1972 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 29th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, JANUARY 25, 1972

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 37 ]

TUESDAY, JANUARY 25, 1972

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

Prayers.

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

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Minister without Portfolio): Mr. Speaker,

this afternoon in the House we have a young man who represents the

Kinsmen's Mothers' March on February 1. He is the poster child for the

Province of British Columbia. He is visiting Victoria. Last night the

Press and the politicians I thought provided rather a very fine show

for Schmockey night but the star of the show really was Lawrence

Sutherland. I think all Members would agree.

Lawrence is here from Fraser Lake, British Columbia. He is

accompanied by his foster mother, Mrs. Eldridge. He has visited the

Premier today and been presented by the Premier with a gift from the

province. We are pleased to have him here and I would ask all Members

of the House to welcome him and to support him on February 1 for the

Mothers' March.

Introduction of bills.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE ADMINISTRATION ACT

Mr. Macdonald moves introduction and first reading of Bill No. 2 intituled

An Act to Amend the Administration Act .

Motion approved. Bill read a fast time and ordered to be placed on

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

Orders of the day.

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. the Attorney General.

HON. L.R. PETERSON (Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, it is an

honour and a privilege for me to rise in my place today and participate

in this debate. I might say I have almost a sense of gratitude to be

able to get up after playing hockey in Vancouver on Sunday and last

night in Victoria. But while the goals may have been scored by the news

media, most of the bruises I think ended up there too. But it was all

for a good cause and a most enjoyable day both in Vancouver on Sunday

and Victoria last night.

I am pleased today to be able to speak in support of the motion that

is before us so that you are not held in suspense for any length of

time.

First of all, I want to congratulate the mover and the seconder of

the motion, the Honourable Member for Richmond (Mr. LeCours) and the

Honourable Member for Shuswap (Mr. Jefcoat).

I regret that I was not able to accede to the request of the

Honourable Member for Richmond made to me — that the government pass an

order-in-council by Monday at the latest to prohibit the use of nail

polish remover by minors. I can assure him, as I assure this chamber,

that it is not through any lack of desire, not through any lack of

concern of the serious problem in this respect, it is simply from a

lack of authority.

I refer to the jurisdiction under the British North America Act .

I know the Hon. Leader of the Liberal party when he spoke yesterday

enumerated a number of states in the United States that had passed

legislation on this problem of sniffing toxic solvents — Maryland,

California, New Jersey, Rhode Island, New York et cetera.

I facetiously asked them whether they had a British North America Act

down there, but I put the question to him simply to remind him — if

he's not already aware — that the jurisdiction of the states in these

matters is considerably different from the jurisdiction of the

provinces under the British North America Act .

I am sure that the legal member who sits beside him and one who sits

behind him could advise him in that respect, that they do have

authority in the states, individual states, to pass such laws

whereas

it has been decreed here that we do not.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Oh, if the Hon. Leader of the Liberal party doesn't know the difference between the Liquor Act and the British North America Act , it is going to take me a long time to tell him about this problem of jurisdiction.

We've had this problem under serious study by the senior law

officers of my department to try and determine what are the courses of

action we could take. The advice that I have received is that the only

area where we can take provincial initiative in this respect would be

under the federal government Juvenile Delinquency Act, on a charge of

contributing to juvenile delinquency, where an establishment sold the

products with the full knowledge of the use to which it was going to be

put — that is sniffing.

A difficult matter, as legal members present would understand. Not

an easy provision to invoke but nevertheless, one that should be

considered and the director of criminal law has been instructed to

consider the laying of charges in this respect.

Another area of provincial jurisdiction is the licensing authority

under which these business establishments operate. In this respect, we

have been in touch with the officials of the City of Vancouver,

corporation members there and also on the prosecution staff, suggesting

that consideration be given to the suspension of licenses, calling the

one or two real bad operators forward to show cause why their license

should not be suspended or cancelled.

This, I suggest, would have a very salutory effect in dealing with

the problem of nail polish sniffing and the other toxic solvents

associated with it.

Then too, I have telephoned the president of the company that

manufactures the nail polish remover specifically to request

consideration of restricted sale of the product, and the possibility of

an additive being included in the product.

He told me that their laboratories were working on the problem,

trying to come up with an additive that would create violent nausea

when sniffed. They haven't solved the problem as yet and to the best of

his knowledge, no company has solved the problem in respect to this

particular product.

The president indicated that they wouldn't be adverse to some kind

of a restricted sale list, even on a voluntary basis, and in discussing

this with their retailers across the country. They are also considering

voluntarily putting on a warning

[ Page 38 ]

label such as "Prolonged inhalation will be

dangerous to your health." So, these I mention to the Honourable

Members as some of the things that are voluntarily going on.

But I indicated earlier that we have attempted to legislate in

respect of such harmful substances before, where the federal government

had legislated and the courts had decreed our legislation ultra vires — that this was a field given under the British North America Act to the federal government and therefore, the federal government had the legislative field, not the provincial governments.

Well, the federal government have in fact legislated in this field.

I was amazed that the Hon. Leader of the Liberal party, who is often in

this House an apologist for the federal Liberals, should have gone to

the states and pointed out here what they have done there and suggested

that the Attorney General was at fault for not doing what the states

had done, when in fact there is legislation on the statute books now in

Ottawa that can be invoked. I refer to the Hazardous Products Act — legislation already on the statute books.

I've telegraphed the federal government in Ottawa and I will read the text of my telegram which went yesterday:

THE USE BY CHILDREN OF TOXIC SOLVENTS IN NAIL POLISH

REMOVERS AND OTHER PRODUCