.P. made a mistake when they traded him for the present party leader. I think there are many things that the present N.D.P. leader will never measure up to, but I'm kind of wavering on my opinion now after watching the actions of the former Member the other day in the House.

One thing I believe that should be necessary on the floor of this House is to certainly register indignation but to never lose your temper to the degree where you can't control yourself, and I think that's extremely important. I give out that information and that advice without any cost.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR GAGLARDI: The Leader of the Opposition says that's all it's worth. That's alright, maybe it might be worth a whole lot more yet, you never know.

Now, today I'd like to deal for a few moments with the budget, although the budget has been dealt with on many occasions and very expertly by a number of people and there have been a lot of things said about the budget, and every one of them I'm sure — from this side of the House — statements in line and in keeping with the desire of the budget.

But I want to name this budget "the People's Budget." Because after all that's what it is.

[ Page 496 ]

Really, in the final analysis, the objective is the harbinger of the achievement. In other words if you are going to build a house or a building, the most important thing is a foundation, and a proper base that that building is going to aspire to any heights or reach any type of achievement.

This government for years and years, has planned all of its budgets on a proper objective, and that is to serve the people of the Province of British Columbia. People come first, before anything else the objective is people, and I'd like to enlarge on this particular thought for a moment or two before I talk to you about some of the things I see in the budget for people.

Number 1: This budget as I've stated before is 80 per cent humanitarian. In other words 80 per cent of the budget is used for humanitarian purposes. For the purpose of education, for the purpose of health, for the purpose of social services and so on. And this is extremely important. Because highways and all of the other material concepts that are approached by the budget are falling into secondary positions, although they are of prime importance.

But in the final analysis people are the most important entities in this province and the objective of the entire budget, and I'll prove that point beyond a shadow of a doubt, I'll prove that point.

Now, let's take a look at first our finance, in the Department of Finance. Really, the basic objective of bringing a budget on the floor of this House is to create services for people. Now, many, many people consider that money is really wealth. But in the final analysis it's a million miles away from proper wealth. Money is to be used as a servant — merely to serve people. And this government is in control of its own destiny, it holds its destiny, its financial destiny, within the palm of its own hand, greater perhaps than any other jurisdiction in the free world. We control our financial destiny.

I see the Member for North Vancouver (Mr. Clark) laughing a bit. I'll defy him to name one little administration in Canada today that can equal the possibility. He can laugh all he likes, but when it comes to an election we'll see who is going to do the laughing.

Well, I want to tell you I'll be out on the hustings, if I get a chance to be out on the hustings. And I'll do everything in my power to prove the fact that this government is out to serve the people and money is not our boss, it is our servant. And that's what it should be.

Now, everything that's motivated by this budget, you can talk all you like, laugh all you like, I'll tell you you're one of these "fat cats" that's making lots of money and you suggest that that alone is riches.

But anybody bereft of the complete and the positive evaluation in value of human beings is low on riches. He might be high on many other things but low on riches.

Now this government, as I've already stated, uses money as a servant for people. You can disseminate that in any way that you like but every area of activity that this government is engaged in means that it's trying to serve people.

The basic fundamental and philosophy of this government is to try and establish everybody in his own home. You couldn't get anything closer to the proper base of what human beings were created for — living in their own vineyard, under their own roof, enjoying the fruits of the soil. And that's the closest concept that you could get to human reality and human dignity that there is.

Give a man the ability to live within the concept and within the reach of his own home. I don't know of any government in Canada that does more towards establishing a home for people than this government does. Both for the senior citizen and for all of the citizens of the province.

The Member for North Vancouver can go ahead and laugh, but his federal government is spending some $85 million on behalf of youth that goes to school, students in universities and so on for a couple of summer months. $85 million. And giving money for transcendal meditation and growing of marijuana and so on.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh, oh!

HON. MR. GAGLARDI: Well, oh nothing! That's the fact.

AN HON. MEMBER: And boiling macaroni.

HON. MR, GAGLARDI: Sure, and boiling macaroni — as though macaroni is not an important food. But why bring it to that low a level, to have to teach people how to cook macaroni with the taxpayers' money? I'm not even for that. And I'm sure the Member for Vancouver wouldn't be interested in that either.

I'd suggest that in comparison to what the federal government does with its tax money, this government has the highest plane of monetary achievement on behalf of people than any government in the nation.

A lot of play has been given in regards to these budget funds, a lot of people are trying to say this is the Premier like a Santa Claus handing out great amounts of money, placing them in these funds. These funds are double-purpose funds — that's recognisable. Every dollar in those funds is utilised for humanitarian purposes, building of schools, building of hospitals, building of other services to peoples of this province and the interest on that money is being further used for people that find themselves in areas of necessity and in other privileges like in the fitness fund and in the alcoholic fund and other funds and so on to aid on behalf of the people of this province. I don't know of anything or any ideal that could motivate a government that would be of a higher principle than that type of motivation. That's the base, on behalf of the people.

Then no matter what benefits we give, no matter what services we give, money is not in any way our god, it becomes our servant. I think this government is one of the few governments in control of its monetary policies and in control of its services in that regard.

Now, let's take the resources of the province, for here again is tremendous material wealth. Now once more the resources that we develop again are on behalf of people, every resource we have. For instance the forestry department, trees were never created by God to be worshipped as gods, they were to be utilised by we people. Now, surely everybody has a high admiration for a tree, who hasn't? Everybody loves to see the green belts and so on and they're extremely necessary. But trees were never to be worshipped. I am a firm believer in the fact that we were created to be in control — that is man, I'm not talking about any single individual, I'm talking about men were created to be in control.

AN HON. MEMBER: How about women — Women's Lib?

HON. MR. GAGLARDI: I tell the Member for Cranbrook, Mr. Speaker, I know one thing that would solve that

[ Page 497 ]

squeak and that would be a can of oil. I wish the doctor would vaccinate him with a ballpoint pen so that he would run out of ink instead of running off at the mouth. That would be simply "yours truly, ballpoint-pen — Member from Cranbrook."

I'm always kind. You feel that the resources of this province, my friend, aren't important? Then you think again because the resources of this province are one of the usages that we have in this province on behalf of people and the forestry department brings in millions of dollars on behalf of the taxpayer and that's distributed to every citizen in our province.

Same as the mineral resources. I've heard such a hue and cry from so many sources about how we mine our minerals, and how we're ruining our ecology and how we're so detrimental to the natural state of the soil and so on and so on.

I'd suggest again that minerals aren't to be worshipped, they're to be utilised, not destroyed. Certainly man has been placed in control of the ecology and also of the environment. I believe that's a sacred trust and it should be taken care of on a proper basis.

But I don't believe that they are to be worshipped in any sense but to be utilised on a proper basis, made to serve people and I don't care whatever resource you want to talk about, the land instead of the policy of the federal government in Ottawa.

Imagine if you please while people are starving to death in Bangladesh, Vietnam, all over India, many parts of the world — half the world goes to bed on an empty stomach — federal government policy is to pay money for the ground not to grow.

I believe that principle is 100 per cent against proper policy. I believe that that ground was given to us to utilise and if we can do nothing else we should grow something on that soil and give it away if we can't do anything else with it. And pay the taxpayer or pay the farmer at least to grow instead of not to grow.

I'd like to know who can defend the Liberal policy today of stopping the production from the soil. I think that's one of the most disgraceful things I've ever heard in my life.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. GAGLARDI: Absolutely, stopping production and throwing people out of work, the Premier reminds me. He is right, as he is on many occasions, most occasions, all occasions. (Laughter).

Do you want me to improve on that in any way?

AN HON. MEMBER: That qualifies.

HON. MR. GAGLARDI: I see the Press laughing, what are you laughing about? (Laughter). I tell you, God bless the Press. The other day I picked up the newspaper and I was rather amazed at what I saw because I noticed the Prime Minister of the nation had come across the country in our airplane — I wish he'd give that jet to me instead of rattlin' around the country with it — and along with that he packs everybody that he can pack across in it and nobody says anything about it and that's okay. He comes out here for a fund-raising deal for the Liberal Party and that's okay if that is what he wants to do.

AN HON. MEMBER: He didn't raise any money.

HON. MR. GAGLARDI: He didn't raise any money. At the taxpayers' expense, then he goes out and skis on our beautiful mountains with his beautiful B.C. bride, that's okay. And he gets a little bit of a squib on the bottom of the page of theVancouver Sun for his efforts, that's okay.

Then this fellow, Vallieres, who is a federal government protege of some kind because he's accused of murder and rape and all kinds of other insidious things and then he's out on parole and the federal government gives him a job.

AN HON. MEMBER: Withdraw that!

HON. MR. GAGLARDI: Withdraw what?

AN HON. MEMBER: Murder and rape? What murder and rape?

HON. MR. GAGLARDI: If I'm saying something that is not true…. Okay, I'll withdraw. I withdraw, I withdraw. "Seditious conspiracy." Alright, I withdraw. "Conspiring to murder and kidnap." Now I am all straightened out, are you?

AN HON. MEMBER: I thought you said Vanier not Vallieres.

HON. MR. GAGLARDI: Vallieres. I didn't say Vanier. No, don't put words in my mouth, my friend. You mouth your own words.

He got a little squib in the bottom of one of the second pages somewhere. But who got the top of the headlines, right up there in the masthead of the greatest newspaper in the world according to Stu Keate of the Vancouver Sun? "Mystery Is Solved. Gaglardi's secretary, Miss Kriese rides on B.C. airplane."

Now who is important in this country, I'd like to know? (Laughter). God bless the Press.

Now where was I before I got off on that tirade?

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. GAGLARDI: I tell you, if I never started my speech, my friend the Liberal leader (Mr. McGeer), I would at least do 50 times better than he did by starting his and finishing.

Now I'm suggesting to you that water, land, minerals and so on — all are made to serve people and this government knows their value. Not only knows their value but utilises their sources. I can hear the Member for Cranbrook (Mr. Nimsick) and the Leader of the N.D.P. (Mr. Barrett) try to tell us that we're not getting royalties and so on from our minerals and from the other different resources.

I'd suggest to you that this government scrutinises with every bit of ability it has to get everything that we can from those sources of revenue. In the natural state of the environment and of the ecology of the province, certainly we're concerned. We believe in anti-pollution. The Minister of Recreation, I think he's set a pace across this nation as far as his department is concerned on pollution control.

These are things that we don't talk about, we go out and do. When we do talk about them, we're not bragging, we're merely speaking and setting forth the facts. I'm suggesting that the Minister of Recreation has certainly set the pattern there. I think that as far as the environment is concerned we listen to Jack Davis, the national Minister on these particular areas of activity and there is something there that's left to be

[ Page 498 ]

desired, believe me.

AN HON. MEMBER: Mr. Clean.

HON. MR GAGLARDI: That's right, Mr. Clean. But he doesn't sweep very clean. It seems to me that there's a different policy for one end of the country than there is for the other. Now surely here again man should be in control of his own environment? If we mess it up then it's our fault. We've been given the proper base to be able to utilise it and I pray that we do.

Now, naturally the most important resource that there is in any nation or any province automatically is society and the people that we serve. I think here this government again shows itself to be admirably qualified and capably qualified to do the job and is doing the job.

Society's greatest problem, I think today, is motivating people, trying to be able to reactivate or reinstate or rehabilitate the people of the province. I think this is extremely important.

Now, surely poverty can never be eradicated by money? Some people think that money is what will solve every problem. But I suggest to you that money certainly will solve problems, money surely will alleviate the difficulties within poverty areas where people are poor because of circumstances beyond their control — out of jobs, out of proper motivations, mental difficulties, or problems of any nature that incapacitate them in any way and stop them from making their own way in life. Government, then, of necessity must step in and do something about it.

But I'd suggest to you that there are some things in society that are of far greater consequence than the lack of dollars and cents that create poverty.

Poverty in many instances is a lack of dignity or to be fastened upon with a habit or to be filled with hatred, spite, or vindictiveness. Many societies today destroy themselves though they be in the midst of riches, because of the lack of being able to control their own characteristics.

I think of Bangladesh, Vietnam, Ireland. If ever there was a situation that proved those points that would be it. Ireland today is the victim of a hate war of brothers and brothers. Imagine the Irish people fighting with the Irish people. There is no greater tragedy on the face of God's earth than people that are enslaved by their own habits, by their own inhibitions, by hatred. The creation of all problems is because of the poverty of people in this regard. This is a tragedy.

Imagine if you please such a thing as is going on, as I have already stated, in Ireland today simply because of the lack of the proper characteristics and the proper acknowledgement of human dignity in those particular areas. I'd say that that is the greatest area of poverty because of the lack of those characteristics than perhaps any place in the world,

Now some poverty can be self-inflicted or some poverty can be circumstantial. Now surely poverty that is circumstantial and poverty that is the product of some malaise or some problem in society is an area where government can tackle and do something with?

I think what today we should be trying to do is to be proper gauges of this in society and then try and do something about it.

Now our objectives — the objective of the Department of Rehabilitation — has been in all sincerity to endeavour to raise a higher standard in the minds and in the hearts of the people of the Province of British Columbia in such programmes.

Our objective is also to remotivate, to create initiative, to build dignity and to create responsibility in individuals — which adds up to one very important word, and that's freedom. I don't think anything adds to the freedom of an individual greater than for him to be capable of handling himself in every situation and being a master of his own destiny. That's freedom, and we're fighting for the freedom of the people in this society of today by instilling those characteristics if we possibly can.

I believe that that is an admirable objective and that's why this department is called the Department of Rehabilitation. For every single activity of the department into create dignity in the human being and place him in a position that he's able to stand up and look everybody in the eye and say that he's his own man winging his own way doing his own job and in this task we certainly have used up a lot of energy.

Now the modus operandi — that's fine, you go ahead and laugh Mister and while you're laughing we're working. I'll tell you what it means in English in just a moment or two here.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR GAGLARDI: Say that again…? "How to commit a crime." I'll tell you how to commit a crime as if some of the people had better examples to follow than a Member such as yourself sitting in the House chewing gum and rattling around selling insurance policies, you might be able to help some people from crime. I'm just teasing you, just teasing you.

AN HON. MEMBER: Call yourself a Minister?

HON. MR GAGLARDI: Now, that's right. I am a Minister, proud of it….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR GAGLARDI: I tell you we've got the best policies that there are in this nation, my friend and you're going to find it out all too soon. You can do all the talking that you like and rattle around and speak all you wish but it's all empty talk because you've never produced as even the type of professional individual you claim to be. You've never produced one new idea in all the years I have been here.

Go peddle your stuff to somebody else, don't peddle it to me. That's right. I tell you, you're getting somewhere Mister when you start using those kind of words.

AN HON. MEMBER: There's hope for him yet.

HON. MR. GAGLARDI: There is hope for him yet, that's right. Next he'll be joining the Salvation Army beating a drum.

Now certainly humanity needs to be motivated. That is those that will find themselves in area of inactivity for any period of time, they need someone to use a little self-starter and help them out to a degree. I'm not going to say too much more except to state some of these policies.

For instance, we have what we call work-activity projects. We have the Provincial Alliance of Businessmen within the Department of Rehabilitation and I want to proudly say this department has been responsible for finding over 30,000 new jobs between January 1, 1971 to December 31, 1971 — over 30,000 new jobs. I believe that's a record that certainly is commendable and I'd say that fully 80 per cent of those jobs

[ Page 499 ]

are full-time occupations. We've been able to find somewhere in the neighbourhood of 114 jobs every day on an average from two offices alone in the lower mainland — one in Burnaby and one in Vancouver.

Incidentally the Member for Burnaby (Mrs. Dailly) the lady Member, I've heard her on the air on a number of occasions on some of those programmes, hot lines in the City of Vancouver running down the Provincial Alliance of Businessmen. And then her own council in Burnaby stated that this programme, our programme, is one of the most worthwhile and effective programmes there is in the whole of the country. In spite of the fact, the lady Member has done everything she can to run down the programmes.

The Leader of the Opposition got up on the floor of this House so many times, said that this department was nothing but a political department, and only to hire my friends and so on and so on. Eat your words there Mr. Leader, because that's what you're doing. Talk about your former leader eating crow? Why man you're eating chicken, and chickadees and words and everything else. That's right.

AN HON. MEMBER: Chickadees? (Laughter).

HON. MR GAGLARDI: We have an on-the-job training programme and this programme is so effective incidentally I tried to get it to work with the federal government. The federal government let us down. So we were allowed to go ahead on our own which we did. And this programme caught on so well that the federal government has now copied our particular programme.

After all, that's what we are — leaders. And that's what we should be, and that's what we're doing.

We have to date a number of people on-the-job training, and doing an outstanding job. We have many activity centres, we have an extension for opportunities, where we give $50 a month to those engaged in certain activities. We have 3,647 mothers on that particular programme, and then we have another programme that falls also in line allowing them to make $100 a month without deduction.

We have the disabled person allowance recipients that we've helped out in the exactly same manner in allowing them $100 without deductions. We have vocational training programmes as well. Pay allowances continued when not eligible for other help from Manpower and from other areas. We have a number of people — 450 have completed that course and 240 right now are still in training.

We have a job assistance programmes where we give tools and working clothes and transportation to social assistance cases and recipients to be able to get full employment.

We have increased incentive by increasing earnings, of up to $100 and then we have a creative job-search programme that we brought to this province. And here again the federal government noticed this programme, and took over in this area as well.

Now, I've got enough material here to talk for another two hours, if I wanted to. But I think that I've had enough. And what I'd like to do….

AN HON. MEMBER: We've had enough, too.

HON. MR. GAGLARDI: Oh yes, you've always had enough. Why doesn't the Member from Merritt associate with part of the environment that he's used to — go up and tighten a couple of nuts on his Mercedes or something. Help yourself.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

HON. MR. GAGLARDI: Many other things that I could say about the Department of Rehabilitation will come up in my estimates and at that particular time I'll be talking about them, and I would like to give other Members in this House — because the sheet is full — a chance to speak. I've had my say for today, thank you very much.

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

MR. J.G. LORIMER (Burnaby-Willingdon): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Today being February 15 is of course the 100th anniversary of the first meeting of the first session of the first parliament of the Province of British Columbia. It met 100 years ago today. And because of this historical occasion I would like to spend just a few minutes in reminding some of us what did take place,100 years ago in this Assembly.

As you know the first session met in the bird cages which were located approximately where we are right now. Of course they were subsequently moved. But prior to that time the governor of the province was in fairly strong control of the government and he had representatives from all of the province on his council, but many of them were appointed, some by the company — the Hudson Bay Company — and others were otherwise appointed. And in the spring of 1871 Helmcken, Carol and Trutch arranged for the terms of confederation and came back and Trutch was appointed to be Lieutenant-Governor. It was his job to create this colonial government of appointees into a responsible democratic government, which was something unknown to most of the people in this area at that time.

In those days of course there were no party politics, party politics didn't come into the picture until McBride's dates in 1905 or '06. And as a result of the meetings of the Legislature were "non partisan," and of course that's where politics is the most vicious, and some of the meetings were something like a meeting of the women's auxiliary.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. LORIMER: Just the auxiliary. Anyway to get the road on the show, Lieutenant-Governor Trutch appointed McCreight as an interim premier and they got together to set up the meetings and have an election. In that period it's interesting to note that the Lieutenant-Governor sat in with the cabinet when they were having their cabinet meetings — something that would be frowned upon today. The election was called, the writs were issued in September of 1971, returnable in November and there were….

Interjections by an Hon. Member.

MR. LORIMER: Do you want the exact date? 1871, sorry…. Well you should be able to understand it then. Returnable on November 20. Now there were 12 constituencies in the province in those days. There were six on the island and six on the mainland, and they had dual representation. There were 25 Members in the first Legislature.

But one of the interesting features about the first election in this province was the fact that the elections were not held on the same day in the different constituencies. The returns had to be in by November 15, but the election date changed depending on what particular riding you were involved in.

[ Page 500 ]

The first election certainly had certain interesting aspects. On the first parliament when three of the elected Members came to Victoria they found that the election writs had not been returned and they were unable to take their seats, and it was some days later before they could take their place.

Then there was confusion as to the dates that the sitting should be held. Originally it was set for January 7, and then subsequently it was changed to January 25, and then again changed to February and so we had difficulty in getting our first meeting of the Legislature set down.

The opening day was a little different 100 years ago than it is now. On opening day the Lieutenant-Governor came to the House, he was accompanied by Chief Justice Begbie. The Members were sworn in and Dr. James Trimball of Victoria City was appointed as Mr. Speaker. And then they went home.

The second day was the date when the Lieutenant Governor came back again and read the Speech from the Throne. It's also interesting to note that on the first parliament of this province we had a spring session and a fall session and I think that's an interesting situation.

Now another, I think, interesting aspect of the whole thing was that actually in the fall session McCreight was defeated on a nonconfidence motion and Amor de Cosmos was appointed as Premier. But in the first House there was six Members of that House that subsequently became premier of this province. There was Amor de Cosmos from 1872 to 1874, G.A. Walken 1874 and again at 1878, Beavan from 1882 to 1883, William Smythe 1883 and John Robson in 1889 to 1892, and C.A. Semlin 1898 to 1900, and it's interesting to wonder if there are six people sitting here that will graduate to be premiers of this province in years to come.

Now to get on with the budget debate, we have heard another budget address for this year and there was a great amount of fanfare before it was delivered, and the Press were told that it was going to be the best yet. But, I think that when the speech was read the prebilling had been somewhat exaggerated and the product was, I suggest, badly oversold.

Disappointment, I think, showed on all the faces of the Members of the government and also everybody else was, I think, quite disappointed.

Here we are in a land of plenty. We have an overabundance of natural resources. We have the strong working force, we have the ability to convert raw materials into consumable products, and yet we still have poverty, unemployment, and waste.

The income for the province was suggested to be nearly $1.5 billion and that's a lot of money. But the measure of a government is how that money is spent. I suggest there is little heart in this budget. I think the poor have been forgotten and I think the infirm and the handicapped have not received too much hope from this budget.

I think the budget doesn't take proper care of the chronically ill and I'd hoped that there would be some effort made in the budget to look after the chronically ill.

The budget gives really little help to the senior citizens, and generally the poor people of our communities. Now what have we given to the chronically ill? I suggest really nothing — very little hope for the chronically ill — and I think it is time that the government decided that the chronically ill should be treated the same as any other sick person. The chronically ill should have their hospital needs cared for under the British Columbia Hospital Insurance Service, the same as someone that is sick because of other causes, or for other reasons.

I certainly believe that they should be considered in the same position as the acutely ill, and pay $1 a day. These different terms on the illness, "chronic" and "acute" and "extended care" are merely bureaucratic terms to avoid the responsibility of these people that are getting on and are chronically ill. And I was hopeful that the government would do something about their place.

There's also no help, I suggest, in the budget for the people who are living in their single rooms or in their attics who are looking for something better — some kind of housing that would assist them in improving their situation.

Now we've heard the Honourable the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Campbell) and the Honourable Minister for Little Mountain (Hon. Mr. Peterson) laud the government on their housing projects. They've told us about the second mortgage provisions and the home acquisition grants and I agree that those are good measures. However, I think that they fail to discuss the other serious aspect of the housing problem, the people who can never hope to qualify for these other provision. The poor people of our society, people who cannot help themselves — they need housing too. The Minister can talk about the municipality allowing speculators and so on in the municipalities to increase the cost of land, and I agree with him.

But these are not the major problems in our housing situation today as far as the people that I'm discussing are concerned. They just can't get there. They can't get a second mortgage, they can't get a first mortgage, they can't pay the commissions for the purchase of the house let alone buy one. And I think the province first of all must accept the responsibility that they are the prime responsibility for housing. Housing is a direct responsibility of the provincial government. I agree it's an indirect responsibility also of the federal government, and certainly a moral responsibility of municipal governments. But the prime group responsible for housing is the provincial government.

Their budget again this year calls for $5 million as a low rental housing figure, which has been the same for quite a number of years, and I suggest in a $1.5 billion budget this is a very, very low sum — I suggest a disgraceful sum when we consider the number of thousands of people throughout the province that do not have adequate housing.

I think we have to already have a crash programme and make sure that these people are properly housed, and do this quickly. But when we look at what is spent of this $5 million we find that over the last few years there's never been more than half of this $5 million spent on this housing. As a result, we're getting farther and farther behind. The policy seems to be from the Ministers to brag about the little that has been done in housing and ignore the wide void in the housing programmes of this government.

This government's record in the senior citizen's housing is much better than on the low rental and in some areas I think they have done a reasonably good job. However, all these projects seem to be, have to be initiated by non-profit organisations. It seems to me that where housing is required, where it is needed, surely it's up to the government to make sure that housing is provided. They shouldn't have to wait until applications come in from one group asking for permission to proceed with the senior citizen's housing.

I want to spend a few minutes on the question of the instant town — the question whether or not in some cases there is any advantage in creating instant towns, any advantage to the people of the province. I know that mention

[ Page 501 ]

has been made of Houston and Sayward and Dufferin at different times but I want to basically discuss the town that is created in a mill site.

I can see the advantages of changing a company town into a municipality provided that the people are permitted to buy land, permitted to participate in the decision-making in the municipality and so on.

I think it can be successful if there's not too much land owned by the company in the area, but that the area be spread out, that a lot of people have title to their property. But these sites generally, the mill sites, are given exemption from local bylaws. They're not responsible for any bylaw that the municipality might pass.

I want to deal specifically with the case of the Village of Tahsis. In the Village of Tahsis under the letters patent, one of the paragraphs states that from the date of these letters patent, no bylaws or other regulation of the council other than those pertaining to the abatement or control of pollution shall constrict the construction, maintenance, or operation of industrial plants on any land referred to in paragraph 16.

Paragraph 16, of course, sets out the wide area where the plant site is located so that there is no responsibility of the company to obey the laws of the municipality of which it is a member.

In Tahsis, there is basically only one landowner. There is the Tahsis Company and there are two or three other lots owned by private people. But by and large there is probably under six title holders in the whole of the area.

In my opinion, this could never be a successful instant town, never be a successful municipality. There can be no participation, there can be no decision-making by the people there. The instructions received by the tenants of Tahsis, the letters come from the Tahsis Company Limited at Pender Street. Here is a letter that was sent out to the residents and it's not dated but it says basically that the cost of accommodation has risen over the past few years and that there has been no increase in rentals for four years. They say the municipality must pay for the water, the sewerage, the garbage and so on. These things must be paid for by the municipality or by the residents.

Before it became a municipality, the company town had to provide all these services. When it became a village it then was entitled to the per capita grant. As a result a fair amount of money was received from the provincial government for this grant. So, the country or the municipality — in this particular case it's a synonymous thing — has this money from the government to pay for the services provided to the village.

What I am suggesting is that they would have had to supply these services in any event, whether it had become a municipality or an instant town. The letter goes on to give the rates of the sewer, the garbage and water, and it goes on with the question that there's a new Act — the Mobile Home Park Act and they would have to charge for the mobile homes, an additional tax. Then it says:

We have had inquiries as to the purchase of lots and the mobile homes park. These lots will not be for sale…. As of October 1, 1971, there will be a rental increase of 50 per cent on present rents, for those tenants who have been residents for one year or longer.

That's a pretty sizable rent increase, I suggest — 50 per cent. Now, these people can either pay the increase in rent or quit the job. Because there's nowhere else for them to go. There's no private ownership of property in that area whatsoever.

The letter tells them also that they have to go to the municipal office to arrange for the payment of the bills. Then a bill comes out from the company for garbage pickup and sewer fees. This bill comes not from the community but it comes from 1201 West Pender Street.

Now, how can these people feel that they belong to this particular town? It's strictly in this case a company town. They're getting the benefits of the per capita grants. I say that this is wrong. It's a straight gift to the company on these per capita grants. That was certainly never the intention, I presume, in creating these towns. I suggest this is welfare for the company on a grand scale.

We must also remember that on the per capita grant issue, that a lot of this per capita grant in other municipalities is used for payment of welfare, the share of the municipal charges of welfare, and I suggest that in a place like Tahsis there are no welfare payments to be made.

The government is continually saying that it gives no subsidies to private industry and I'm certainly suggesting that in this particular case there is a subsidy given to Tahsis.

While I'm on the matter of subsidies to private companies, I would like to direct your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the Votes and Proceedings today with a question that is answered by the Hon. the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources. Question No. 30, Mr. Nimsick had asked:

"(1) Have any payments been made under the Iron Bounties Act to Cominco, since October 30, 1970, and how much?"

The answer states that there was $44,534.00 paid to Cominco under the Iron Bounties Act.

Here is another subsidy to a private company. Over the years since this started the company had been paid by this government under this section $1,153,534 and this is a subsidy to the government from the people of this province. A subsidy to a company that's making in the neighbourhood of net profits annual of about $50 million. I certainly question the wisdom of this kind of activity.

The Vancouver Charter was amended a couple of years ago in which they allowed for elections every two years. I'm suggesting to the Hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs that he extend this provision to the Municipal Act. Now, I know he's going to say: well, he'd like to, but the Union of B.C. Municipalities has been unanimous in this proposition and that they haven't come to any agreement.

I agree that that is the case. However, I know that the Minister hasn't really been that concerned with what the union has suggested over the past years. As their suggestions meet with their approval he goes right along with it. But I don't think this is really the concern that he has but I have a suggestion for him. That is that the permissive legislation could be introduced so that each municipality have the right to decide whether they want their elections every year or every second year like it is in Vancouver. I think that would meet with approval of all municipalities. They could then decide for themselves what they wanted to do.

The question I spoke about some time ago, in this House, was the taxation of university lands. Although I'm not in agreement with the proposition maybe that universities should be excluded from taxation, I want to discuss another matter. That is the situation at Simon Fraser University where there are the Hydro micro-wave installations and the Shell Oil gas station both situated on the grounds occupied by Simon Fraser University.

In both cases, no taxes are paid. I'm sure that that is not

[ Page 502 ]

the intention of the taxation Act to relieve industrial and commercial properties from taxation. I would hope that the government would amend this legislation and I would suggest that they do so at this session if possible. Actually, I'll help to draw the legislation to speed the matter up at all.

Now, it is certainly with some degree of temerity that I see that the Hon. the Attorney General is not here. I've mentioned this to him before. It's the question of the removal of Oakalla from Burnaby. I speak to him every year about it and he sits there and listens and I think he's hearing but every year goes by and the jail remains.

Now, I would certainly hope that the Minister will take this matter into serious consideration and have the jail removed completely from Burnaby, and that the land presently occupied by Oakalla revert to the municipality for public purposes. I thought two years ago we were making some headway when the Clydesdales were removed but they have since been replaced by humans. There seems to be more and more activity there all the time.

There is no hope at the moment. But I am sure that when the Attorney General does get the message that he will look into the removal of this construction.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. LORIMER: Well, you know we have to go through the channels.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. LORIMER: Now, certainly the question of whether or not such a facility as Oakalla should exist in the first place is certainly another question. It's a question, however, that I won't deal with today. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. lady Minister without Portfolio.

HON. P.J. JORDAN (Minister without Portfolio): Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I'm very pleased to take my place in the debate today, and to follow the Hon. Member for Burnaby-Willingdon who treated us to a very nice and interesting history of the Legislature. I'd just like to thank him and also tell him that we also read Jane Nesbit but it was very enlightening.

He spoke quite passionately in his quiet way on the plight of the poor and the helpless senior citizens. I listened very carefully and I would suggest that this side too is deeply concerned but I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that I would have been more impressed with his statement if he could back it up with facts and if he hadn't played to the gallery so eloquently.

Mr. Speaker, that Member as a Member of the Socialist party says that this government is not doing anything for senior citizens, and the poor and the elderly, and yet he has before him a budget which outlines time and time again the policies of this government which show great concern for elderly and senior citizens and helpless people.

He mentioned personal care. There is here in this budget, Mr. Speaker, over $2 million to enrich this programme for personal care for helpless people who need nursing care. He was playing with sympathies, Mr. Speaker. There is a total of $4.5 million available for outright projects in this province this year and this year alone. This doesn't include the masses of millions of dollars and effort that has gone into this programme.

You know as well as I do through you, Mr. Speaker, that in England these are nothing more than institutions. This side of the House will have nothing to do with institutions in this province. My colleague from Little Mountain, Vancouver, has spent many hours and effort helping senior citizens' groups and other low income groups in building their own housing in British Columbia. cooperative housing, Mr. Speaker, where these people know the pride of ownership, they know independence and they can design them and build them in a manner that suits them. Not the way that the state says.

My other colleague, the Honourable Minister without Portfolio from Mackenzie, (Hon. Mrs. Dawson), has spent hours and hours and that Member very well knows it. Weeks, months and years along with the other colleagues in this government and through the Premier's policies developing independence for senior citizens and senior citizens' housing. I too, will make reference to senior citizens' recreational centres.

There isn't anyone, at any level of government, I would suggest, who wouldn't like to do everything for everyone but reason has to prevail. The fact is that the country that was under Socialist domination for so long now finds itself with one of the highest costs of living in the world.

Speaking of senior citizens' pensions, it has pensions ranging from $40 to $50 a month, and one of the lower standards of wages in the world. So while I accept and appreciate his sincerity and his good intention, I would suggest that he would do far better to follow the Social Credit policy and the policy for people rather than a Socialist policy and a policy for state.

While I am addressing myself to the Honourable Members of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, I would refer to the fact that the Leader of the N.D.P. had shown himself a man of considerable talents in gyrating through various emotions. He has a long record in this House and in this province and in fact in Canada, of being anti-American, yet he had one sweet day's wooing by the Americans — and American politicians at that — and he came back very strongly pro-American. I would like to pose a question to him in view of this apparent ability to fluctuate back and forth without any major convictions, of just where he stands, and on some statements that were made by a leading labour leader in North America.

"This leader is very constantly shuffling around under the sheets with the labour leaders in this province."

I would like to know where he stands on George Meaney's statement and I will quote it. George Meaney, as you know, is considered the granddaddy of some of the most advanced labour legislation and most advanced and progressive ideas in North America. He said yesterday, in Miami Beach, Florida, he favours "binding arbitration." He suggested, "there is a growing feeling that strikes of people getting $7,500 a year or more just doesn't make sense."

Where does the Hon. N.D.P. Leader stand there? What is he going to say in British Columbia? Mr. Meaney agrees with the Government of British Columbia, and he's learning from our efforts to achieve labour and management harmony. The value of laying legislation on the table, not keeping it under the cuff.

Mr. Speaker, I got a message from the whip suggesting that I set a new record and example for this House by giving a brilliant speech in two minutes because there are a lot of speakers on the rostrum this afternoon. I'll forego the brilliance if he'll forego the two minutes.

I would like to cover four projects this afternoon and

[ Page 503 ]

start with the area of recreation which I suggest applies very strongly to all people in British Columbia.

If we listen to the young people and the older people and people in my generation, not only in British Columbia or Canada, but throughout the world, then we are aware that they are looking for — and we are all looking for — a new sense of values in life.

I would suggest that the advances in technology and the advances in our economy which basically lead us to a very comfortable standard of living, means that we must find this new sense of values through a new philosophy and that is in the area of recreation and in the area that I would like to call "leisurology" because it involves hard-core sports, cultures and just generally doing your own thing in a constructive leisure time area.

I would suggest that in this budget we see a dramatic new approach by the Government of British Columbia to this new philosophy that we are all working towards. One is in the area of environment and ecology, where we see $67 million set aside for parks, reforestation programmes and people-orientated ecological programmes. I won't speak of that in detail today but I would like to talk about leisurology and to suggest that my statements that this is a bold and new approach to a new avenue of life by the government is backed up by the dollars in this budget.

We see combined with this and ecology, $10 million for reforestation which will lend itself to a multi-land use, recreational programme so that our forests will not only be productive but they will be used for recreation and people's enjoyment as well. The $25 million for the green belt protection fund, the $15 million amateur sports and physical fitness fund and the $15 million for the British Columbia culture fund as well as the $25 million for the drug, alcohol and cigarette education, prevention and rehabilitation fund.

These moneys, Mr. Speaker, and it should be pointed out very clearly, do not include recreational money and jobs that will be provided through departments such as the community recreation branch, the agricultural department and its foliage policy, the provincial secretary and through various senior citizens.

I would like to talk a few minutes about the community recreation branch because they are little mentioned in the media and certainly to my knowledge have never been championed in this House and yet they are a very great influence in the Province of British Columbia in the area of leisure activities.

It was a small department that started in the Department of Education, recognising that there had to be education for people in order to encourage them to involve their leisure time on a constructive and interesting basis. It was a small staff and it did an excellent job and it has now just undergone a year's revitalisation in its new department, the Department of Travel Industry. I would suggest that the testimony to the effectiveness of this small band of people — six — and the band that I call the band of seven who are the consultants around the province, is that there are more than 350 recreation commissions throughout the Province of British Columbia and in almost every area of British Columbia.

I think that the second testimony to their effectiveness has been the large and rapidly-growing number of highly qualified and competent, professional, recreational people hired throughout the province by small communities and by large communities.

I have had the privilege of meeting nearly all these people in this past year and I would like to say that one can't help but be impressed by their dedication and their breadth of knowledge and their willingness to approach recreation, not from a narrow point of view, but from a very broad point of view. I should think that we must consider ourselves most fortunate in British Columbia that we are attracting this type of recreational person and development.

One just has to look at the number of young people and married men and women of early and middle age and older people who are not professionals and who are involved in these recreational programmes in their own communities and who give of their time and their effort and their money to help involve other members of their community in recreational and cultural activities. I would suggest in evolving a more active people-orientated recreational programme in British Columbia that these volunteers or non-professionals will play an extremely vital role.

The branch has essentially been in two departments. One are the field seven, the others are as a resource centre where they provide advice to public agencies and individuals and where they lend aid to recreation for the handicapped, the blind and the emotionally disturbed. They have offered leadership for public cultural and physical fitness programmes and they have sponsored and paid for or helped pay for seminars for professional people and seminars to train coaches at the community level and seminars for the public who want to become interested in recreation.

They have also provided a resource centre for the names of outstanding people who can be used as resource people and resource material.

The library service which is now under the direction of Mr. Peter Grant has just completed an evaluation of the film library and I'm sure you'll be pleased to hear, as many of us were, that a lot of the old films that were very much out-of-date in displaying crew cuts and long dresses has been dumped in the garbage can and that we have a large inventory now of new films and we'll be acquiring more.

In the drama division, I think we must pay great recognition to Miss Anne Adamson's dedicated service and the effect of her dedication and service throughout the province is reflected in an accelerated upsurge of drama interests all over the province, in the cities and in some of the very small communities. She disperses well over 6,000 books, pamphlets and magazines which are borrowed from this department yearly.

I would suggest that it was Miss Adamson's enthusiasm and assistance to drama interests throughout the province which has resulted in an increase in work-shops and festivals and touring groups. Audience participation is up and there is a marked increase in outdoor entertainment in local squares and plazas. What can be more great testimony to the enrichment of the peoples' lives in British Columbia than to have them in outdoor, cultural and physical activities?

In evaluating the programme it was felt that to expand recreation at the more-or-less grass roots level we should evolve a financial programme which would be stimulating to areas to move more directly in this area.

It was felt that they would like to analyse the effectiveness of current programmes and to encourage the hiring of more professional people throughout the province, and at the local level.

They wanted to assist with a close examination of the advisability and needs of regional recreation at a level on a regional basis with local participation. A new grant system was evolved which consisted of a $300 grant to any recreation commission in an unorganised area but no full-

[ Page 504 ]

time recreational personnel and a staff-hiring incentive which I like to call the 5 minus 1 theory.

The first year for a professional director or superintendent there is an outright grant from the provincial government of $4,000 towards his salary. In the second year it is $3,000, third year $2,000, down to $1,000 at the fourth year when it is felt that the service to the community must either be of value or in fact it's not worth it at that time continuing.

For the recreation employees who programme and supervise and organise, there is a grant system for the first year of $2,000 working down to $500 in the last year.

There is an incentive in cash to encourage recreation people to look at recreation on a regional basis. There is $400 as a once-only grant to study regional recreation and regional districts who decide to form a regional recreation commission can receive a $3,000 grant for organisational purposes. Upon formation of regional district recreation, there is another $3,000 to assist with the initial programming. There was also an increase in funds under the special programmes projects section and these have been used to stimulate many new activities and to try and encourage commissions not to fall into the habit of putting on easy programmes just because people come and just because it's convenient.

We would like to encourage more initiative, more people to become involved and more imagination in the programmes that they undertake.

Part of the revitalisation programme are a number, of developments but there are two new brochures which all Members of the House should be aware of and pass out to their constituencies. One is the community recreation branch and the other is a guide to recreation commissions which will be very informative and I see the Honourable Member from Burnaby-North, (Mrs. Dailly), is interested and I think you'll find in it all the information you need to help people in your area organise recreation on a regional basis or on a local basis.

I feel, Mr. Speaker, that there is an undocumented awareness in this budget that if we are to assist people in meeting their emotional needs, that we can place greater emphasis on preventive health care and physical fitness through environment and through recreational activities in their broadest terms.

I think that we are aware today that many people's frustrations or minor illnesses are really a matter of circumstances which are temporary but which they cannot cope with at this time. If the situation is allowed to lie dormant then the frustrations compound themselves but if we are going to meet these on a people-to-people basis which so often is all that is needed, then we can use recreation as that vehicle and there is a strong emphasis on the part of government to draw a closer relationship between those working in health, those working in social, rehabilitation and those working in recreation.

So often frustrations or problems, if you want to call it, are not of a deep psychological nature and don't necessarily need a highly-qualified professional to service them. What they do need is someone to help them out of this particular moment. They are often to do with age, where you have the death of a partner, or where you have elderly people retiring and moving to a new locality or where you have a change of locality of a family or personal isolation because of these reasons, or because of a person's own personality makeup where they might be shy or for some reason cannot quite motivate themselves to become involved.

It is very easy to have somebody say: "You should go down and do this." It's not quite so easy to do it, if you have one of these sort of temporary frustrations on your mind. I think living standards lead to this and certainly family circumstances where you have a single parent, whether it is a male or female or where you have a breadwinner who is preoccupied with earning a living and therefore his family doesn't get his attention nor the incentive to take part in recreational activities.

Certainly, young children with young mothers create a time in their life when it is difficult for them to get out or often to motivate themselves to get out.

I think family priorities have a lot to do with it and certainly I have been impressed in travelling around the province in recreation of finding some of the families and feel that their dollar priorities should go into material benefits in the local pub or the local club but in fact don't leave enough money for their family to enter into forms of recreation.

So I suggest that through a closer relationship with the health department and the health workers, hospital workers, with social rehabilitation and recreational people — without divulging any confidential information — if these people have these problems then through recreation we can reach them. We can arrange to have a friend or someone who is interested become their buddy or their partner and encourage them to get out or go on a camping trip or whatever it may be that they need, just to lend a helping hand. I know that you will be pleased to know that we have a number of these buddy programmes now developing in the province — there are friendship clubs which are for both younger and middle-age families and we have one or two teenage brown-bag clubs where teenagers take their lunch and join with the Meals-on Wheels people and go and have their lunch with the senior citizens.

There is probably nothing worse than eating alone even if it is a hot meal and we've found that in these associations that these young people have interested the senior citizens in coming out. In one case that I know of a boy was a basketball player and his family weren't terribly interested. But he got his brown bag partner, a senior citizen, to become interested and ended up by getting his mother and father and brother to pick the senior citizen up and take them to the games.

I think this is a very worthwhile project and a worthwhile way of approaching these problems. It's slow, admittedly, but certainly something so valuable as getting people involved with each other and meeting our needs on that basis is very worthwhile and worth the time that it's going to take.

I suggest that these programmes and the expansion of these programmes will be pursued more vigorously this year and certainly any member of the branch would be pleased to help any Member of this House if they wanted to help start this in their own area.

My colleague, the Honourable Attorney General, almost took half my speech yesterday but he referred to the run-walk-cycle-swim programme and I would just like to mention — because I'm not sure it was clear yesterday — that this programme started last year by the community programmes branch. It was highly successful. We have 80-year-old ladies in the walking programme who got their medals and we have families cycling together, families swimming together, people who didn't know each other doing recreation together and it's so popular that it will be continued this year.

There will also be another programme coming out shortly whose emphasis will be on family or people involvement,

[ Page 505 ]

people who don't know each other, to get involved in recreation as well as taking an interest in each other. It will be in the form of a game and I'm sorry that while the mockup is in, it hasn't been finalised and I can't show it to you today.

I think, Mr. Speaker, in talking and thinking about recreation that we must be very mindful of the variety and scope that this all-encompassing word offers. I don't mean that one sport or one activity should eclipse another. What I do suggest is that while in smaller communities and in cities on planned occasions, the outdoor free-flowing recreational activities or artistic activities should and will be available, that we have to recognise that the freely-structured hard-core form of recreation is essential and by this I mean what I might call the sweat-producing activities of calisthenics and handball, squash, badminton, and that in the large metropolitan area we're going to need a new set of attitudes towards urban living.

I suggest that it's a fact of life that cities are with us and they are exciting to many people and many people like to live in them. But I think we have to, in developing a new attitude, make cities more of a place in which to live than a place in which to work in and get out of. This is where recreation and what I call the broad concept of recreation comes in to play.

I think that we have to aim as a long-range objective to have these hard-core calisthenics sweat-producing centres in all areas of our cities and in most of the larger smaller towns. They should be combined with areas where cultural and educational and health activities all carry on.

I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that man is never so refreshed, content or healthy both mentally and physically as after physical exertion and if you look at it, yesterday's manual labour and so-called home chores are now extinct.

Not too many people have a garden but if they have they have a good place for it. But I think the point to be remembered here is that where there are not these chores and there is not the opportunity for this physical exertion. We have to co-ordinate our physical fitness programmes as a major avenue of people resources and health.

I would suggest that we have to accept the fact that where young people in the past learned self-discipline and health and a sense of appreciation for their own worth and this was done through work and the physical activities which I now consider are basically extinct, today these attitudes and these values will be developed through sports and through recreation.

Just before leaving recreation I would like to go into the area of senior citizens' activities. My colleague, the Honourable Member for Mackenzie (Hon. Mrs. Dawson) has worked as I mentioned earlier with senior citizens. But I think it only right to bring to your attention that this government has not just talked as so often happens with the Opposition, they have acted and in co-operation with the elderly to help them achieve their desires.

Since 1963 we've had legislation whereby the provincial government offers a one-third capital grant for any recreational centre development or renovation. To qualify all the senior citizens have to do is be part of or form a non-profit society. There does have to be 10 per cent local involvement — because we don't want these developed and then the people in the programme just dumped aside, there is no question that they need help in the business details generally — and that they be structurally sound and that the senior citizens themselves be in control.

I suggest that when you look around the province and see the amount of dollars that are involved and the number of senior citizens involved in this activity all over the province that you would suggest the idea of bringing them in to do what they want is the better approach.

I'd like to give you a few examples. Vancouver to the Jewish Community Centre — $17,000. Another one — New Westminster, the Honourable Member will be pleased to know — $25,000. Victoria, where the M.L.A.'s are supposed to do nothing — $41,000. Vancouver — $30,000. Vancouver — $30,000. North Vancouver — $17,000. Port Alberni — $27,000. Hedley — Union Bay — Courtenay — Fort St. John — Osoyoos — Fort St. John — $28,000.

All over the province, Mr. Speaker, senior citizens are taking part in helping recreational activities in involving themselves in more interesting lives. They have the full support and help of this government.

Well, the Member from the north shore isn't here, but I'm sure he would be glad to know that with your efforts that they'll soon have a new senior citizens' centre.

Nearly $1 million has been spent so far and more is committed in this budget for this coming year.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to turn for a moment to agriculture with particular reference to the budget and the $200,000 that is set aside for the promotion of British Columbia agricultural products.

I think that on behalf of agriculture this is a very positive and welcome promotion and alone with it I would like to suggest that it is time and that British Columbia has matured enough to develop its own distinctive label or symbol and I would like to see along with this promotion the development of a British Columbia stamp and label which would either be in the form of a dogwood flower or would be a modernistic symbol of British Columbia. It should be awarded solely to British Columbia–owned agencies and British Columbia–produced products.

It should be synonymous with quality at sight and awarded only to those achieving the highest degree of excellence in their products and the regulations should be rigidly adhered to and if the product falls below standard in quality then the symbol should be withdrawn.

In promoting our products we have to be very sure to sell also an identity. People buy what they think about. If you're going to buy apples, then you're going to buy British Columbia apples if you know when you look at the labels that they are quality and what British Columbia apples mean to you.

But I wouldn't suggest that this be confined solely to agricultural products. We have a thriving and excellent garment industry in British Columbia and their products are competing very favourably on the American market and some European markets. It's possible that they may be able to expand into the Japanese market. They should be included and have the opportunity and incentive.

The areas of camping equipment — almost any British Columbia-produced product should be eligible. This would be an incentive to producers for quality and competitiveness and it certainly would instil a sense of pride in British Columbians and also encourage them to buy our British Columbia products.

I'd like to turn for a moment to day-care. I'm sure it is of little interest to the gentlemen in the House but would like to assure you is of great interest to many people in British Columbia and Canada and particularly to the working mother.

[ Page 506 ]

We feel as a government that day-care plays an essential role in the lives of many Canadian families. The first national conference, I'm sure you'll be pleased to know, Mr. Speaker, on day-care in Ottawa last June clearly stated that British Columbia leads in the day-care area in providing financial support for day-care services, the establishment of standards, the licensing requirements, and the flexibility and scope of this programme.

The inter-department approach which has been very carefully built up in this area, in cooperation with health departments, welfare, social rehabilitation department, and education was singled out as being an outstanding approach. We feel, and certainly I feel, as a mother and as a Member of this Legislature, that the key factor in evolving a day-care centre is the care and the welfare of the child. The benefit to the mother is a companion benefit.

In developing day-care programmes further I think and believe that every effort must be made to protect a child, to provide this service in a manner that is strengthening to the family life, and to provide enforcing agencies for good basic standards of child care. We should ensure the availability of this service to any parent — male or female — and that the flexibility must be there to ensure that where there are circumstances in a home where for one reason or another a mother can't cope with her children this service will be available.

I see the Honourable Member for Burnaby-North (Mrs. Dailly) smiling and I would like to say to her that I'm very pleased that she has toned down her radical views on child-care and day-care and that she is much more in support of our programme than she was when she came into this House.

She often says that we aren't at the same meetings and I suggest after I listen to her speak that I often wonder if we're at the same meetings. Because our programme, through you Mr. Speaker to the Honourable Member for Burnaby, has as I mentioned been pointed out in Canada as leading the way and that when I've had the opportunity to share these ideas with groups and many mothers who are concerned about day-care they have agreed that our objectives must be adhered to and that the welfare of the child is the essential ingredient.

I think that our service will continue to be and has been predicated upon community professional, parent and government involvement. We feel strongly that the parents should be involved as much as possible and continue to be a strong influence in the child's life.

The present day-care services that are offered through British Columbia are through non-profit societies, through the private sectors, through special agencies such as mental health, handicapped and through universities, through churches and through creative interests. They range from full day-care, special needs, to after-school centres to family day-care homes for the younger child under three.

The financing is based on the formula basis and while it has been credited with being the outstanding formula in Canada it is now under review and we are hopeful of making this money even more effective and more available to those who need it.

The Royal Commission on the Status of Women recommends that each province and territory establish a child care board to be responsible for the establishment and supervision of day-care centres and other child programmes. Here again, the Honourable Member from Burnaby clapped diligently, she always wants to put people in a capsule and if you set up a board holus-bolus you're very much in danger of capsuling these children and this service. This government will have no part of it.

We're examining it but under the present situation where the inter-departmental committees handle this matter we have the great advantage of inter-departmental communications. They think of it from the broadest point of view of the child's welfare not just from a segmented board's point of view. There's no way there will be a board until we're sure that this is in the best interests of the children.

Child-care centres are established throughout nearly all parts of British Columbia — they range from Dawson Creek to Prince George to the lower mainland, Vancouver Island and in the Kootenays. I'm very pleased to announce, Mr. Speaker, that for the period of January 1, 1971 to December 31, 1971, day-care services in British Columbia have increased from 78 centres to 126 centres with expenditures under the formula programme just under $1.25 million. There are now over 100,000 day care days in British Columbia. This is up 40 per cent from last year. These include family day-care homes for very young children.

I wouldn't suggest for a moment, Mr. Speaker, that I announce that with pride — that that's all that has to be done. But I do suggest that for a programme that is leading Canada in its philosophy, in its financing and its stringent regulations, and its concern for the child that this is a most admirable step and that we will proceed from there.

I would also remind Members of the House, that this does not include the 10,000 children, over 10,000 children, who take part in kindergarten programmes throughout the province where the provincial government shares in the capital costs and in the operating financing.

There are other areas of day care which I would like to mention. One, I would like to thank publicly the number of groups of women who presented excellent briefs. I would single out the R.N.A.B.C. brief because the Honourable Member for Burnaby quotes it quite frequently I understand. I have no particular quarrel with that brief. I think it is an excellent one.

We must look very closely, and we are, at the advisability of expanding beyond a very need for service for children under three. We are examining very carefully the advisability and the value to children of pre-school enrichment programmes and it's very interesting to note that the Honourable Member for Burnaby again championed these programmes, diligently, when she first came into the House. We were derelict in our duties and we were scoundrels because we didn't set these programmes up all over the province and while the Honourable Member for Yale-Lillooet (Mr. Hartley) is clapping loudly, he's clapping a programme that is being highly questioned by child psychologists and educationalists.

They are very concerned that on appraising the children who have been through a young-child-enrichment programme that: (1) They show no greater progress after Grade 3 to 4; (2) There is a marked tendency among them that when they get into Grades 7, 8 and 9 to show an extreme reaction to a group-learning situation. And their concern here is that by breaking the parent love relationship with the young child too soon that the child becomes bored, or frustrated by the group exposure position, or circumstances.

I think that this is something that we must pay very close attention to. It has been summed up by a number of experts both in the United States and Canada, and some in Europe to the point that if your child has taken part in one of these enrichment programmes, pre-school enrichment programmes,

[ Page 507 ]

if by the age of 12 you've done him no harm that's the best you can hope for.

The headstart programme in the United States, which we have been watching very closely has shown no major impact on the learning abilities or the adjustment of these young children.

Mr. Speaker, for a long time I've talked about the situation of income tax and the working mother, and I was pleased when the federal government did allow up to $500 for day-care for the working mother.

But I suggest that this is just not enough, and it doesn't face the situation squarely, it puts working women in a position where they're half-baked employers, or their service is half-baked. If we look at the matter of child care we should be promoting child care in the home as vigorously as we promote day-care centres, because of the parent-child relationship. This not only offers a second relief to the working mother, because this figure frequently helps with household chores and preparing meals, but it also should offer a rewarding financially and respectable form of employment for many older women, who want to do this, who are quite capable of doing this but can't do it because the working mother cannot afford to pay them. And I suggest at this time of national unemployment it's a ridiculous approach to not make this available through income tax.

In suggesting that $500 is all you can have to care for your child, I suggest they are also making the child a second-class citizen, and that this programme is designed not for the care of the child and the well-being of the child and not for the relief for the mother, but in fact to do more than flush out the people who have been working part-time or full-time in child-care situations in homes and have not been declaring it on their income tax.

And I don't think anybody should not declare things on their income tax, but I think this is a poor way to flush them out.

If you examine the figures, and I have a hypothetical case here, you have a mother, a single-parent mother who is working — anyway if she's working and making approximately $420 a month when she has paid off her various debts or obligations to unemployment insurance and pension plans she has approximately $365 a month left.

Now, if she's working independently and not applying for any assistance she will pay anywhere in Canada up to $60 a month for her child's care. If she's a single-parent family she's allowed $500 for that child a year, and if she has two children and is a single parent she will be allowed $1,000. But in fact her baby care or child care bills will be well over $1,700 a year. And I would suggest that this approach is half-baked and discriminatory, and that this House should go on record as supporting full-time legitimate baby-care, child-care, children-care as a legitimate income tax deduction for working parents whether they are male or female.

I'd like to change just for a moment, Mr. Speaker, before closing and talk about agriculture. I was appalled as everybody else was appalled at the attitude of the Prime Minister of Canada and his rather childish outburst.

But I think what appalled me more was that if I might almost say it "Pat became the patsy" and the Leader of the Liberal Party is letting himself either be used by the federal government or in fact is siding with the federal government in his statements in the Press today that British Columbia's action is inflammatory and is in fact designed to destroy Canada.

There are no greater Canadians than the Members on this side of the House, but I think the Attorney General spoke very eloquently about why we are concerned about the taxpayers' dollar. And if the Honourable Member of the Liberals is in support of tax dollars going into "Kitten Clubs," going into major companies like General Electric, going into black-top parking lots in any province, going into subsidies for which there is no accounting, then I suggest he is a patsy of the federal government, or he is not worthy of the education that he has.

And coupled with this stand of the local Liberals to defend the action of the Prime Minister and the policies of unemployment, the policies of half-baked treatment to working mothers, I must speak on the part of agricultural people again and I was appalled when the Honourable Member for Howe-Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) stated that he supported the federal government policy on agriculture and the abolition of independence farming.

For your information, Mr. Speaker, I did just a little research on this subject of small farms. He called them "pony farms" with a tone that was nothing short of a sneer, and I would like to ask him what he thinks the farmer of British Columbia is today. When you listen to the Liberals talk it sounds as if they either own 10,000 acres, or that they own 10 acres of weeds and bush or that they're some potentate luxuriating in their farms having others do the work for them.

I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, if he knew anything about farming in Canada and British Columbia particularly he would know that there is no such existence in British Columbia. If you own 10,000 acres and it's productive you are a hard-working farmer and you've poured your life and your soul into that land, and you may well work at other areas of employment from choice or from part to supplement your income.

I would suggest that the farmer in British Columbia today is a person who is well-educated, well-involved with his community and very much interested in independence. If there's any question about that I would like to quote from an article where the writer is a farmer and is commenting on the statements of the Liberal policy and he says: "Does the federal government owe these farmers a living? My answer as a farmer is 'no'. All we want is a right to work our own land and reap fair price for what we produce."

And then to the Liberals' statement that we should subsidise farmers he says: "Subsidise us because we like to farm, because we don't want to learn different skills and move to the city? Pardon me for saying this Mr. Liberal but 'get off the pot'." And that's a quote.

When the Liberal Member in this House suggested that the Liberals would make farming an efficient industry this gentleman says: "Why not let the farming industry become efficient?" In case you don't know it, Mr. Member, our Canadian farmers are the most efficient primary food producers in the world. And efficient farming is not going to necessarily bring low food costs to the British Columbian consumer.

I'd like to just tell you about one or two examples of the so-called pony farms that there are in this province. And I'll cite one example which is 30 acres, it was bought by a family that moved over here after the war. The father was born in Poland, and the mother was born in Austria. They had suffered through the war, they had lost their child, he died in the mother's arms.

They came to the Okanagan and they settled in a small community on a small lot in town, and they grew beans in

[ Page 508 ]

their back yard and sold them to the canneries, and with his job and these efforts they were able to achieve a farm of 10 acres. Which is now a farm of 30 acres, and they farm it and he works out as a carpenter. He's an efficient farmer, they have a very happy way of life, but he is a pony farmer.

There are others in the area. Orchards, for example — productive, efficient orchards — are frequently no larger than 14 to 16 acres, yet that's classed as a pony farm.

These, Mr. Speaker, and Members, are the people and the way of life as the Liberals say they are going to get rid of. And I would just like to quote you a few figures on farming which come from the agricultural people themselves.

The total number of farms in British Columbia is 19,085 and this includes thousands of acres and small two-and-a-half acres farms. The indication here is that nearly 80 per cent of all farms — 80 per cent of 19,000 — are owned by and operated by a farmer and his family.

This is a province of family-owned farms. Those who can afford to hire a manager, and I'm glad the Member from West Vancouver–Howe Sound is here because he is the one that stated that he would get rid of the pony farm. Those who can afford to hire a manager make up a very small percentage, in total 0.8 per cent of 19,000 farms in British Columbia.

I would just like to point out about one or two other points about the so-called hobby farm. That they are bought, and this is from the farmers themselves, with the intention it should pay and in its own way. And this does happen particularly when the owner lives on the farm and his family supply most of the labour. Some hobby farms are also bought with the intention that it should pay and this does happen.

He also suggested that the so-called commercial farm, which is a commercial pony farm, provides a great source of information to agriculture. Frequently people who have an income from outside can afford to bring in new breeding stock, usually breeding stock that the average farmer couldn't and the offspring from this stock after the experimentation are available to the farmer at much less cost.

They develop acreage of raw land which is frequently subdivided into smaller efficient farms and that they bring, and I quote again: "They bring to agriculture stimulating attitudes, valuable information and have been influential in the larger community for the betterment of agriculture."

I would suggest that it's deplorable that Liberal Members of this House have openly stated that they will support a policy that will do away with this type of agriculture. And I suggest that it only evolves not from intention, from lack of knowledge.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Oh, you damned the pony farm, don't try and retract your words. You spoke in a most scornful manner about the pony farms, and now you're trying to back out of it. A typical Liberal "flip flop."

Now, Mr. Speaker, in closing I would like to suggest that these are some of the programmes that I've had the privilege of working on with my colleagues this past year. They are an example of a response of this government, both financially and supportively to the interests and needs of the people of British Columbia. And the budget emphasises the economic stimulation that is necessary to balance our desire for ecological and for social opportunities.

Interwoven in this budget and its emphasis on social opportunities is a steady pointing out of job opportunities — not only through industry and commerce, but through a better way of life. And this budget in comparison to all other budgets shows beyond a doubt that we will carry on and we will be able to improve our way of life in British Columbia and that we will be able to afford to do this without loading the future generations with a burdensome debt.

It's interesting that the economic forecasters in Canada predicted that the federal government will bring in a deficit budget and I predict that it will and they have predicted that all provinces will have to borrow to meet not only current obligations but the obligations that they wish to bring in to evolve new programmes. This Social Credit government, Mr. Speaker, has brought in an exciting and innovative and a balanced budget with enough reserves to assure us stability should the economic situation vary beyond our jurisdictions.

It's on the basis of this and the reputation of this government and its response to people that I will proudly support the budget on behalf of the people of the North Okanagan.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Cariboo.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. First I want to congratulate the Honourable the Attorney General on his remarks yesterday with reference to the statement made last weekend by the Prime Minister of Canada about the Premier of British Columbia — and also to congratulate him and the government for the action they intend to pursue following these statements.

To say the least I'm sure this has shocked all the citizens of our province and they will certainly give their reply shortly. I would recommend, Mr. Speaker, to the Honourable the Premier that any time he wants to go to the people of British Columbia I think he has a real issue here, and we should go as soon as possible on this alone.

The Prime Minister called our Premier a bigot. Mr. Speaker, this means that the Prime Minister of Canada said our Premier was intolerant, and a prejudiced person. In my opinion he is just the opposite. I would say he is very tolerant. What Premier in Canada has such a bunch of back-benchers as our Premier has. (Laughter).

AN HON. MEMBER: Very tolerant.

MR. FRASER: His backbenchers are forever after him, and disagreeing with him. I would say that our Premier is very tolerant. Our Premier is not prejudiced against anybody and particularly French Canadians, Mr. Speaker. Why he only recently appointed an outstanding French Canadian to his cabinet. I refer of course to the Honourable Member for Columbia River, the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Chabot).

The lack of understanding by the public about what equalisation payments really rest on is appalling. And since 1957 Canada has spent $5.5 billion on equalisation payments with no apparent result. I might add here, Mr. Speaker, that on a per capita basis, British Columbia has contributed by far the most to this $5.5 billion. As a matter of fact, the government of Canada itself and the receiving provinces together say that the disparity between certain parts of the country and those receiving equalisation grants is in fact growing. Surely this would cause any sensible person to take stock of the policy and so we should.

The incredible thing is that equalisation payments in fact are a house built upon shifting sand. Let's just take two of

[ Page 509 ]

the reasons why they are paid in the first place. They are paid because the resources revenue from a particular province does not reach the national average. They are paid as well on the basis of the personal income level reached in a particular province. In other words, governments such as Newfoundland, New Brunswick, and Quebec can go on massive give-away programmes, turning their resources over for little royalty to anyone, and this policy will naturally diminish their revenue from resources.

Similarly, governments such as Quebec, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick can deliberately have low minimum wage laws which naturally diminish the earning capacity of their people. How stupid can we get when we reward patronage and give-aways in the resource picture and reward a policy of sweatshop wages at the the same time?

A further incredible thing, Mr. Speaker, about this is that the Halifax housewife or, for that matter, the Fredericton or Quebec City housewife, knows that when she goes to the shoe store or to the supermarket she certainly has to pay either exactly the same as she does in Vancouver and in some instances, a little more. Equalisation payments not only do not correct this situation, they ensure that these people will be locked into patronage and sweatshop wages forever.

Let's get down to specifics, and so that there is no misunderstanding that the British Columbia position is aimed strictly at the so-called French fact, let's take Joey Smallwood's Newfoundland.

Mr. Doyle, that enterprising character from the United States, has enjoyed multi-million dollar opportunities from the Government of Newfoundland to develop resources for which he has paid zero.

In other words, the treasury of Newfoundland has permitted its resources to be managed on money put up by the Canadian taxpayer and then we reward that situation by paying Newfoundland equalisation payments because they get no money from their resources. When one considers that the resources being used in Newfoundland — namely, trees — are the same resources that here in British Columbia we expect return from, the story becomes even more incredible because the resource revenue that we extract from our developers in British Columbia has to put up into the national treasury so that we can make payments to provinces that do not choose to get any money from their resources.

Similarily on wages, Mr. Speaker, if the governments of New Brunswick or Nova Scotia choose to enact labour laws which prevent a flourishing trade union movement to exist, and enact laws which make their minimum wage laws a farce, then the wage earner in British Columbia through their income tax must again cough up equalisation payments to redress this deliberately-inspired imbalance. How stupid can we get?

In other words, every time the British Columbia wage earner gets his wage package a percentage of that wage package is deliberately siphoned off to theoretically equalise the wage situation deliberately created in another province. It should be obvious to even a Grade 6 student that reinforcing this kind of situation by equalisation payments will be a never-ending story.

Is it any wonder when one considers this situation, that the Government of British Columbia believes that the revenue of Canada should go to the people and not to governments?

If the equalisation payments were the only part of this story it would be bad enough. Unfortunately there is much, much more. Programme after programme is designed on top of these equalisation payments to confer even more benefits on certain selected areas of Canada. Obviously these areas are selected on politics only; economics mean nothing.

Just to name a few: The Atomic Energy Corporation, in the year 1969 had expenditures of $411 million — none to British Columbia. Ferry subsidies to the east coast were $12 million, a very small sum to British Columbia, I believe around $300,000. The Atlantic Development Board approved expenditure of $110 million in 1969, involving highways, et cetera, in the Maritimes and again there was nothing, Mr. Speaker, to British Columbia.

The Atlantic Provinces Power Development Corporation has spent $63 million in 1969 and again nothing to British Columbia. The Interim Arrangement Act specifically applying to the Province of Quebec — and isn't that a beautiful name — approved the expenditure of $186.9 million in 1969 for Quebec only.

Even when it comes to such sharing proposals, Mr. Speaker, as we find under occupational training, we find incredible disparities: for the fiscal year 1968-69 Quebec got $123 million — British Columbia got $13 million.

It is any wonder the Province of British Columbia has a right to ask questions in the face of this kind of waste, extravagance, and special treatment? It is time that the people of Canada woke up to the fact that when Quebec is asking, as she is asking now, for the complete control of all payments under the Canada Assistance Plan, all payments under the family allowance legislation, all payments under Canada Manpower, and all payments under Mr. Pelletier's special slush fund for other weird and wonderful projects such as the $2,500 for teaching people to boil spaghetti, it is not just money that is at stake, it is the future of our nation, Mr. Speaker.

Quebec says quite clearly that in addition to all other special arrangements they want the total dollar value of all those other programmes, not to spend necessarily on those programmes, but on anything that the political dictates of the Quebec government might determine.

If we do this, where is the principle of Canadian mobility from province to province? Where is the Canadian going to be who expects a certain type of national service from one part of the country to another, Mr. Speaker?

When British Columbia gets upset about this we sometimes have had to stand alone, but unfortunately the story is so incredible that it is sometimes difficult for the man on the street to believe that it is happening. But it is happening. It will be a sorry day for the country if we let it happen without our voice being raised in protest.

I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that in British Columbia, we have 23 Members of Parliament representing this province in Ottawa. I would like to ask Members of this House what have they been doing while all this has been going on? I would suggest to you nothing. An absolute silence. They know full well about this. I have never heard their voice raised on it and I don't think anyone else has. What I am completely concerned about, apart from the Members of Parliament, is that three of these Members of Parliament are cabinet Ministers in the Trudeau administration, and therefore they are one-tenth of the policy body of that administration.

I would say they have failed, as all the other M.P.'s from British Columbia have failed, British Columbia and I don't think they should wait until the Prime Minister calls an election. I think they should all resign, and resign now. We can then replace them with people who will probably speak

[ Page 510 ]

up for this province.

Mr. Speaker, the budget we are now debating is the 20th budget brought down by our Premier as Minister of Finance. At this time I would like to congratulate our Premier on delivering this budget. I only hope that he's around to deliver another 20 or 30 more.

This budget is a completely-balanced budget with no increase in tax rates to the taxpayers. It is a budget with emphasis on service to people, 69 per cent of this budget is to be spent on education, health and social services. A large increase in the Health Department expenditures is forecast for the new fiscal year. Included in this increase is the provision for a branch of mental health in the Cariboo to be located at Williams Lake. I might say, Mr. Speaker, the people of Cariboo are most gratified about this.

A substantial increase is provided for in the budget for the Highways Department. This is indeed great news for the riding of Cariboo. Last year a very large programme of highway work was carried out in the Cariboo. With the increase in the highway budget for this fiscal year we can be assured that this will be continued. Mr. Speaker, as I advised this House when I first spoke here in 1970, the most important concern to the riding of Cariboo are the roads.

The Cariboo riding has 3,800 miles of public roads within its boundaries. It has by far the largest mileage of public roads of any riding in British Columbia. For this reason, it is essential that the Department of Highways be provided with adequate funds to build and maintain these roads.

I would at this time like to congratulate all members of the Department of Highways in British Columbia for their excellent job of snow removal during this past winter. All personnel of the department deserve the thanks of all of us for the wonderful job they have done in keeping our roads open during the winter under very severe conditions.

However, Mr. Speaker, I am satisfied that our personnel of our highways department could do an even better job if they were given a little more and newer equipment to work with. I intend to have something to say about that when we get into the estimates of the Department of Highways.

Last year this Legislature provided $15 million for the accelerated parks development fund. This year $10 million has been added to the fund. This is an important make work and create jobs programme. With the addition of $10 million this year, it means, Mr. Speaker, that our parks will be further improved.

While I am on the subject of parks, I would like to mention the Barkerville Historic Park and the Bowron Lake Park.

Many years ago this government decided to restore the community of Barkerville, which you all know was so famous in the early days of the history of this province as the gold mining capital of the world. Over the last ten years, much has been accomplished in the restoration of Barkerville. Work is continuing on this restoration at a satisfactory pace.

Barkerville continues to attract people from all over the world. This government has done an excellent job in advertising Barkerville as an historic area of our province.

However, Mr. Speaker, two complaints have been made about Barkerville by the visitors. They have been the road from Quesnel to Barkerville — a distance of 60 miles — and the lack of campsite accommodation when they arrive in Barkerville.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to inform the Hon. Members of this House that soon these complaints will also only be history. Last year the Department of Highways paved 50 miles of the road from Quesnel to Barkerville.

Further work will be done on this road this year. It is now an excellent road and I urge anyone contemplating a trip to Barkerville not to worry about the road.

On the subject of campsite accommodation, I am pleased to advise this has been greatly improved. Last year thanks to accelerated park development fund a new 85-unit campground was started. It is now 65 per cent complete. This camp will be finished this year and will increase campground facilities for the people from 45 units to 130 units.

Last year approximately 175,000 people visited Barkerville. Each year since the early 1960's this figure has increased tremendously. With the improved facilities I have outlined I am sure that the increase will continue.

Improvements continue to be made to the Bowron Lake Park. This park is 20 miles from Barkerville. It is a very large wilderness area with lakes, streams, scenery and wildlife in abundance. A canoe trip can be taken around a chain of lakes in this park. Many thousands have already taken this trip. I urge more of the citizens of British Columbia to take the trip, particularly the citizens of the lower mainland and Vancouver Island. I am sure they will find Barkerville and Bowron Lake a great relief from the places where they live.

While urging the citizens of the lower mainland to make a trip to Barkerville and Bowron Lakes, I will remind this House that the riding of Cariboo is a very large area that can be enjoyed by everyone. Starting at Cache Creek on Highway 97, you enter the Cariboo and can observe and enjoy wide-open spaces, fresh clean air, fishing and hunting to your heart's desire. Cache Creek and Clinton have many attractions for the visitor.

As you travel north on Highway 97, Mr. Speaker, the next major stop is 100 Mile House. Famous in the old days as a stopping place on the road to the Barkerville gold fields. It is now a thriving modern community with a large surrounding rural area catering to holidayers who enjoy visiting a dude ranch, fishing, camping and all other types of outdoor activities.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that written by the citizens' Chamber of Commerce?

MR. FRASER: Yes, they sent it down to me.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR, FRASER: Further north you arrive at Quesnel which is the largest area in the Cariboo. This is a thriving community and known as the gateway to Barkerville as well as other large rural areas.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I recommend to all citizens of the lower mainland, a trip through the Cariboo. You will receive a warm Cariboo welcome and I am sure you will enjoy your visit.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. FRASER: While I have devoted some time to promoting tourism in the Cariboo — and for the Hon. Member for Kootenay (Mr. Nimsick) I got the speech written for me by the tourist association, not the chamber of commerce — Mr. Speaker, and while it is an important part of our economy it is only part of our economy.

By far the largest industry in the Cariboo is the forest product industry. At least 50 per cent of our citizens are

[ Page 511 ]

employed in this industry or servicing this industry. Other large contributing factors to our economy besides tourism are farming and mining.

Under the forest policies of this government, our forest industry continues to flourish and expand. Since the policy of close utilisation was introduced a few years ago our forest industry has made terrific advances and are creating many new jobs on a permanent basis that never existed before.

The official Opposition try to criticise our forest policy and the forest industry. I will say to them that in the riding of Cariboo their criticisms are falling on deaf ears. The Cariboo people know how the forest industry has created many new permanent jobs and they appreciate this.

The official Opposition try to impress the general public that the large operators have forced out the small operators and now have things their own way. Mr. Speaker, it is correct that we have fewer operators in the forest industry than we had in the 1950's and the early sixties. The present operators did not force out the smaller operators. They purchased the smaller operators at a good price from the people who wanted to sell. What is wrong with that? If you want to sell and the buyer agrees to purchase at your price I see nothing wrong with that. I repeat that we have not got as many small mill operators as we had, but they were not forced out by the larger operators. They sold out at a good price and they decided to sell. They were not forced out by anyone.

Another impression the official Opposition is attempting to create with the public is an impression that the forest industry is not paying its fair share of taxes and this government is giving away our forests to the industry for peanuts.

It is my information that the forest industry is paying its good share of taxation. Mr. Speaker, the forest industry is presently paying 56 per cent of its income in taxation. How much more does the Opposition feel they should pay and still stay in business, creating many jobs for our citizens? If the Opposition had their ideas of taxation imposed on the forest industry it would not be long before we would not have any forest industry in British Columbia, and consequently less prosperity and employment.

Mr. Speaker, last Friday in this House the Honourable Minister of Mines and petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Richter) delivered an address which reviewed activity in his department. The Minister noted in his address that several mines closed down operations in British Columbia. The Minister further pointed out that mining is a high-risk industry and is subject to the ups and downs of the international markets. That was certainly shown in a most emphatic way in the Cariboo last November.

Brynoor Mines Limited who had operated a molybdenum mine at Hendrix Lake east of 100 Mile House in the Cariboo, had operated there since 1965, ceased operations. They had 200 people employed, and while most were able to find other employment they had to leave this area with their families to find this employment. Consequently the 100 Mile House area was dealt a severe economic blow as most of these people spent their money in the area and they are no longer there to do this.

The cause of this closure of this mine, Mr. Speaker, was due to the depressed and overstocked world molybdenum market. I only point this out to all Members of this House to show how risky the mining industry is and the Opposition continues to harp that they should be taxed even more than they are already taxed.

If this government took the advice of the Members of the Opposition we would not have any industries left make their contribution to the tax revenues of this province. I will repeat here, Mr. Speaker, what some other Honourable Member mentioned. Their policy, that is the Opposition's policy, is to tax out of business the goose that laid the golden egg.

In 1970 the provincial government collected $32 million in taxes from the mining industry. Included in those mines who paid this $32 million was Brynoor Mines. They unfortunately are no longer operating to pay their share of taxes.

He referred to the Fraser River Board report of 1963. During his address he seemed to be saying that it was not necessary to dam the main stream of the Fraser River to effect flood control of the Lower Fraser Valley, but it was necessary to build dams on tributaries of the Fraser River as well as build dykes in the lower Fraser Valley, to prevent a recurrence of the disastrous floods of 1894 and 1948.

Mr. Speaker, I would remind this House that most of the tributaries of the Fraser River are also in the riding of Cariboo and if an attempt to dam any of them for flood control is attempted the government will find total opposition to this from the citizens of the Cariboo. The opposition to damming of the tributaries of the Fraser River will receive as much protest from the citizens of the Cariboo as an attempt to build a dam at Moran on the main stream of the river.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words about the provincial government-owned Pacific Great Eastern Railway and to tell this House that it is the economic life line of the riding of Cariboo as well as other ridings in the interior of British Columbia.

Under the direction of the government the railroad has been expanded and improved and changed from the laughing stock of British Columbia to one of the most modern, efficient and respected railroads on this continent. Without the Pacific Great Eastern Railroad very little of the expansion would have been possible that has taken place in the interior of our province since the early 1950's. This railroad delivers to market, in a fast efficient economic manner, most of the products produced in the interior.

To say the least I was shocked to hear the Leader of the Liberal party criticise last fall the quality of railroad construction that was being carried out by the Pacific Great Eastern Railroad. I knew he did not know what he was talking about, but unfortunately some of our citizens do not realise that he continues to make irresponsible statements on many subjects.

I would like to illustrate to this House how irresponsible his statements are about the railroad.

All Members realise that we are experiencing a most severe winter in British Columbia. This has caused severe operating conditions throughout the province for all types of transportation. The large railroads, the C.P.R. and the C.N.R., have had as many days since the New Year that they could not operate as they have had that they could operate. This has been caused by the severe weather conditions which is most unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, but their roadbed failed under these conditions.

I would like to advise this House, Mr. Speaker, that the Pacific Great Eastern Railroad operating under the same weather conditions and the same problem with terrain at this moment have not lost one day of operations and they continue to deliver their freight on time.

This should prove to the citizens of British Columbia

[ Page 512 ]

what railroads have inferior road beds in British Columbia and what railroad has a roadbed built to stand anything the weather can throw at it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who's the president?

MR. FRASER: Well, I just forget his name. And the leader of the Liberal Party should apologise to them for his unfounded, ridiculous statements about the quality of their tracks and roadbed.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, this budget is a balanced budget, no increase in taxation is forecast. It is job-creating, it provides services to all citizens of our province and for these reasons I intend to give it my unqualified support on behalf of the citizens of the Cariboo Riding who I have the privilege and honour to represent, in this House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for South Peace River.

MR. D.A. MARSHALL (South Peace River): Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I take great pleasure in rising in my place and lending strong support to the budget that we are debating here today. And I could state as the Opposition have that there are many segments of society that are not receiving sufficient under this budget. And I could also state that there are many areas in the North that are not receiving sufficient but of course this is not true. Because we have been treated very fair and very well in this great budget.

I'm not going to reiterate all the many fine parts of the budget as this has been capably done by the prior speakers before myself. But I simply want to repeat again that we have been treated very fair and I am confident that continued economic growth will be experienced in the northern part of this province.

I do not want to again stand here as a Member and blame Ottawa for everything that happens because I know the Members of the Opposition will simply state that we are the "Blame Ottawa Boys". But I want to place the blame squarely where it belongs in my opening remarks as it concerns one of the most important communication links in the Dominion of Canada and certainly one of the most important communication links in the Province of British Columbia.

Here I am referring to the most recent news concerning the Alaska Highway. My colleague from North Peace (Mr. Smith) spoke about this in the Legislature yesterday. And according to the news release that I saw, President Nixon told Congress that the United States Government has abandoned plans to join Canada in the paving of the Alaska Highway. It said that new routes now being developed especially in British Columbia, in fact, the growth of traffic was not as high as expected as on the Alaska Highway, made reconstruction and paving of this communication link unjustified.

I have always in this Legislature, Mr. Speaker, spoken of the necessity of construction of the communications links within our province and I have mentioned more particularly the Alaska Highway and the Fort Nelson–Fort Simpson connection.

The Alaska Highway, as I'm sure each Member in this Legislature is fully aware, is not the responsibility of the British Columbia Government. On January 31 last, it has been mentioned two representatives of the Dawson Creek Chamber of Commerce attended with the Canadian Chamber of Commerce in Ottawa in a joint meeting with the federal government at which time much support was lent by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce towards upgrading and paving the Alaska Highway. And at that time, Mr. Speaker, the Premier of this province sent a wire to these two Dawson Creek members of the chamber of commerce and it was sent with the instructions that this message was to be delivered to the Honourable J. Dube, Minister of Public Works, and it reads and I quote:

WITH RESPECT TO THE CANADIAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE SUBMISSION I WISH TO STATE THAT THE GOVERNMENT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA RECONFIRMS ITS LONG-STANDING POLICY WHEREBY THE PROVINCE WILL MAINTAIN THOSE PARTS OF THE ALASKA HIGHWAY IN BRITISH COLUMBIA WHICH ARE UPGRADED AND PAVED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA.

This project is of utmost importance to the development of the northwestern part of Canada. And the Premier of this province recognised the importance of the development of the north western part of Canada.

As I sit in this Legislature, I try to assess the reasons why there has been very little importance given to the construction of these two important communication links that I have mentioned. And I recall a comment made by the Leader of the Opposition. He seems to get a little confused between Dawson Creek and Dawson City but I don't think this should really be an influence in this particular highway. The Leader of the Liberal group has made comments with regard to this highway connection. And for the Members that are not aware of his comments I would like to quote from the Chetwynd Echo dated Wednesday, January 26, and I quote:

Dr. Pat McGeer, Leader of the Liberal Party in British Columbia, deserves to be rapped around the head and ears with an old rye bottle. Last week he spouted off to the B.C. Chamber of Commerce executive about his driving interests for the North and the needs for paving that portion of the Alaska Highway from Fort Nelson to Fort Simpson. Perhaps it should be pointed out to the good doctor that the Alaska Highway is not within 300 miles of Fort Simpson, and before we press for paving of the road perhaps we should build the darn thing first. It's a classic example of some politicians' habits of telling us what they think we want to hear.

The former Works Minister Arthur Laing said Wednesday quoting from the Vancouver Sun, Thursday, February 10, that he was greatly disappointed in Richard Nixon's statement. He said the President's statement that alternate routes were opening up in British Columbia and that apparent reference to a proposed railway, indicated that the President has misread the proposal. Because of the estimated $300 million to upgrade the road in Canada they have no intention of tackling the job alone.

In the communities of Chetwynd, Dawson Creek, Pouce Coupe, Fort St. John and Fort Nelson I find it very difficult to understand why this thinking exists. We now find ourselves in a situation where number one, we have the federal government stating they will not pave the Alaska Highway without support from the United States Government, and our provincial government states that they will not build the Fort Simpson–Fort Liard Highway without federal government support.

Am I to assume that because we live in the North and it's a little colder perhaps than the warm insular atmosphere that we're simply to sit on our aspirations and forfeit growth in this province?

If in fact the federal government is considering alternate

[ Page 513 ]

routes, or alleged that the Province of British Columbia is assessing the value of alternate routes, I would ask myself what alternate routes they might be? Most certainly not the Mackenzie Highway from the Province of Alberta because this is a far more costly highway. It's much longer in route and it doesn't service the communities nor the industries that are really developing in the north.

Could it then be the road from Terrace, through Stewart on then to Whitehorse? I have discussed this with our Minister of Highways and with the Premier of this province. And there have been no overtures by this government to the federal government for seeking any alternate route to bypass the Alaska Highway.

I have mentioned many times in this Legislature the economic benefits to be derived from construction of the road from Fort Nelson to Fort Simpson and I'm not going to go into further detail on it at this time other than to reiterate the absolute need for the construction of this road now. Particularly when we consider the proposed pipelines that are going to be constructed in the north — the many miles of pipe that is going to be shipped on a railway and the revenues that will be contributed to the Pacific Great Eastern Railway.

Nearly six years ago the Stanford Research institute prepared an intensive report considering an economic justification for an improvement of the Alaska Highway. And I would like us to look at this time to some of the changes that have taken place and were not expected or foreseen at that time.

First, a general acknowledgement of the importance of mid-Canada was not recognised, and the Canadian north, which introduced some political considerations into the northern development and it was a general acknowledgement that too heavy a centralisation and urbanisation in the southern belt of Canada was existing and we had to reduce the population vacuum in northern Canada.

2. The oil and gas discoveries in Alaska and the Canadian North were not expected to such a large extent as they have developed in the meantime.

3. The annual rate of tourists travelling to northern areas increased at a much faster rate than was predicted at that time, verifying a world-wide traveller trend to discover northern and Arctic areas.

Discoveries of large amounts of gas and oil and rail extensions to the north have brought and will bring an increase of feeder roads into the Alaska Highway. And certainly our government must consider the Fort Simpson-Fort Nelson Road to be an absolute necessity. There will also be a Watson Lake link which will be completed to connect to the Dempster highway. It is progressing from Dawson City to the Mackenzie Delta. A Whitehorse-Skagway link shall be constructed in the first stage from Carcross to the Yukon border and a link from Watson Lake via Cassiar to three British Columbia harbours: Prince Rupert, Stewart and Kitimat. This will be completed soon.

A very sharp population increase in the urban and semi-urban areas of Fort Nelson and Whitehorse will cause a considerable increase in local traffic and extension of the Pacific Great Eastern to Fort Nelson will result in the establishment of a forestry complex connected also with drastic increases in population.

The Stanford Institute report of 1966 stated that tourism will be generated beyond normal growth after the highway has been paved and it is still valid today although to a much larger extent than was indicated in this particular report. For example, figures compiled since that time in the Yukon Territory indicated that there was a 20 per cent increase in tourist visitation in 1971 compared with 1970.

With the opening of a highway link connecting Highway 16, which is the Prince George–Prince Rupert Highway, and the Alaska Highway via Dease Lake and the connection of the Mackenzie Highway and the Alaska Highway to Fort Simpson-Fort Nelson, we still have three major connecting links connecting 48 American states and southern and mid-northern Canada with Alaska, the Yukon, the Mackenzie District and Northern British Columbia. The Alaska Highway will always be the shortest route for the largest and most densely settled parts of the United States and Canada to reach the Yukon and Alaska.

We have always stressed the importance of the Alaska Highway as a very, very necessary resource connection but I think we should also look at it as it connects with the high increase of tourist travel. I feel we should have a federal-provincial, even a regional simulated effort to transform the Canadian Alaska Highway to a greater degree of nondestination tourist area into a destination tourist area by providing a higher amount of side-highway attractions in the form of parks and sanctuaries.

In the same article from the Vancouver Sun of February 10, there is mention that a survey last summer revealed that traffic on the highway was mostly American. While this is very true, it is a very misleading statement. In 1971, there was 70,000 U.S. visitors, but there were also 35,000 Canadian visitors and these travelled the full length of the Alaska Highway. As I mentioned we can predict an annual growth of well over 20 per cent after upgrading and paving the Alaska Highway.

From the Department of Public Works summary review of 1970, it was determined that the Department of National Defence maintained the highway for $12 million per year and the Department of Public Works for $8.15 million per year plus departmental expenses. It is also gathered from this summary report that to completely reconstruct and pave the Alaska Highway on a 20-year basis would cost approximately $12.75 million per year, or a difference of $4.6 million between maintaining a winding, dusty, burnpy, gravel road or having an internationally paved highway.

From this report on tourism it is obvious that the increased American dollars directly attributed to the paving project alone would pay back the $4.6 million. Therefore, I join in the recommendation of the chamber of commerce that the federal government with or without the cooperation of the United States embark on an immediate paving project on the Alaska Highway.

In the throne debate, Mr. Speaker, I offered some criticism of the Department of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce. And I trust it was received as constructive criticism, for as I mentioned, I would be discussing further what I feel should be done to stimulate industrial growth in our province.

In this regard, and I quote from the December, 1971 edition of B.C. Affairs, the Minister stated "no for incentives to industry". I would respectfully ask the Minister why he takes this stand and ask also if he does not agree that capitalism owes matrimony an unacknowledged debt because if wives didn't spend more than their husbands make, the whole incentive system would fall to pieces.

I spent many years as industrial sales manager of a large Canadian gas utility and my success within that company depended upon the incentives provided to me by the firm which I worked for, and my climb to success in that

[ Page 514 ]

company. I feel that without incentives we in fact destroy initiative.

Incentives, Mr. Speaker, travel many avenues and have widely differing theories. Some are for direct cash incentives, some are for low-cost development loans, while others tout research industrial parks or direct assistance to industry hungry municipalities for infrastructure problems.

The Minister is also quoted as saying that this government does not want hot-house industries and, for the immediate future at least, there's no way we are going to get into the incentive field.

However, Mr. Speaker, I should also like to quote in this regard from the Department of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce monthly Bulletin of Business Activity, dated June, 1971, as it refers to an incentive area within our province and I quote again:

White the Okanagan has traditionally been an area of little industrialisation, other than sawmilling and manufacturing activity associated with fruit growing, a marked increase in growth and diversification of the manufacturing sector has developed over the past five years. This industrial growth was spurred on by the federal government's Area Development Incentives Act, which has provided for government grants and subsidies to both new and expanding industries in areas of unusually high unemployment. To the casual visitor, the Okanagan may well have seemed an odd area to classify as depressed, yet statistics did indicate the great seasonality of much of the region's traditional employment. In response to this peak and trough pattern of employment, it was decided that the area needs a stronger base of year-round payrolls, and to this end, industrial expansion, and consequently employment was encouraged in, for example, fibreglass forming, furniture manufacturing, mobile home and camper manufacturing, distilling and several facets of forestry.

This was an area designation that took place, I understand, Mr. Speaker, without any consultation with the Province of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I have mentioned some of the widely differing theories on providing incentives to industry. And it is to these theories that I should like to add other suggestions where I do not believe the handing out of large sums of money is the total answer, nor should it be considered the utopia in incentives.

I congratulate the Minister on his efforts for the development of large, resource-based industries like the long anticipated copper smelter and its associated end-product plants. However, I have stated earlier that I strongly support free enterprise and not corporate free enterprise and I firmly believe that in British Columbia we will not market manufactured goods on a catch-as-catch-can method, with the secondary industrial development attitude that exists within our province.

Mr. Speaker, I would firstly suggest that the Department of Industrial Trade and Commerce inaugurate two new reforms. We have a B.C. Research Council, but what is really required is some type of small business research council.

Small businesses require incentives and assistance of a self-help nature however. Corporate free enterprise, the story of the vanishing corner grocery store, will completely rule and eventually destroy a small business or many individual entrepreneurs. A large company with a major expenditure in a certain field can afford to spend much money in looking for ways and means of saving money. A small businessman on the other hand, has much less money to provide the same research and if he significantly depletes his capital without finding a solution, he simply goes into bankruptcy.

Mr. Speaker, our Department of Industrial Development should have field workers, capable of consulting with the small businessman, should this business be contemplating a large capital expenditure or venturing into a new satellite associated field. These field workers should also be capable of assisting small businesses in ferretting-out new markets, as well as being aware of the motivating means of capturing new markets.

This new branch of the government should also be provided with the means to conduct a special research study on the basis of merit and it should have the funds to provide government-guaranteed loans to those industries that qualify on the basis of industry and merit.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, the Department of Industrial Development urgently requires a B.C. marketing commissioner and staff that can set the stage for greatly improved and increased sales of B.C. manufactured products. I fully concur with the Minister of Agriculture's statement that nothing replaces personal contact.

AN. HON. MEMBER: Hey, Brutus! Tell the Minister to turn his back.

MR MARSHALL: I was also most pleased to see in this budget, Mr. Speaker, an additional $200,000 to promote the sale of B.C.'s agricultural products. I respectfully suggest that the Minister retain $50,000 of this amount to promote an agricultural trade mission, for what our agriculture industry requires are mini–trade fairs abroad.

I have stated before in this Legislature, Mr. Speaker, that I would exercise every opportunity to bring the needs of the farmer to the attention of this House, but before going into what I feel the Department of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce can do to assist our Department of Industry, and having mentioned the Area Development Incentives Act, I have one further comment in this regard.

I have made several trips to Ottawa this past year to endeavour to have the south Peace area receive some special area designation or in cooperation with our regional district designation under the Area Designation Act. In this regard I do want to thank government very strongly for the assistance and the number one priority they extended to both myself and to our regional district in our submission to Ottawa.

I have subsequently received a letter from the Honourable Jean Marchand in which he states there will not be any special area in the Province because of the heavy financial involvement under the special development loans fund — no grants, no loans, either.

It appears to me that as far as the development of the north is concerned whether we consider the Alaska Highway or many other of the projects that I have mentioned, that there is a deliberate design by Ottawa to depress this area. The only encouraging light on the horizon is a subsequent letter from the Honourable Jean Marchand that they will give full consideration towards area designation of the Peace River–Liard region. Economic inequality, Mr. Speaker, cannot be cured by using the majority of D.R.E.E.'s funds and the services of D.R.E.E.'s formidable bureaucracy of 1,575 regional and Ottawa-based staffers and have this all used in the Province of Quebec. In the south Peace we do not require funds for infrastructure, for we have all the roads and hospitals basically that we require, but we do, however, have

[ Page 515 ]

an economic slowdown but possess the resources and the potential to become truly one of the dynamic growth areas of the province.

Mr. Speaker, with regard to the funds available now in this budget for promotion of agricultural products, I would respectfully suggest to the Minister, that those engaged in production of these products be given the opportunity and the invitation to add to those funds if they so wish, and to at least have a voice in expressing some opportunity of saying how and at what time of the year they should be spent.

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest further that the Department of Industrial Trade avail themselves of the federal Department of Trade measures, to increase exports and to protect Canadian industry from "foreign import surtaxes or other actions of a like effect".

A study should be undertaken by the department to advise those in agriculture how they can best take advantage of the maximum offers of the federal government to help them undertake market surveys and adapt their marketing measures to meet the demands of foreign markets.

I have mentioned in the House, Mr. Speaker, the plans of the Peace River producer to manufacture alfalfa cubes. The Department of Industrial Trade and Commerce should provide some study and liaison with the federal government programme referred to as P.A.I.T., this is the Programme for the Advance of Industry and Technology.

In the experimentation and gearing-up of a new product, this programme will contribute one-half of the costs in bringing this new experiment to fruition. At this point of time, it is considered feasible to spray high moisture content stockpiles of alfalfa with formic acid to preserve it, and this would lengthen the season of the plant operation. Further, we have already proven the use of propriatic acid in the treatment of high moisture content barley, and I would suggest further that a study be made to find some way of combining these two high moisture content products into one cube so that we can sell and market a highly-fortified product for both domestic and foreign markets.

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest also that the Department of Industrial Trade undertake — in view of the fact that we have had contractual offers from the Japanese, and in view of the fact that the cubing and dehydrating equipment of the type we desire is not manufactured in Canada — that negotiations be undertaken with the Japanese to build these plants. And I feel further, it should be considered in these negotiations, and the reason I suggest they build a plant is a possibility of a financial lock-in in the establishment of the plants, with the Japanese and the B.C. producer jointly. This would lend credence to long-term contracts and would give further security to the producer of the products himself because agriculture is an industry and a very great, necessary industry to this province.

Mr. Speaker, I have one further form of suggestion to the Department of Industrial Trade which is twofold in purpose in that it gives a very, good answer to those environmentalists and ecologists, in their concern for protection of northern tundra. And here I am referring to the reclamation of seismic lines, pipe-lines, well-head sites, et cetera. The oil industry has done a very excellent job in undertaking studies for the restoration and reclamation of the Arctic tundra, and I feel that our department should further the studies of the tundra protection and revegetation systems, the results of which are presently held in confidence by ARCO Chemical Company in the United States. Atlantic Richfield Company Ltd., to mention but just one, has done an excellent job to further research and development in this project and they have subsequently sold their research efforts to Bechtel Corporation in San Francisco.

But, Mr. Speaker, the seeding of fescue and related grasses used in the experiments by these oil companies are all products that can be produced, serviced, and grown in the Peace River country. It is to this end that I respectfully ask of our government to study and promote some liaison with these oil companies. I should like to quote for you an excerpt from a north-west project study group, as follows:

Eighteen different plots were used in these tests and they measured 25 by 80 feet, each of which was seeded with a different type of grass by the Arco Chemical Company on June 19. By the end of July, some of the grass was more than a foot tall.

But this fantastic growth in our Arctic tundra is of course, attributed to the fact of almost continuous sunlight and very good surface moisture. It was pointed out also in their study that very little winter kill was experienced although some varieties did better than others.

I think, Mr. Speaker, if we look at the many thousands of miles of pipelines and seismic lines and the high seeding rate that would be used in preventing erosion of these many miles of line, and if we go to aerial seeding which just now I understand has been justified, it can be easily seen what a great boon this would be to the small seed producer in the Peace River country.

I have another problem, Mr. Speaker, close to my heart in the Peace River country and as we all know, this great province has been endowed with an abundance of natural beauty that is the envy of many other parts of the world. It is for this very reason that the region known as the Monkman-Kakwa area is of great concern to me at this time. Because of the accessibility to the more populated areas of the north I feel it is of utmost importance to preserve this magnificent region for the use of parkland. This park serves an immediate population of almost 200,000 people. With three major highways situated within 40 to 50 miles of the area, it has a great potential from a point of tourism which at this point is so difficult to predict.

But, Mr. Speaker, the variety of wildlife equals the potential of the Rocky Mountains National Park and it has along with many ice fields, glacier peaks that are over 10,000 feet in height, some 10 lakes, three waterfalls and the Kinuseo Falls themselves which are as high as Niagara. Because of the virgin surroundings they have been described as more beautiful than Niagara Falls. The area is part of the continental divide and it contains the headwaters of the Arctic and the Pacific river systems. Since these head waters are fed by glaciers and ice-fields it therefore assures a year-round flow of water especially in the dry summer periods.

Mr. Speaker, our concern at this time that there is 16 land-lease leases over this proposed park that we have let out to gas, oil, lumbering and mining interests and they cover an area of some 560 square miles. I was most pleased on being advised today that a partial mineral reserve has been placed over many of the important parts of this proposed park.

I have just this fall flown over the entire northwest part of this province and over the Yukon as well. I have had the opportunity of flying into the Omineca wilderness region. Mr. Speaker, I am fully aware of the park potentials of this great province. However, the Monkman-Kakwa area is already used as a park and is easily accessible and I'm sure that these exploration companies can find the same great deposits of

[ Page 516 ]

oil, natural gas, and coal in areas that have less potential for offering mankind the peace and quiet and beauty of nature that we all praise and need so badly in this society.

Mr. Speaker, before closing I want to deal finally with a section of legislation which I feel is not good legislation in my mind — our government of course is not known for any poor legislation.

I have endeavoured through discussion and correspondence to clear up this matter covered under the Home Acquisition Grant Act, but I haven't had much success, Mr. Speaker. As I have obviously, perhaps, not explained myself too well, I shall endeavour to do better today because the legislation to me is contrary to every principal of natural justice as I understand them and that is to say that my property cannot be encumbered without notice to me.

In the Home Acquisition Grant Act, Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what is permitted to be done. On the certificate of encumbrances it states in the case of a grant that it is subject to the provincial home acquisition grant. Now let me give you a typical example, Mr. Speaker.

A plot, Uptown Realty, for example, has a first mortgage on the property from a fellow by the name of Tom Jones. Jones then sold his house to Brown, a person not known for the speed in which he pays his bills.

Brown applied for and obtained a home acquisition grant. When Uptown Realty went to foreclose they were unable to, first, get the provincial government — which any subsequent encumbrancer must do — to pay the home acquisition grant.

Number two, they had to register their second mortgage subject to the said provincial home acquisition grant. Brown in the meantime apparently took the $500 and went on a holiday. No notice was given to Uptown Realty, the second mortgage holder, that the home acquisition grant was going to be filed after their mortgage had been placed against the property. They were not given an opportunity to call on the provincial government to discharge this obligation or face having it erased from the title. As the charge is not strictly against the title it merely prevents the vendor from selling the property free and clear of encumbrance once the foreclosure is done.

In discussing this, Mr. Speaker, with the departments of our government, I found out that there was one analogy used and that is to say that taxes fall within the same category. Taxes, Mr. Speaker, are an entirely different matter. They are to provide a public service and are beneficial to all owners of the property and all encumbrance holders in the final analysis. Paying $500 on a home acquisition grant to someone who does not repay it and whose interest is subject to a prior charge appears to me to be an entirely different field.

I think that legislation, and perhaps my legal colleagues in this House will agree, is a devil of a nuisance. I respectfully suggest and request of our government that they bring about changes to ensure that no property can be encumbered without notice to the owner.

Mr. Speaker, I have read where this is the Chinese year of the rat. The Chinese say that things will be bright in the north. This budget which I intend to support leads credence to this statement.

Mr. Bruch moves adjournment of the debate. Motion approved.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT (Premier): Resolution No. 19 on the order paper, Mr. Speaker, and then on bills.

MR. SPEAKER: Resolution No. 19, the Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests.

Hon. Mr. Williston moves Motion No. 19, seconded by Hon. Mr. Shelford (That this House authorise the select standing committee on forestry and fisheries to consider the reports prepared by the forest service pursuant to request of this committee at the last session on:

1. The contractor clause in tree-farm licences.

2. Log and debris salvage in the Strait of Georgia.

And examine into the disposal of chips, sawdust, and hogfuel arising from close-utilisation policies which at the present time have caused

(a) an apparent oversupply of chips from sawmill production aggravated by depressed markets for pulp;

(b) reduced ability to dispose of sawdust and hogfuel coincident with a reduced pulp-mill demand and the pending restriction on burners which have been a major method of waste disposal up to the present time.

The objective would be to collect information and make recommendations concerning the short- and long-termed problems relative to waste recovery and utilisation. The committee should seek submissions from interested forestry groups and from those who have had experience in using such waste for the generation of steam).

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Public bills and orders, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Public bills and orders.

BRITISH COLUMBIA RAILWAY ACT

HON. MR. BENNETT: Second reading of Bill No. 9 — the British Columbia Railway Act.

The sole purpose of this Act is to change the name of the Pacific Great Eastern Railway Company to the British Columbia Railway Company.

The name Pacific Great Eastern dates back to the incorporation of the company by private individuals in 1912. At that time the name was perhaps appropriate to the purposes of the company. Those who know the history of it and how it was financed from England realise how the name was first arrived at.

However, now numerous extensions have been made to the railway so that it now extends from north Vancouver in the south well into the northern regions of the province. Now the railroad has been wholly owned for many years by Her Majesty the Queen and by the province, it is considered more appropriate that it be called simply the British Columbia Railway.

I move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I understand the motivation of the Premier to change the name, but I think it's a mistake.

[ Page 517 ]

One of the tragedies in a fast-growing area such as ours in British Columbia is that we sometimes are not able to appreciate that we are part of living history. That the exciting and stimulating, provocative history of the Province of British Columbia goes back for some 100 years as of today, the 100th anniversary of the first sitting of this Legislature.

I think, Mr. Speaker, that we have to have a sense of proportion when we talk about the custody of the affairs of the people of British Columbia. That custody includes a commitment to some history. The name Pacific Great Eastern has played a part of the history of this province, great political debates took place over the Pacific Great Eastern. Many, many nicknames were associated with this railroad over the years, "Please go easy," "Prince George, eventually". There has been a great deal of humour and irony and some bitterness over the terrible experiences we've had in the past with the railroad.

With credit to the government the railroad has become not a joke but a reality, and a major asset for all the people of this province. We're all proud of that. But the reaction I have to the change of name is that it loses the continuity that I think is essential in teaching the history of this province. It's just like the example of a local hospital here in Victoria losing its name — the St. Joseph's Hospital is going to be renamed another Queen Victoria Hospital. The names themselves give us some roots in terms of citizens trying to establish cultural identity and a social identity that is uniquely ours here in British Columbia. It's because of this I oppose the bill because it doesn't allow us the kind of emotional reach back into history that I think is absolutely essential for a stable community.

One of the best ways of stabilising any community is to instil in its present generation a sense of the past, a sense of involvement in the past. When we forget that, Mr. Speaker, we forget that there is a great future to be made in a province.

AN HON. MEMBER: They changed your name from C.C.F.

MR. BARRETT: I regretted that too.

AN HON. MEMBER: Open your eyes.

MR. BARRETT: I regretted that. If you go back into the debate at that time I regretted the loss. That was a great historic name in the life of the Province of British Columbia, the C.C.F. It's spawned some of the outstanding legislators in the history of this province. We're proud of them. The late E.E. Winch.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's when you were a good party.

MR. BARRETT: …Harold Winch, Gretchen Steeves, and many others, friends of the Premier, besides the difference of political philosophy, very good personal friends of the Premier.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I have no enemies.

MR. BARRETT: Of course, you have no enemies.

HON. MR. BENNETT: None.

MR BARRETT: None. I know that.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. BARRETT: I have no doubt of the claim made by the Premier. But I have a sense of responsibility in terms of reaching back. Because the ability to reach back…

AN HON. MEMBER: That's why you can't reach forward.

MR. BARRETT: …it enables us to look forward with a far better perspective.

Many people have attacked this particular government for trying to rewrite history in this province starting from 1952. I think it's a mistake to understand that many, many people worked — you miss the point — many, many people worked very, very hard in government, in public life and in private life, to bring this province to where it was before this government came on the scene.

This government has worked very, very hard with bitter differences of opinion between the government and Opposition and no one is going to take that away from the government or the Opposition. But what I'm concerned about is that I am fearful of losing those connections with the past that are very much a part of our unique history in this province, just to satisfy, in my opinion, the change that's taken place in the ownership. But it doesn't alter the history and it's for that reason I appeal to the government to take one of its famous second looks as we go into our second century. Take a second look. I don't think it's worth it in terms of what this whole railroad has meant in the history of this province to change the name at this point.

MR SPEAKER: The Hon. the first Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, I'm afraid on this occasion I have to disagree with the Leader of the Opposition and be in the embarrassing position of supporting the government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.

MR. McGEER: For this very simple reason, Mr. Speaker, that what has taken place so far in British Columbia and what has taken place so far with this railroad is the very beginning of the province. The past that we have had is short indeed compared with the future that we will have.

We've had a good deal to say about the Crown corporations and we have disagreed with the way these have been financed. But we have not disagreed with their expansion and we believe that the British Columbia Railroad, which it will be, is going to have a tremendous amount more trackage in British Columbia than it has today because the railroad has barely got past the half-way point of our province and it's going to be an important instrument of northern development — not just to British Columbia but to those lands which lie north of British Columbia.

For that reason the railroad is in its infancy today and this is perhaps an appropriate time to let it be known that it is an instrument of the provincial government and will continue to be an instrument of the provincial government.

We have competition in British Columbia now with national railroads. Because our lines run north and south, and theirs run east and west, as they have historically done. The north is the territory of the future and therefore the British

[ Page 518 ]

Columbia Railroad is appropriately an instrument of future northern development.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Esquimalt.

MR. H.J. BRUCH (Esquimalt): Well, Mr. Speaker, seeing the railway is no longer a joke and the name in the past has been the butt of all jokes I think it should be changed and I support the bill.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Yale-Lillooet.

MR. W.L. HARTLEY (Yale-Lillooet): Mr. Speaker, I understand in consulting with some of the employees of the P.G.E. Railway that to make this change is going to be very, very expensive. This will mean changing everything from the name on the box cars, the passenger cars, the stationery, the stations, the whole bit — company seals, all the legal documents and procedure.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. HARTLEY: Now, if there were not better ways to spend this money it may be all very well. But this fall, following that accident, Mr. Premier, that your train had as it came down on the return trip that you didn't make — you flew back — on that return trip the train ran off the tracks. Why did it run off the tracks?

I walked the Kelly Lake section….

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. HARTLEY: That's when the Premier wasn't steering, that's right.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. HARTLEY: But the running crews of the P.G.E. Railway are very, very much concerned about the state of the road bed of that railroad.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member must confine his remarks to the naming of the railroad and not to the running of it.

MR. HARTLEY: Mr. Speaker, my point is this. That's it is going to cost $1 million of taxpayers' money to change the name of the railroad; that it would be much better if we spent some of that money putting in some new ties to save the lives of the running crews.

I have a specimen of one of the ties and I'll send it across to you and it's dry-rot. It's probably 20 years old and until we do fix up the road-beds properly more and more men of the running crew are going to die.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Delta.

MR. R. WENMAN (Delta): Just very briefly, Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the Leader of the Opposition that when he married his wife he changed her name but that didn't wipe out her past, that didn't wipe out her relationship with her family.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. WENMAN: I might add a most honourable past. She brought that past with her into his family and that's what we are experiencing now, we're in the courtship — we're courting the Yukon to make it part of British Columbia — we're going to change that name and that is just the beginning to change the name to the British Columbia Railway as we open up the northern part of Canada.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Kootenay.

MR. L.T. NIMSICK (Kootenay): Mr. Speaker, while this isn't a world-shattering problem, I mean it's not that kind of an issue. It should be a free vote all over the House because it's not that kind of an issue that's going to make any great difference. There certain emotional feelings and I agree with the Honourable the Leader of the Opposition that the change of this name is going to cut off a great deal of history and I think that we've got to consider the historical background of things that we've got in the province.

You can go back to many things in the world and they've never changed the name as they mean something to the people and they mean something in an historical value as well as anything else.

I feel that to go to the expense of changing the name is a little bit childish, especially when we've got so many other things that we could spend the money on, rather than to change the name because it's quite an expensive deal. It's not going to put one 5 cent piece into the pocket of the railroad nor into the consolidated revenue, not one 5 cent piece. It's just something that probably the Premier thinks it's going to be in his memory or something about the British Columbia Railroad instead of the P.G.E.

I feel that with everything needed to be done throughout the country that we could be spending our money and our time on far more important things than changing the name of the P.G.E.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Revelstoke-Slocan.

MR. B. CAMPBELL (Revelstoke-Slocan): Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to note the concern of the Members opposite, concerning some of the minor costs that might be involved in the change of this railway and of course in prior publicity given this matter in the press, it has been indicated that changes will be made in decals and so forth as the box cars and so forth are taken in for regular maintenance and re-painting.

However, I think that there's another interesting fact in the change of the name to British Columbia Railway, because I think we have heard quite a bit in debates in this House to date with respect to the matter of how this province is treated by Ottawa. Associated with this and part of the principle insofar as it relates to the naming of this railway, is the matter of operating subsidies and construction grants which have been available to other railways in Canada, not the Pacific Great Eastern Railway — which will become the British Columbia Railway.

I estimate that the P.G.E. Is owed $41.5 million by the federal government because when the P.G.E. was built from Quesnel and on to Prince George, it got $15,000 per mile for 40 miles and in 1955 when the Premier appealed to Ottawa for further grants it got $25,000.

[ Page 519 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The Honourable Member is speaking to decide the principle of this bill and must confine his remarks to the naming of the railroad.

MR. CAMPBELL: I'm referring to the naming.

MR. SPEAKER: I realise exactly what the Member is doing but he need not go into all of this detail.

MR. CAMPBELL: Insofar as the fact that it is a British Columbia Railway, British Columbia funded and when railways such as the Chibougamau in Quebec have received up to $50,000….

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The Honourable Member has completed his address. Please take your place. The Honourable second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, I just have one question, one observation, that's whether or not all of the cars in the proposed railway are going to bear the names of the cabinet Ministers and if that were the case would the caboose be called Waldo?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The Honourable Member for New Westminster.

MR D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Speaker, the name P.G.E., Pacific Great Eastern, sounds like a railroad. I don't really think that B.C. Railroad or the British Columbia Railroad is a real good railroad name. We have the tradition of P.G.E. and it goes back a long way. I really think that there is some romance in that name and I think that you are really destroying that romance if you destroy that name.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that the government over there will get off this ego trip because I don't think it's a train trip at all, I think it's an ego trip precisely, and I hope that they'll get off this ego trip and release their Members as we will do to have a free vote on this issue.

That's right. Let's just see what this House has to say, really. Uncouple your gang.

Mr. Speaker, I think that there is really something important in this. I think that this would really reflect the province if in fact you would free those Members to vote their way on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I do hope that we can retain the name P.G.E. It's a great name.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Langley.

MR. H.B. VOGEL (Langley): Mr. Speaker, I'll be very brief, but I do think it's important to say this, that railroads are traditionally named to describe two things. The area from which the unit came, the box cars, the caboose, the various component parts, the way freight is transmitted from one line to another, travel very widely and the territory that is served.

If you look at the well-established rail lines all over this continent you will find that that principle is applied in the way they are designated by name.

I think one of the difficulties perhaps being experienced by the people that are responsible for the operation is that on account of the inter-connections at the border going south with three major international lines our box cars that are continuously finding themselves in rail yards all over the continent.

P.G.E. Is unknown in terms of specific designation outside our own area in spite of all the romantic history that's been attached — which is important — but the important thing is the efficient operation of the line. If it's British Columbia, British Columbia is known everywhere around the world and they'll know where to send the box cars.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Premier will close the debate.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I want to say that on this one occasion I agree with some of the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition and also some of the remarks of the leaders of the Liberal Party. So this is a different type of day. I, too, am a little sad in moving this motion today to change the name but it's changing not for any self aggrandisement of the government but we have a bad mix-up in the name, across the line, with the Pacific Gas and Electric, the P.G.E. and so forth. There's other reasons.

Well, a person when they do anything and made a decision they also have to check one against the other. So I say, I'm a little sad today because when I first became Premier and the question of the P.G.E. came up, I felt I would be the happiest man in British Columbia if we ever got the railroad from a joke into a real railroad and I'm happy to see and hear the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition and the leader of the Liberal Party say very clearly today that we have arrived at this situation.

I'm very appreciative of that. Now the reasons for the change are many. One is now the railroad is really a railroad. We used to keep our cars all within British Columbia, but now to take care of the traffic and the business, we let them go all over America — or else you wouldn't be able to handle the business. We're buying thousands of cars and they're going all over the United States and we want to get these cars back.

In the different parts of the United States, P.G.E. doesn't mean anything about British Columbia — where it is. Whereas it wouldn't cost anything to change the name, only a seal. The cars have to be painted from time to time and when they're painted they'll be changed and they'll have our British Columbia flower, the dogwood on every car, when they are painted and the name British Columbia. I think this will be a good thing.

From time to time changes have to be made and I could speak at great length on this but I don't intend to tonight. But you take the great city, one of, I think, the most beautiful cities in the world, the great city, the City of Vancouver, the great City of Vancouver. It's had to change its name, not once, but many times. It was first called, I think, Granville Village, then it changed. Then it was called Hasting Mills, I think, and then it was called Gas Town — that doesn't reflect on the Members coming from there, I'm sure. Then because it's historical, it has its name of Vancouver, now known all over the world. Of course, I agree with the Member from New Westminster, that great city's name was changed once too, I think. But I agree with him as well when he said it should be a free vote. I want to say all the years I've been Premier we have always had a free vote on everything.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: The question is that Bill No. 9 be read a second time.

[ Page 520 ]

Motion approved: second reading of the bill.

BRITISH COLUMBIA RAILWAY COMPANY
SHARE CAPITAL PURCHASE ACT 1972

HON. MR. BENNETT: The second reading of Bill No. 10, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The second reading of Bill No. 10; the Honourable the Minister of Finance.

HON. MR. BENNETT: British Columbia Railway Company Share Capital Purchase Act, 1972.

The British Columbia Railway, Mr. Speaker, is recognised as an important motivating force behind the rapid growth of the central and Northern regions of British Columbia.

Direct benefits are felt by all our citizens in those parts as well as in the southern section of the province. In addition indirect benefits accrue to all in the province. The economy of British Columbia has been assisted materially from the railway operation. It is important when you have a railway company that's not just an operating railway but one that's being used to develop a whole new territory, a whole new empire, with all the costs that that involves, to keep some balance between the share capital and the bond capital and that is what this bill is all about.

The government, appreciative of the tremendous benefits to all our citizens, proposes in this bill to permit additional provincial investment of $25 million in the company by purchasing unissued shares of the company valued at $100 each. This is a great investment by the people in British Columbia into this great development of the northern part of our province which I said before is a great empire and the benefits accrue from this not only to northern British Columbia, central British Columbia, but all of British Columbia, all of Canada as well.

The contracts we let on cars, and other equipment, benefit Nova Scotia, Quebec and Ontario and the revenue that's produced from this development directly and indirectly benefits greatly the national treasury as well and I do not say that in any small way today. I say it only in recognition of the tremendous force that we as a Legislature and as a government are entrusted with to see if we do the best possible job in developing this great empire of resources. I move second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: You've heard the motion. The Honourable Member for Cowichan-Malahat.

MR. R.M. STRACHAN (Cowichan-Malahat): Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I don't rise to oppose this bill. I'll probably vote for it and without reflecting on anything that has already happened in this House this evening, I was rather surprised to see the change that we have just agreed will take place in the name of this particular railroad which we are now about to give some extra money. Because I recollect the night of that great debate when the Premier had the attendants wheel in great stacks, and stacks and stacks of reports and commissions and all the rest of it. A great night that was and the Premier was in tine form and he looks up at the clock and he gave that great "the brightest jewel in the crown" speech. He pointed to the clock and it was almost midnight and it tolled for the Liberal party and away he went. He was in great form. So we got on from there.

I know the history of this railroad from its very beginning. One of the first things I did as a Member was read all of the ramifications of the peculiar financing that took place in its original day. The government of the day, as I recollect it, put up $20 million and they sold $20 million on the market and then the contractor finally threw up his hands before it was finished and said: "The money's all gone and we've only got half a railroad." The government had to take it over and when they assessed the amount of money that had been spent on the railroad out of the $40 million, something like $24 million had finished up in the promotors' pockets and we had $16 million that had actually been spent on the railroad.

That was the beginning of the P.G.E. and why originally it had to be taken over by the government of the day and it was a headache to many succeeding governments. You go into the debates that have taken place in this House over the years and there have been some great debates on this particular railroad.

I'm supporting this bill….

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. STRACHAN: Yes, that's right, I'm supporting this bill for two reasons.

One: because it is in support of this railroad which the Premier has rightly said opens up the northern areas of the province. We have always supported it for that reason because of the effect of opening up new areas in the province does have.

You know, the Premier outlined the fact that you have to have new capital on expanding operations. The fact is that this is the third transfusion we have given this railroad from the pockets of the taxpayer. The first one was made when the railway had built up an accumulated deficit of over $5 million, and it was obvious that that deficit was going to keep on accumulating unless there was some new capital put into it. And from that day to this, it hasn't had an accumulated deficit.

The Premier's talking about the relationship between the bonds and the share-capital. If you look at the relationship between the interest on the debt, and the gross revenues of the railroad and you find that in the last balance sheet we have gross revenues, operating revenues, of $38 million and the interest we're already paying on the existing bond indebtedness is something like $10 million. Now a lot of that bonded indebtedness is of a much lower interest rate than we can now get, and it's obvious that before very long if another bill passes this House we are going to be in a position where we're going to have to be finding something close to $20 million a year in interest payments alone. With that kind of operating revenue there's just no way you can meet it, and so in order to open up the north we simply have to do it at the expense of the taxpayer through just such an infusion. And I support it because I think it's necessary. But I don't think we should try and leave the impression that the thing's paying its own way and it's not costing the taxpayer a penny or anything else because it is. But nevertheless as I say I think it's very necessary in order to keep this railroad going and for that reason I'm going to support the legislation.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the first Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, this Bill No. 10 is for a share purchase in the British Columbia Railway Company and

[ Page 521 ]

although there is second reading of Bill No. 9 which creates a British Columbia Railway so far no such company exists. And I wonder at this stage if this bill is in order and I would like to move adjournment of the debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE PACIFIC GREAT EASTERN
CONSTRUCTION LOAN ACT 1954

HON. MR. BENNETT: Second reading of Bill No. 11 An Act to Amend the Pacific Great Eastern Construction Loan Act 1954.

Mr. Speaker, this bill increases the borrowing power of the British Columbia railway from $240 million to $340 million. The increase is necessary in order that the company may continue its line extension programme, continue with the improvement to the present line, acquire the additional equipment made necessary by the considerable increase in traffic.

I was interested listening to the Honourable Member from Cowichan-Malahat (Mr. Strachan), especially when he talked about the $39 million worth of revenue. A few years ago, on the night of that great debate, the revenue was only $3 million a year. I think it was '38. It's a tremendous increase. I want to say this, that while we've invested money in the railroad it's not true to say that in net it cost the taxpayers money. Because for every dollar we've invested we've got $50 out in benefits to our people and the government in revenue and taxes and so forth, Mr. Speaker, and we own all the shares, and the shares are worth more than they were worth before.

The increased authorisation contained in this bill is necessary so that the British Columbia Railway Company can plan its capital expenditure programme in advance, because you've got to plan it in advance. The sums required may be borrowed as required over the years ahead not in any one year. Its companion amendment, that contained in the British Columbia Railway Act, to change the name of the railway from Pacific Great Eastern Railway to the British Columbia Railway, is also contained in this bill. I move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Cowichan-Malahat.

MR. STRACHAN: I won't move adjournment. In fact, I can say what I have to say in just a few minutes. Again I'm going to support this bill because I think it's necessary and I agree with the words of the Premier on looking ahead and planning the requirements.

I made a mistake in the last speech I made about the P.G.E. I said that that one was the third transfusion from the public purse. Actually when we look back there were a great many transfusions from the public purse. Because on that night I was speaking of, that same session we also passed a bill that wiped out $94 million of the debt of the P.G.E. that was owed to the government of the day.

That was a fair help toward putting it in the so-called profit position that it now finds itself in. But I am anticipating that this will be legal, Mr. Speaker, because everything becomes legal when His Honour nods his head at the end of the session. And although that list of bills are then simultaneously legalised, I'm not going to adjourn, I'm simply going to say that we are going to support it. Mr. McGeer moves adjournment of the debate. Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Bennett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5.55 p.m.

The House met at 8:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable lady Minister without Portfolio.

HON. I.P. DAWSON (Minister without Portfolio): Mr. Speaker, in the gallery tonight we have some of the staff of the Quadra building commercial and electronic department of Camosun College and I'm sure the Members would wish to welcome them here tonight.

Introduction of bills.

Orders of the day.

ON THE BUDGET

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Esquimalt.

MR. H.J. BRUCH (Esquimalt): Mr. Speaker, it's a pleasure to take my place in the debate on the budget because again we have the type of budget that we have come to expect — a balanced budget, a budget that is not increasing taxation and a budget that increases benefits to the citizens of British Columbia.

When we look at national statistics we find as an example that the Canadian dollar has depreciated so badly because of inflation that the 1961 dollar is only worth 77 cents today. And just stop and think of what would have been possible if inflation had not robbed us of that purchasing power. Because instead of an operating budget of $1,451,000, if you take off the ravages of inflation, in 1961 dollars it only amounts to $1,118,000 of purchasing power in constant dollars.

If only we could have held down the inflationary trend it would certainly have given the people of British Columbia a much greater benefit ratio from the tax revenue of this province. Now, Mr. Speaker as we look at the inflationary aspect I think it is one of the greatest problems that is facing us as Canadians today.

Because certainly one of the greatest causes of unemployment, of uncertainty, is the factor of inflation. We've already been told in this House that some of the expenditures are escalating at such a rate that in the not-too-distant future we are going to find ourselves in real difficulty.

But let's just take one aspect as an example. Because we're prone to say that if we just have a little increase of 6 or 6 or 7 or 8 per cent it certainly doesn't sound very much. But we can take the example of a university graduate who in certain professions can at graduation draw down a salary of $8,000. And if we only have a 6½ per cent increase this will

[ Page 522 ]

double at compounded rates within 11 years so a person starting out at $8,000 at age 21 will be receiving at 32 $16,000, at 43 $32,000 at 54 $64,000 and of course at 65 when they get to retirement age they'll be up to $128,000 a year.

We can see the difficulty that this will cause as you look to the future, because I think anyone knows that we cannot allow, or the economy will not bear, this type of an escalation, and so it behoves us today to look at that structure of inflation and put a check to it. Certainly, Mr. Speaker, as we look at this budget we find that there are ever-increasing costs to keep up with the services that we are trying to supply to the people of British Columbia. But were it not for the inflationary structure it would be possible to even do much more for the economy of British Columbia.

Now just before I deal with some local matters, we have in the gallery tonight, Mr. Speaker, a group of young men — a delegation from the Victoria Jaycees sitting in on the proceedings tonight.

Certainly these young men are an example of what is required in our economy and in our community today. Because not only are they involving themselves in the business community, but they are taking much of their own personal time to involve themselves in the affairs that affect others about them. Not only are they asked to help keep the level of community activity going by their involvement and business enterprises but they also are asked to pay a large share of the taxation load to carry those who are not so engaged.

Some of the projects that the Jaycees have undertaken are most noteworthy, and in some instances help to parallel the government programmes that are undertaken here in British Columbia in regards to physical fitness and amateur sports. At the present time the Victoria Jaycees are involved in a fund-raising campaign for the Olympic Games partially already past and those we are looking forward to this spring in Munich, Germany.

I would like on behalf of the Victoria Jaycees to send this little pin to the Premier to wear because it symbolises that we have these young men in the community cooperating with government and with many others to supply the necessary funds to help our Canadian team make their contribution in international sports.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there are a few items in my constituency that are of considerable import at the present time. The provincial government has in many instances asked for federal cooperation in order that certain things might be done. It's now a matter of about 16 years that we have been asking for co-operation from the federal government in dredging the Gorge — something that is a federal responsibility. And going along with the C.I.D.C. programme and the programme that the municipalities are undertaking the only group that has ignored this particular project — the Gorge beautification — has been the federal government in their responsibility to dredge out the Gorge.

There is another problem within my constituency that has been deteriorating over the years. I am very glad, Mr. Speaker, that the Opposition Members realise this and I hope that they'll get a hold of their federal counterparts in Ottawa, the Federal M.P.'s, and tell them to do something about it.

Because years ago, Mr. Speaker, the sailing ships could sail into Sooke Harbour and today it's pretty difficult to even to get in with a rowboat because of the silting. Certainly the fishing fleet that makes its living off the Swiftsure and in the straits there has a real need for that safe harbour, for the anchorage that the Sooke Harbour could provide. The fishermen, the Sooke Chamber of Commerce, and many of the interested residents are appealing for any assistance they can get to have this dredging done and Sooke Harbour again restored as a proper harbour facility.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there are many problems that have to be contended with. In my last speech I dealt with the need for ski facilities for the young people on lower Vancouver Island. And I'm amazed at some of the ski groups up-island self-righteously saying: "Don't go ahead with Coronation Mountain because we have sufficient ski facilities up in the northern end of Vancouver Island." But the problem still remains that the young people can't take a four-hour trip and then expect to enjoy a day of skiing and then take three or four hours to come back on a bus. And I would appeal to the government to be fair and equitable, and give the young people on lower Vancouver Island the ski facilities they so badly need.

Now for one of the other points that I have to express some disappointment in. When the C.P.R. ferry service buckled under they seemed to insist on sort of a silver service in the dining room and elsewhere. And I think there is some concern by the public today at the approach that is taken on the service on our ferry fleet, especially the stretched ferries. I think it's a little difficult for the employees and for the individuals who go up into the dining room and find that there are items at $1.35 but there is a minimum charge of $2.50. I think we should look at that situation, that really the ferry service gained its reputation on a service to people. It was not the plush C.P.R. service it was the service to people and this is where the public has come to expect this approach and I would ask the Minister of Highways to take a good look at that approach on the menus at the present time.

It's also somewhat difficult when they take the breakfast menu off on the 11 o'clock sailing. There are a lot of people who whip out get the ferry, they're rushing about in the morning and they'd rather sit down and have breakfast than a meal service at 11 o'clock, and I think this needs a little bit of consideration.

Now the budget has had some reference to advertising to sell B.C. goods. And unfortunately tonight the Minister of Agriculture is not in his place because I have a little gift to send over to him.

Well, Mr. Speaker, before we go into the proposition to advertising to say "Buy B.C. Goods," we have to give the housewife something that is suitable to be bought. I think that the marketing board in particular and the growers are slipping very badly in the way they are grading — particularly the potatoes. Because I've gone into some of our supermarkets and some of our stores downtown and it's an absolute disgrace the type of thing that they put into the potato bin for the housewife to purchase, particularly after they are picked over a bit.

I bought these yesterday at noon at 10 lbs. for 69 cents and I'd say that they can hardly be classed as pig feed. And the grocers tell me that their extreme difficulty is that when they get a sack of potatoes, there's about 15 or 20 lbs. that are really culls and should never be put in there. And if they have to turn around and pay the full price they have to pay staff to pick the potatoes over again….

AN HON, MEMBER: What grade are they?

MR. BRUCH: They're supposed to be grade 1 B.C. potatoes. What is happening is that they are not properly

[ Page 523 ]

sorting them out, there are green, there are cut potatoes, there are deformed potatoes and the housewife naturally will look at the spuds that are 10 lbs. for 69 cents and they'll look over at the other side and see the Idaho potatoes at 5 lbs. for 59 cents, and she'll pick up the 5 lbs. for 59 cent potatoes that come from the United States.

Before we can go out and urge the housewife to buy the product we have to compete with the same type of grade and quality product that she has a right to expect. And I think that the marketing boards had better smarten up a little bit, otherwise we're wasting all of the advertising funds in order to help them find the market.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT (Premier): B.C. potatoes taste better.

MR. BRUCH: Well, Mr. Premier, I don't think you'd get good taste out of these potatoes no matter what you tried to do with them.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. BRUCH: Well, Mr. Speaker, I'm not worried about those potatoes being a contingent liability. I'm saying that that type of product is a contingent liability on the growers of British Columbia.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we've had considerable debate in the last few days on a matter of national concern. And I think as we look back over the events of the last five or six months that the Premier has shown real statesmanship by not showing his concern regarding the validity of equalisation grants. In order to achieve a concensus at the Victoria Constitutional conference, the Premier kept conceding point after point as did the other Premiers from the other provinces in Canada to the requests of the Province of Quebec, until they had a unanimous decision. And then to our amazement the Premier of Quebec goes back East and reneges on the agreement. And I believe it ill becomes a Quebecer to start talking about bigotry.

I was looking at the report in the Victoria Daily Colonist and evidently the preface of the Prime Minister's remark was brought about by a request by Mr. Caouette that certain reports of the federal government were not simultaneously ready in French to that of the availability of the English copy.

Certainly that is a federal responsibility. It's the federal government that has been talking in terms of Bi-and-Bi, of having both languages accepted and adopted in the national House. This is a responsibility. But for him to come out with the outburst that "why doesn't Mr. Caouette come out here to British Columbia and talk in those terms" was completely unrelated because Mr. Caouette has been out here and talking in those terms.

AN HON. MEMBER: Turn it around the other way.

MR. BRUCH: Leave that as it may be. But I have heard Mr. Caouette speak out here and I've also seen the report in the papers of the City of Quebec and Mr. Caouette has told the same story to the people of the Province of Quebec that he is prepared to tell them out here.

What did Mr. Caouette say to the people of Quebec City? That they should not be blaming everything on the English, that if you look at history that wherever France expanded and developed its colonies they imposed their language and their customs on those particular areas.

But the British did not do this, even though they defeated the French in Quebec. They said to them: "Your language is French, your religion is Roman Catholic and you continue to practice your creed and your language as you see fit."

And very basically, it would help national unity if we had the Prime Minister of this country going across this land and preaching this same theme. Certainly we can agree with bilingualism but we cannot agree with unilingualism in Quebec and bilingualism everywhere else.

Certainly it is the responsibility of not just the Premier and the Government of British Columbia, but I think if every Member who claims to represent the people of British Columbia, to raise a cry when some of the things are happening in Canada that are depriving us of the fair treatment that we have a right to expect.

It is one thing for the Province of Quebec to go and give the control of one-fifth of the area of Quebec not just for power development but total control of the resource development of that 20 per cent of the Province of Quebec to an outside group, and then turn around and say "we are not getting sufficient from our natural resources and British Columbia should help to pay."

I think we're losing sight of the factor that we should have in Canada equality of opportunity and not just straight equality. Because when you try to hand out a system of straight equality it is going to impose on people instead of giving to people. This has been proven throughout history.

Certainly, we in British Columbia should have a concern when you find that pulp mills here have to pay the full shot of taxation, pulp mills have to start and do tremendous expenditures in order to upgrade their pollution control facilities. They have to pay their full hospital taxes, they have to pay their full municipal taxes. They have to pay taxes to the federal government so that competitors can be set up in the other provinces where the federal government will supply them 80 per cent of the capital, where the provincial governments will give them complete exemption from school, hospital and municipal taxation, and where the federal government will go to the community and in these special area structures give them the costs for schools, hospitals, pollution control, municipal affairs and the rest of it.

But how can the pulp mill in British Columbia compete with that type of a structure when they have to pay all of their own costs then help pay the welfare state costs of the other provinces? Just as here in British Columbia, we are finding the encroachment of the welfare state approach making it more and more difficult for those with initiative to do something to apply themselves, so we are finding that we're getting a welfare state approach in the Canadian nation.

Unfortunately, we're getting into much the same situation as they are down in the United Nations where the countries that are saying "gimme" out-number the countries that are supplying the wherewithal and you have a situation that when somebody dares to turn around and question the extravagance and question the expenditures and the taxation that are being imposed that immediately the cry is "bigotry" and the rest of this ill behoves a national policy.

Now, Mr. Speaker, as we proceed in the debate on this budget I hope and trust that we can through our legislation and through our approach to financial affairs and development continue to show the confidence that is going to be necessary in order to keep our economy rolling at a rate that we can continue to increase these benefits as they should be increased.

[ Page 524 ]

I would like to call upon the Members of the Opposition to show some of that confidence as well. Certainly as some of the headlines filter out throughout the province and elsewhere there is an injustice being done to the workers who are unemployed in British Columbia today.

Unless we get the confidence, unless we get the investments, unless we get the continued development in British Columbia, then it will be more and more difficult to provide the extra jobs that are needed not just for our own young people but for those many people who seek to come to British Columbia because of the things we have to offer.

Certainly, Mr. Speaker, some of the programmes are going to have to be looked at with caution and care. It is all very nice to say: "Alright we will take the people who have been on welfare for three years and we will give them training." The bulk of our spaces in the Vocational Training Programme are being filled by Manpower, filled by those people who have been out of work for a period of time. But at the same time it is becoming more and more difficult for the young person just out of high school to find a spot in vocational training.

I know of one instance, just as an illustration, a young girl who is now ready to graduate from Grade 12. Her father had been killed in an accident some eight years ago, the mother remarried and this chap has been good enough to provide for these youngsters but now this girl is of age and she would like to take the course in practical nursing. She was told come back in September 1973.

That's a real concern because we have many of our young people who want to make their own way. I think we have more of our young people today than we ever have had who have a fierce independence and who want to make their own way. We should not let anything stand in that way.

It's also extremely difficult for a youngster when they leave high school.

I had one mother phone me. Manpower has no jobs for them. Finally she sees an advertisement in the newspaper. She answers the ad to the particular store, goes down — they tell her to go down to Manpower and get her slips and the rest of it.

What is she told? "Come back three weeks from today at 2 o'clock." What happened? The job was filled that day by Manpower by somebody who had just come in from outside of the province.

I think there are some real difficulties here. Most certainly Manpower is not doing the job that is necessary. I think the criticism about P.A.B. is highly unwarranted because the department is fulfilling a responsibility that the federal government is not carrying out at the present time.

Mr. Speaker, as we proceed in our vocational training programme there are many of these young people who are finding it more and more difficult to go through the main stream of university education. We are going to have to do more and more of the training and provide more facilities in this particular regard in the years ahead.

I know the Member opposite keeps complaining about the East Kootenay. You have had a tremendous vocational training programme in auto mechanics in Nelson. Well, you've had the facilities available and it has not been too difficult for the young people from East Kootenay to get the vocational training. The only problem that we're running into now is the extreme unemployment and the retraining programme that is necessary.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. BRUCH: As we look at the budget this year, we not only find increases for education, for health, for welfare, but we have not forgotten some of the amenities that are necessary to the people in order to enjoy the good life.

Certainly, we are pleased to see the extension of the programme for the parks department. We are pleased to see the reforestation programme. I hope that we will be able to encourage the young lads to get into these programmes because there is nothing finer than to get these young people out into the open spaces in the summer to help earn the necessary money for their university education and otherwise, but also to receive the benefits of the healthy environment and the type of work that this will give them will not only help financially but the physical health and strength that makes for better young people and a better British Columbia.

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

MR. G.H. DOWDING (Burnaby-Edmonds): Mr. Speaker, I was delighted to find that the Honourable the Member for Esquimalt took such a brief time in his speech on the budget, which I think the budget deserves.

It's so sparse in terms of benefits to the people other than the accumulation of funds that take many, many years to get into the realm of people expenditures.

That's the difficulty with this budget. It's putting aside money in terms of $25 million here, $10 million there, but only the interest is of immediate benefit.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh no, oh no!

MR. DOWDING: Oh, there's been a lot of that. Oh yes. It really excites you.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. DOWDING: But it is not unusual for this government to accumulate funds, Mr. Speaker, with a view to tapping them for B.C. Hydro. That is the purpose of the exercise. The Honourable the Premier well knows and he does it on a time-lag basis so that over the years it's no discovery for this House.

Although I noticed it was a bit of a discovery for one member of the Press to see that the Premier and his budgets over the years as Minister of Finance has consistently under-expended and also under-estimated. Oh yes, because always he can come back and boast that there is more money there than he originally predicted.

But as he under-estimates and under-expends and then gets a return that is higher than he had told us the year before it puts him in an enviable position to say he's a genius but all he's done is turn the clock back when he was sitting down to figure out the budget.

He's been doing this for 20 years, 19.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. DOWDING: Well, I'm not referring to what he did then. He made only one mistake that I can think of. He's made a lot since but in the forties, he ran federally and it was obvious that he was not going to be a federalist and he's demonstrated ever since that he isn't a federalist.

[ Page 525 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: He's been frustrated ever since.

MR. DOWDING: I don't know whether the Attorney General was put up to the idea of retaliation against Ottawa and the Prime Minister of Canada for that gratuitous insult that was hurled across the Rockies, but I noticed the Premier was prompting the Attoreny General all through the speech that he made the other day.

AN HON. MEMBER: He needs the help. Charlie McCarthy.

MR. DOWDING: You know when you come down to it it was the kind of insult from the Prime Minister which was really better just ignored, just better ignored.

So what was the response of the Attorney General? His response was a petulant threat, an empty and petulant threat, that he was going to take the matter of payments by the federal government, equalisation payments across the country to the Supreme Court or the federal court. He didn't know what court, he didn't know what section of what Act, he didn't know where in the B.N.A. Act it occurred — if he looked at section 125 he'd still be lost.

Here the Attorney General, the chief law officer of the Crown, was making an empty threat that he was going to do something to prevent Ottawa from distributing more evenly and more equitably to the have-not provinces in Canada some of the tax money that they collect from all across Canada.

To me this was a petty, a petulant and an empty gesture, in response to an insult hurled by the Prime Minister of Canada.

I support the idea that each government, in each province, should have the right to….

AN HON. MEMBER: My brother's keeper.

MR. DOWDING: Mr. Speaker, I support the right for each province to determine how the federal grants will be tied in to their policies and their programmes, rather than someone in Ottawa on a centralised authority tell everybody how the money will be spent.

I support the proposition that you don't retaliate in this manner as small Canadians when British Columbia is one of the wealthiest provinces per capita in Canada and the idea is now going abroad across the country from the Attorney General that we would respond by an economic threat, an illegal threat posed by the Attorney General, because the Prime Minister of Canada called the Premier a "bigot."

This is a result of his statements in this House yesterday and this is the way it's been construed across Canada twice — deservedly so. And where we would have had the whole question on a high plane — and I for one am not about to stoop to the kind of invective used either by the Prime Minister of Canada or by some of the Members of the Government in British Columbia who responded in kind….

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. DOWDING: Oh, you talked about the Prime Minister's sneer, you talked about his "fuddle duddle," you talked about his shrug, you've brought it entirely to a personal level of vindictiveness. It was a scurrilous response. And I point out to the Honourable the Attorney General, Mr. Speaker, that if he had been at those conferences he would know that there is no way that the provinces can dictate how Ottawa spends its money.

I took the occasion after the Attorney General spoke to consult all the constitutional books we have in the library to find out if there was any possibility that the Attorney General had uncovered a legal way of dealing with the question as he threatened to do, and I put it to the Attorney General, Mr. Speaker, there is no way that he can respond in the legal sense to the right of Ottawa to spent this money the way it wants.

What happens at the federal-provincial conference is always that Ottawa tells the provinces what they are going to do and they make representations suggesting it be done differently. For the Attorney General to suggest that there is any constitutional aspect to this is just another empty legal response. It's a same kind of thing Mr. Speaker as….

AN HON. MEMBER: Putting pasties on….

MR. DOWDING: Well, it's not even that. At least, if you're talking about the topless question that the Attorney General has been so concerned about, at least there was something to see but in regard to this there's absolutely nothing there. Nothing to have a legal argument over.

MR. BARRETT: He couldn't even make a clean breast of it.

MR. DOWDING: But, Mr. Speaker, this is not uncommon for the Attorney General. I understand that today he was questioned about the proposal by a local Victoria newspaper, the Times, to print cigarette advertising. Indeed they may have done so, I haven't seen today's edition. But you know, he is the chief law officer of the Crown if they have broken the censorship law that he piloted to this House last year then I put this to him. That the chief law officer of the Crown does not talk about economic reprisals for a newspaper as his remedy. The answer is he goes to court and asks the court for an injunction.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. DOWDING: Well, there you are, There's your answer. Either it's constitutional or it isn't. But to suggest….

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DOWDING: Mr. Speaker, to suggest that you are going to take economic reprisals as the method of dealing with what after all is a legal problem is, I think, evading the responsibility of the Attorney General. If you believe….

HON. MR. PETERSON: If you were as irresponsible as the Times….

MR. DOWDING: Now this is what the law has come to in British Columbia under this Attorney General. He is not prepared to use the normal processes…. Mr. Speaker, why would we have an Attorney General making that kind of ridiculous response as he did today? It's a law. If the law is correct, if the Act that was passed here is valid constitutionally across Canada, is regarded by the Supreme Court of Canada as being no

[ Page 526 ]

invasion of the right to freedom of speech by a newspaper, freedom of publication by newspapers, I'm in favour of the courts.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right!

MR. DOWDING: And, Mr. Speaker, I'm in favour of the Attorney General upholding the courts and using the courts.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear! He's not the judge.

MR. DOWDING: Mr. Speaker, I had the unusual experience of being attacked in this House by a lady Member from Mackenzie (Hon. Mrs. Dawson) the other day. And I found it rather a surprise because, Mr. Speaker…

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DOWDING: …I don't care particularly for the method she used but I would have gladly, if she had only told me, consulted with her so that she would know her legal position. Because I've never made judgments about the political, racial or other idiosyncrasies of the clients.

Now, I would have told her, Mr. Speaker, that before she issues a libel against a professional man — whether it be a doctor or a lawyer — and disapproves of his right to fill out forms for any client that comes in his door, I would have warned her if she were my client — and I would have accepted her as a client, especially on Valentine's Day, Mr. Speaker — I would have warned her for her own protection before she named anybody in a printed publication and handed it to the Press in the corridor or in the Press gallery you know she should be careful that what she is saying is not libelous.

Then secondly, if she doesn't name the person in the chamber, but goes outside later to name the person then everything she said in here becomes libelous outside. These are things as a lawyer I would have told her without prejudice to her politics or who she is or anything. And I do that with every client I have. And for anyone to suggest that because a lawyer advises any client, or a doctor fills in any form, this Honourable lady is suggesting that one is not entitled to take this client, or that client this patient or that patient because she disapproves, it's against her policy.

What a level! What a degrading level to have come to. And how she is ducking her responsibility when she takes that position.

Because I want to point out, Mr. Speaker, that under the particular legislation involved this Honourable lady forgets I was opposed to that bill, she forgets that.

I want to point out that no matter what my prejudices might be in this chamber as a professional man I still stand by the oath I took to serve every client loyally and faithfully without regard to any other consideration, political or otherwise. And for a person like that to accuse a lawyer in regard to his professional capacity of taking 30 pieces of silver, is to say "you are betraying your client."

I want to point out, Mr. Speaker, that the reason people come to me when they are in difficulty with this government is because they know that I won't take silver from anybody or betray my clients. I want to point out, Mr. Speaker….

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. DOWDING: Mr. Speaker, I've never taken a nickel. She asked the question in her speech. She asked the question "how many pieces of silver?" and I want to tell her that nowhere have I received a penny from these people for filling in their forms and sending them in.

Why were they coming to me? I'll tell you why, Mr. Speaker. Because they had section 12 of the Act which says that if they've been in business for more than a year then the provisions of the Act do not apply to them. They are entitled to be licensed.

That's what they wanted to find out from me, and they did it knowing that I voted against the bill and that I thought that hearing aids should be under medicare. That's where they should be, under medicare.

This Minister, Mr. Speaker, has been interfering directly in the affairs of the board, and I have a letter that shows it, and this I find incredible. Right in her speech she makes it clear, she's telling the board what to do. Well, she's not given any authority under the Act to tell the board what to do. But I have a letter that indicates that she is telling the board what to do.

AN HON. MEMBER: Read it, read it.

MR. DOWDING: I certainly will. I will be delighted to. Yes, I will, I will. Mr. Speaker, as I said, she would have been well advised to know what she was doing before she made these statements. Because she obviously doesn't know what she's doing.

I would point out that the important thing involved here is that if you have a law such as the hearing aid law, then the Minister should respect that law too, and she should not interfere. When she admitted it, it was actually a confession, a confession that she was saying that regardless of section 12 which exempts practising dealers from all the other provisions of the Act or the regulations that she was telling them that they had to comply whether section 12 existed or not. She was tampering with the law. She was tampering with the provisions of the Act and that's where she went astray. She resented anybody telling anybody what the law was.

Now, if I'm incorrect, Mr. Speaker, the Attorney General certainly should press on. Let's have a hearing before a supreme court judge as required in section 9. But so far all that's happened is these people filled in a bunch of forms. But even that little thing, filling in some forms, was criticised and attacked by this Minister as if it were a heinous offence for a lawyer to do his job.

I found it incredible, absolutely incredible. It really wasn't worth a response but I think it's time that someone told her where the law is.

Now, there's another matter that I want to take up and this is the constant cry we hear from North Vancouver and West Vancouver and the North Shore, and indeed from the Mayor of Vancouver that the most vital consideration for the lower mainland is the third crossing.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. DOWDING: There you have it again tonight that echo. But it is not true. The lower mainland is a larger area, and the studies that have been made there make it abundantly clear that the greater transportation need of the coming 25 years has got to be a development of rapid transit.

It is my view, Mr. Speaker, that the third crossing proposal and the cost of that, which is so vast, is going to

[ Page 527 ]

make it impossible for rapid transit to exist in the near future.

One of the problems is that if the third crossing comes to anywhere close to $200 million, immediately stemming from that will be a freeway system developed that will connect with the trans-Canada 401.

It will lead to a change in the whole emphasis, back to the car again from what is needed — the movement of large bodies of people by a fast, unified transit system. It will discourage and inhibit any further patronage development of rapid transit and when one looks at the report that was prepared by the Deleuw Cather and Co. to the joint transportation committee of Greater Vancouver Regional District it becomes clear that the only solution to this problem of the future of the lower mainland has got to be in rapid transit.

So that you come down to a question of priority; which is it going to be? A third crossing for those people (who are favoured people indeed) on the North Shore or the needs of the greater metropolitan area that goes right up the valley to Hope?

When you consider every major city that has stumbled into the highway and freeway system has ended up regretting and indeed trying to retrace their steps to a transit system, you realise the importance of the decision that faces this government, the lower mainland area and the Greater Vancouver Regional District.

They've assumed their responsibility and said that they are prepared to take a prime part in moving towards rapid transit system. But they've got to have commitments from this government, and from Ottawa to make that real. And it's going to take an initial amount of at least $200 million.

Well, you can have the first stages they've talked about in the report, but if you're talking about the first leg of a proper interurban system it's going to cost about $200 million.

In the next 10 years they are going to need that money, and it's impossible for this government to finance it but there's no provision in this budget for that, no looking ahead in this budget. For that reason to me it's really a sterile document because it doesn't look ahead. It makes no plans for the future.

This government has always had a sort of one-year vista or glimpse into the future in its attitude towards budgetting. And it's a three-year government in terms of its idea of a programme. But it really doesn't look ahead to a stage where realisation occurs on a definite programme of policies where you can look at the budget, you can see the planning in that budget projected over a reasonable period of time. It just isn't there.

If ever we need in British Columbia and the lower mainland advance planning, it's in the field of transportation. I have seen some of the freeways in Los Angeles and other cities, I've compared them with what I've found in other major metropolitan areas and the unfortunate thing about a freeway is it generates more demand for cars. It creates an ever-insatiable appetite for automobiles, and it multiplies the ownership of automobiles in the area in which the freeway works. So in the end the freeway takes over and man becomes subordinate to the concrete and the metal. The charm of Vancouver so far has been that it has not been a concrete jungle and those who plan the future of the city are going to have to face that concrete jungle aspect if they go on to freeways. I urge the government.to take a completely fresh look at transit. We in the area that I represent in Burnaby feel very strongly that the needs of that area and the area beyond New Westminster, Coquitlam, Surrey, Delta, Richmond — all of those areas require transit and they do not want any more proliferation of freeways. We have freeways going to Burnaby now. We could start, so far as the regional districts are concerned, with an increase in per-capita grants. You could start contributing more to the Greater Vancouver Regional District. You could earmark funds to build up the kind of money that over a period of 10 years would make a transit system a viable reality.

The early phase of this rapid transit network as it has been explained would go right up to Kingsway and into Burnaby. Then it would later in stages go on to Surrey, would later in stages go out on Hastings Street towards Coquitlam and the Port Moody area. It would also lead from the North Shore. I think it must surely be feasible, Mr. Speaker, to develop a crossing of some kind that is not a major freeway crossing of the North Shore, that is for rapid transit.

But we're faced with a political dilemma of the federal Liberals. Their proposals are not realistic. They are realistic in terms of Jack Davis getting re-elected. But they're strictly a political solution to a very perplexing transit problem.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. DOWDING: I'm not, I'm merely pointing out that it's a political solution. Now, I'm not condemning that man for seeking to get re-elected. Even the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Campbell) is concerned about that himself, you can tell. But in regard to the problem of Greater Vancouver, surely it should not rest upon the re-election of the Minister of Environment? He's not that important in terms of the vast sums of money — the long-term tolls that would be demanded by Ottawa as a price for that third crossing. It's not realistic to see two crossings that are free adjacent to one that has a toll.

Then when you hear the talk projections of that toll in terms of $1 a car per crossing, it's just utterly incredible to say that such a crossing is in the realm of probability or sense. Economically, it's hardly the way to solve the problem and it only proliferates the expansion of greater problems of ordinary highway traffic.

If that money that was going to be dedicated to that proposition was accumulated by per capita grants, increases, by various grants to the regional districts, by subsidy to B.C. Hydro on a greater scale for its present bus network, working out first of all a bus network that approaches a form of rapid transit and then starting to construct a subway system — all that money that would otherwise have gone to freeways could be invested quite economically in a real solution to the problem.

One has only to go to cities like London, or Paris or Mexico City or any of the others that have rapid transit, subways, subway systems, or a joint method such as bus and subway system to realise that there's practically no place in a major city you can't reach in a matter of 15 or 20 minutes by rapid transit, particularly by the subway systems. When they are co-related as proposed in this study it becomes obvious that political considerations are dictating the response of the federal government. I might say also, the Liberals in this House are taking a gut reaction to a problem of getting re-elected. They are afraid to propose anything.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

[ Page 528 ]

MR. DOWDING: Oh, I'm sorry. A cerebral reaction. Mr. Speaker, it's understandable that in North Vancouver and Capilano-Seymour, West Vancouver–Howe Sound, in these enclaves of the well-to-do, these Liberal strongholds of privilege they could not bear to be separated from that fantastic sex symbol; the car. To them it is a form of status that should not be parted with, for one instant. Because….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. DOWDING: Well there, you see. I've stung another one who lives in the North Shore and he's got that symbol.

AN HON. MEMBER: He doesn't drive a car.

MR. DOWDING: Has he been barred?

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. DOWDING: At any rate, Mr. Speaker, these political considerations are the reasons. If we had a rapid transit system on my street, I'd use it. But the trouble is it's not rapid and it really isn't transit. It only comes once an hour and I can't get up at seven in the morning.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. DOWDING: Twelve miles is a long way to go. I've got to be in some shape when I get there, Mr. Speaker. But, I do agree, Mr. Speaker, that this study must not be wasted, it should not be shelved. There's no way that this government should ignore the transit situation and merely shrug its shoulders and say: "Well, let them decide. Let them pick up all the marbles."

I don't think that the offer that was made by the provincial government as soon as this report was announced is good enough. They talked about an offer of 37.5 per cent if Ottawa would match that 37.5 per cent. They talked about that. It was a pretty safe offer when you think that Ottawa isn't even prepared to grant any money for the third crossing. They are talking about lending the money at a good interest rate.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. DOWDING: That I think is for the engineers to say. But you see if I'd answered the way the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Campbell), would answer a question like that, he would first think: "What is the political answer that will help me?" That's what he would have said.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's right. That's right.

MR. DOWDING: Absolutely. Always you get that response from that government on its proposals. It's "what is the political angle we can play?" Not what is right. Not what is needed.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's not right. No way!

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. DOWDING: But fortunately, I don't have to answer that. It's already been answered in the report. They said where the first line should go — out Kingsway.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's how he came up with Dufferin.

MR. DOWDING: Well, of course, there's an excellent example of planning by that Minister. He didn't consult the engineers or the planners. He didn't consult the draftsmen. He just closed his eyes and listened and somebody guided his hand and told him where all the lines should go.

AN HON. MEMBER: They told him — the local M.L.A. Participatory democracy!

MR. DOWDING: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to turn briefly to another subject now that the Minister of Rehabilitation (Hon. Mr. Gaglardi) has entered the House with his usual aplomb. I wanted to suggest to him that he and his group who are interested in opportunities for the unemployed and those on welfare could do well to study a project that was initiated in Burnaby-Edmonds by a very imaginative and eager and enthusiastic man who was on welfare and his name is Ed Gerade. Ed Gerade got a number of his neighbours together who were on welfare and he worked out a proposal that he put to the federal government for a winter works project.

What was the subject? To take at least five people off welfare, get them going around collecting furniture and other items, repairing those items, getting people who were good at carpentry, good at upholstery, good at repairing radios or television sets, that kind of person; and giving him a little training too.

He got these kind of people, he got them organised, he got a church to find a place for them to work. They managed by one means or another — and I don't think I'd better go into that — to raise the price of a truck to cart all this stuff to their headquarters where they worked. Then they go out and they after repairing this and getting help and money to repair this material that's donated by good citizens of Burnaby, they take the material and they give it to people on welfare who need beds or clothing or chairs or tables.

They help in numberless ways people who are in welfare. It's a great programme. They got $37,500 from the federal government to get this programme under way and they're doing a great job.

They also wanted some help from the opportunities programme that's headed by the Minister of Municipal Affairs. They'd like to get any help they can from the Minister of Rehabilitation. He above all should be one who should welcome this scheme because it gives these people some hope of staying off welfare. It gives them something they themselves have created in the way of a work project. More than that it's helping a lot of people who need furniture, who need furnishings, who need the amenities of life that they've been denied. Even things like a radio set or a question of a cradle or a chair, can be a very important matter to a person who is just on welfare trying to get by on a few dollars.

I certainly feel that his work deserves tribute in this House and I hope that the Minister of Rehabilitation, the Minister of Municipal Affairs, will between them do all they can to encourage similar projects throughout the province and that they will give this man and his group all the help they can when they come to him for help. I'm very proud of that group. They've done a wonderful job, just out of their own vision and their own energy.

Now, in summary, I just want to say that the budget, as 1

[ Page 529 ]

said, is a sterile document because it really doesn't envision a future for British Columbia in terms of growth or, demand. It merely seems to be a marking time budget with a few propaganda items thrown in. The budget does not have the vision that one would expect of a government that's been in power for 20 years.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hindsight.

MR. DOWDING: Yes, it's got 20-20 hindsight. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it's going to be very difficult to say that this budget meets the on-going demands of British Columbia particularly in the field such as I have mentioned and particularly in the matter of rapid transit for the lower mainland. In a field of social reforms, in the field of making a great contribution to the next 20 years, there's nowhere I can find in the budget any real understanding of the problems the people of British Columbia face. It's going to be easy to vote against this budget.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Alberni.

MR. H.R. McDIARMID (Alberni): Mr. Speaker, I couldn't help but be interested in the remarks of the Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) who was just complimenting the Minister of Highways for giving him 50 miles of pavement to a ghost-town. You know in my constituency, we have a very live town. The town's name is Tahsis. You know we've heard the name of Tahsis bandied about by the Members on the other side of the House. I think probably there's only one of them that's even been there. Certainly the Member who was on his feet this afternoon, he certainly has never been there, from his remarks.

AN HON. MEMBER: True, true! Never.

MR. McDIARMID: In my first speech in this House I said, Mr. Speaker, that my most important road priorities for my constituency was a road to Tahsis, the largest community in Vancouver Island without a road.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. McDIARMID: I would like to say that that's going to become a reality this summer. It's going to become a reality. The people of Tahsis are certainly going to show their appreciation in a very positive way in the next election.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. McDIARMID: You know, it's so bad that John isn't even running this year. But he went on to say what a give-away it was and you know how this community that was owned by one company would never become a municipality. How the per-capita grants to that community were subsidies to the company. What this Member doesn't really know is that there is a functioning municipal council there now. The people who pay the whole shot as far as the taxes, and they pay the maximum amount of taxes that are available under the Municipal Act is the Tahsis Company. They pay the whole shot for the whole thing.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. McDIARMID: You know also, if they didn't have the per-capita grants which are paid to the municipality, the municipality wouldn't be able to look forward next year to putting in parks, putting in roads, putting in all the various functions the municipality goes to do.

What he doesn't apparently know, because he's never been there, is that it's only a question of time until that company is subdivided and the people have titles to their own properties. The rents that they pay I might say to the Member for Burnaby-Willingdon are lower than he would even believe.

So, I think that before we get onto the subject of Tahsis again, those fellows over there will pay a visit to it. Just go once and find out really what it's all about.

I'd like to spend a minute this evening, Mr. Speaker, in talking about health. Which I don't ordinarily discuss in this House, but I'd like to congratulate the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Loffmark) on his decision to form a committee to go into the question of doctor distribution within the Province of British Columbia. I have only one criticism and that is that it's taken five years for us to get one.

There again it's in one of my early speeches and I know the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) gets upset when everything he wants isn't done in two years but one thing I've learned is it takes a lot of patience but you get it in the end. Sometimes one way or another.

You know, at that particular time I was making reference particularly to outlying areas that didn't have physicians or had only one physician. But really the problem on a larger scale is that there are medium-sized communities many of them, in the Province of British Columbia, who don't have the specialist facilities that should be made available in these communities. The specialists, who are highly-trained, tend to like to be near teaching hospitals where it's easy to upgrade and keep abreast of their profession and for this I really don't blame them. But the fact of the matter is that the reason there is so much unhappiness and in-fighting in the larger centres of Victoria and Vancouver in the medical profession is that a lot of these people can't make a living. But rather than go out into the small or medium-sized towns which require these people they stay in the urban centres.

This works a hardship on the people of those communities in that they are obliged to travel to the larger centres, which often costs them as much or more as the cost of the medical treatment which they seek. So I think that the Minister's promise to get this going is a very worthy thing and I hope that they get at their work or that you can get them formed in short order so that they can get about their work and look into this problem.

The medical profession and particularly the new president of the College of Physicians and Surgeons, Dr. Adam Waldie, whom I've known over many years, has taken steps to alleviate a problem which I have brought up in this House in the past and that's the non-availability of people to go out and relieve doctors in the country when they require time to go for post-graduate work or for holidays or simply to get out for a little respite from the phone ringing 24 hours a day.

He has taken the action and has a roster of physicians, some 200 in Vancouver, and can place physicians on very short notice to people who require this.

I give full credit to the college and Dr. Waldie for organising this. It just goes to show that this could have been done by the College of Physicians and Surgeons five or six years ago when I mentioned it. It wasn't difficult to do. But to give credit where credit is due I welcome his actions in this regard. It's too late to help me, but still….

[ Page 530 ]

The Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) has mentioned time and time again the problem of, older people who find themselves obliged to pay large sums of money for nursing home care. There is no one in this House who wouldn't agree with him. Certainly those of you know that I have spoken about this before and in different places.

I regret that there wasn't something in the budget for this incredible gap in our service. But I think there is a reason. The Premier is not a man, I think, who would willingly leave this out, but the minute that you subsidise this to any great extent you find that the demand goes up tremendously and then private enterprise or possibly the government finds itself obliged to suddenly build large numbers of these facilities which could be fantastically expensive and could be the ordinary B.C.-type or government institutions.

The glimmer of hope that I see at the end is the special-care home. When the Premier said in his budget that there would be unlimited amounts of money, a 35 per cent grant, for any group who came forward with a proposal for a special care home, I look at this as the beginning of the capital facility for this kind of a programme in the future.

These will be non-profit and if we get enough of these going throughout the province, I think that then we will be in a position to make it cheaper for people who find themselves in this position to get the kind of accommodation which they so desperately require.

The whole system of medicine is in great ferment at this time and changes are taking place much more quickly than many of us would believe. The strong distinctions between a person who was an out-patient as compared with an in-patient are gradually blurring, Mr. Speaker, and will blur more.

It is my belief that in the smaller cities in British Columbia that the community hospital will be the nidus or the centre, the organisational centre, for all the health care in that community. I don't see that we should have mental health clinics at one end of town and the other public health facilities at another place. The doctors may be scattered all around and if we should have the nursing homes at various distances away I think that there is something to be said in the areas where it can happen towards a consolidation of your physical plant in a fairly circumscribed area so that say persons in special-care homes may require the services of a physiotherapist, that physiotherapist can easily come from a hospital to that special-care home, do her physiotherapy for half an hour or an hour and can quickly be back in the hospital.

Also this makes it much easier for the physician who doesn't have to chase around and spend a half-an-hour driving to a nursing home which is on the outskirts of the community and wasting the time that he could be spending in treating patients.

I have talked with members of the Regional District of Comox-Strathcona and two areas in my constituency come under this regional district; one is Tahsis and one is Gold River.

They passed a bylaw in December, December 11 to be exact of 1970, to provide capital costs for the construction of various hospital projects within their regional district. I've spoken in this House before, Mr. Speaker, about the desirability' in instant towns and in towns by dam sites and towns where mining may come and go, of having some flexibility in the units which are installed and suggested that we should look into the question of using prefabricated units for this type of facility.

I found that the consultant which this particular regional district had hired was thinking along exactly those lines and he made representation to the hospital construction division of B.C.H.I.S. for permission to pursue this. But you know they met with resistance, roadblocks were put in their way. The old thing is that they were married to the proposition of conventional construction and were prepared to fight to the last ditch to see that nothing new happened in their department.

Finally in frustration they came down about a month ago to again pursue this and were told by an official in that department: "Why do you want to build these buildings out of bamboo and rice paper?" They said: "You know, if you go to conventional construction it will maybe only cost you $100,000 more — " $100,000 and they're trying to save the taxpayer money, Mr. Speaker.

They said: "But our bylaw is only for $200,000." "Oh, that's easy. The Minister can get an order-in-council to fix that."

That's all the consideration that they really had for the taxpayer's money. The people in that area knew that the facilities that they required wasn't a fancy thing, it was simply a holding area and they wanted to get on with it.

Now I don't blame the Minister for this because the Minister was not made aware of this until very recently. Here again, I had apprised this particular department of my interest in that project. I wrote them letters saying that I'd like to be kept posted. Not a word, not a word. I think, Mr. Speaker, when a community is trying to get something that fits in with their community at a less cost, the last people in the world that should be trying to discourage them are the people who are in this construction division.

At the last minute what they said was: "Well, why don't you go and see the architect that designed a certain building for another area, the Mount Waddington district, away up in the north end of Vancouver Island."

So they went up to Mount Waddington and they had a look at the conventional construction and they didn't think that it was satisfactory. They came back and they were directed to a particular architect in town.

This question of being directed to a particular architect is another thing that's been happening in this particular department. In the Mount Waddington district they had two different architects who were working on projects — one on schools and one on other buildings — who were coming into the area anyway.

Three names were submitted to the hospital construction division. Nothing was heard. A month went by before they discovered that none of these architects was satisfactory to the department. Now I can understand the proposition when you're building a $1 million or $2 million hospital. But these are just holding units. They're the size of a big house. There's no particular expertise about hospitals that's really required to do this.

The man, in desperation — I talked to him just this afternoon — came down to B.C.H.I.S. and said: "What can we do to get this thing on the road?"

"Go to so-and-so." Everything was fine. I say, Mr. Speaker, that kind of sweetheart arrangement with departments of this government and a local architect is something that should come out to the full glare of publicity and should be looked into and should cease forthwith. That's why I'm not naming a name.

Anyway three architects were turned down. They were supposed not to be competent but yet the people up there

[ Page 531 ]

were coming into the area, doing work they felt that they were competent and they were unsatisfactory to B.C.H.I.S. So, I think the Minister may have some knowledge of this and I think that that department should have a little jogging-up in terms of its performance.

As I say, they've broken through the log jam with the help of the Minister and I believe that they are going to be able to proceed with the modular construction thanks to the intervention of the Minister. I don't know that the modular construction is necessarily going to work out that well, but for two units if it does work out we could save ourselves thousands and thousands of dollars by having a standard unit across the place.

Here's another interesting thing about this particular architect. They went up and they saw this particular kind of construction that was in-situ. They came down and saw this architect and said: "Well, if we have to have this plan how much will it cost us to buy the plan?" Oh, the plan wasn't really for sale, but he would be glad to provide full range of professional services, thank you very much. It was just another rip-off.

It's costing us, it's costing the taxpayer, a lot of money. I think, in the interests of trying to save a dollar that we should be looking at this kind of thing more and more.

I wanted to say a few things about the question of nuclear power for Vancouver Island. This comes into the question of gas for Vancouver Island. You know I have been in this House when Members opposite got up and discussed that hydra-headed monster, that Hydro, that was using up all our dollars that should be going into schools and that should be going into hospitals. Here was Hydro taking all our capital.

But this session Hydro was the darling of the N.D.P. "Don't let that nasty free enterprise get in there and bring gas. Hydro are the people that should bring it over." What are they going to use for money to construct a line? Where's it going to come from? You know it's a rather interesting thing. You wait long enough, it all comes around in a full circle, doesn't it, eh? They wouldn't object to it costing a $100 million.

AN HON. MEMBER: They're insulting the Americans because they did it.

MR. McDIARMID: Oh, well they want to take credit for it sometimes and they want to destroy it at other times. They're pretty ambivalent about the whole thing. I think that the Premier is absolutely right about nuclear power and the reason that I think he is, is that any proposition that's going to allow gas to come to Vancouver Island is going to require that gas be used to generate electricity on Vancouver Island otherwise it isn't going to be economically viable.

So if you go for nuclear power at this point in time the chances are that there will be no natural gas come to Vancouver Island ever. What I'm saying really is this: I don't really care who brings the gas to Vancouver Island. The P.U.C. will sort that out and they'll decide what the best proposal is. But gas will come to Vancouver Island hopefully. I'm not all that certain even then that it's going to be economic but it's certainly going to require the use of natural gas to produce electricity on Vancouver Island for it to be viable in the first instance.

So, once we get the gas over here and are generating the electricity we'll have perhaps 10 to 15 years to decide about nuclear energy. The very importance that Vancouver Island have natural gas is because, as the Premier has indicated, he hopes to keep Vancouver Island a tourist resort type of thing — keep us natural, have those kind of industries that won't destroy the landscape and which create beauty for Vancouver Island and certainly to get the gas into the pulp mills so they can stop the fly ash and that sort of thing. This is a highly desirable kind of thing to see on Vancouver Island.

You know we listen to the other side about nuclear power and how all the problems of nuclear power are solved. Well, that's not the case at all. The A.E.C. and the U.S. Public Health haven't even decided yet what is an acceptable or safe level of radiation, and on some of these things some pretty hairy things have happened. Also we don't really know the cost of nuclear power because it's subsidised in so many ways. We really, when we're trying to get to a figure, you know we pull it out of the air. And there is evidence now to show that the present type of generating electricity from nuclear fuels may be passed in five or six years. We may be if we went ahead today like a man who bought a colour T.V. set 15 years ago. It doesn't look like such a hot investment today. That's exactly the same boat that we could find ourselves in.

There are these new kinds of breeder reactors which apparently don't need refuelling which may become the generating plant of the future. And so as time goes by we'll have time to evaluate this.

If in 15 years time it becomes apparent that there is a highly-efficient non-polluting kind of nuclear energy there's no reason why we can't opt for it at that time. Because at that time the gross for the load of natural gas will probably make it so that it will be highly desirable at that point not to generate all that much electricity from gas at that time.

But you know, when you get into the realm of all the probables, and the possibles and this sort of business, these are the decisions that have to be made at the top level. And there is some evidence today to point to the fact that maybe simply having a highly-developed scientific mind, that having a highly-analytical mind is not the sort of mind that should be making those top decisions.

There is evidence — and I would just like to quote from an article called "E.S.P. and You." And it says,

In some of these more complicated decisions, there is no way you could make a totally logical information-based decision. Instead you would have sifted through the mass of hybrid and often highly-speculative facts and then sat back and brought into play one ultimate decision-making tool — your own intuition.

And of all the people in this province that have got intuition — call it intuition, call it grasp, call it feel, call it E.S.P. — the Premier of this province has got this ability in spades. If you don't believe me look at 1952, look at 1953, look at 1956, look at 1960, look at 1963, look at 1966, look at 1969 and…. I'll leave that to the man with the intuition.

You know, they say that Mackenzie King ran the country on a crystal ball. I have to say that he was doing a whole lot better than the man's who's down there right now.

I'm really being very serious about this you know, and you can laugh but there has been a lot of scientific evidence done on a lot of people in high executive positions and….

AN HON. MEMBER: Most of them are here to stay.

MR. McDIARMID: As I say when you're fed a whole bunch of information the more experience that you have, and the better your ability to size things up and let your own intuition come to play, the better those major decisions are

[ Page 532 ]

made. We are very fortunate to have a man like that in this province who has a record of being right over the last 20 years.

After having said that I'd like to mention one little thing in my constituency that bothers the fishermen. It's not much, but you know we don't do very much provincially for the fishermen because it's federal responsibility. But we do exempt them from certain things — that is the fishing industry, and the agriculture industry — we exempt them from certain things because they are in a basic industry.

In the fishing industry we don't charge them 5 per cent on fish hooks, and sinkers and jigs and plugs and anchors and anchor chains and things of this nature. But we do, Mr. Speaker charge them 5 per cent on echo sounding tape. In the last 15 years there has been a tremendous change in mechanisation in the fishing industry and no well-equipped fisherman would go out on the high seas today without an echo sounder. And they use the paper on this as a permanent record of the ground that they go over and they are charged 5 per cent. And through you, Mr. Speaker, I hope that the Minister of Finance might be listening and that this thing which obviously has been left out because at that time it wasn't in very great use might be included in the list of those things which does not have to pay a 5 per cent sales tax.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BENNETT: He'll get action. (Laughter).

MR. McDIARMID: I just want to close my remarks, I won't be long this evening, Mr. Speaker, by making a few remarks on the guaranteed annual wage. A lot has been said in this House about the guaranteed annual wage and I've given it a great deal of thought myself. It seems to me that, Mr. Speaker, that the way things are going in the Province of Quebec at this point in time that they're almost on a course of non-return as far as the rest of Canada, and it saddens me very greatly.

Mr. Speaker, I've known a great many French-Canadian people and I think that they are very fine Canadians. I believe that they are being misled by some of their leaders at this point in time into waters which might be very dangerous to many of them. And I think that if Quebec seceded it wouldn't be long until you had France looking at our eastern coast and attempting to….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. McDIARMID: Well, Charles DeGaulle didn't think that was very funny. And you know I think that our flank could be open to France to come into that situation, and the problem of course is that there is a great disenchantment with government in general. And the fact that they can see what's happening in those governments of Quebec who have not been quite so scrupulously honest as some of the other governments that I know.

I agree entirely with our Premier's remarks that the money should go into the hands of the people, and I think that the first Prime Minister and the first person that implements the guaranteed annual wage in Canada will ward off separatism. If the baby bonus could win the Liberals 60 seats in Quebec, could you imagine what the guaranteed annual wage would do?

Now, that might be putting it in a hypocritical or a political fashion but you know it's true nonetheless. People like to get money. And if they were given $4,000 or $3,000 or whatever it could be I think that they'd be thinking a whole lot longer and harder about leaving the rest of Canada.

It would also get around the problem of British Columbians who are living at a bare subsistence level right here in our own province. And I think of our native Indian population. There are pockets of poverty across the length and breadth of this country, Mr. Speaker — not just in Quebec, not just in the areas which receive these balance of payments. There are poor people in Ontario and poor people in Alberta — many, many of them. And I think for the good of our whole nation that this can be implemented and I would like to see someone of the stature of Mr. Stanfield say that his policy, if elected as the Government of Canada, would be to implement forthwith the guaranteed annual wage.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's saying it.

MR. McDIARMID: He's not saying it very loudly. I think as I say that this would be the most important thing in keeping confederation together Mr. Speaker. You know as far as this budget is concerned it's an awful budget. Hardly a member of the Opposition has got up and hasn't said what a terrible budget this is. And I'd have to agree it's just terrible. The only group that like it are the people.

Hon. Mr. Brothers moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Bennett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 9:50 p.m.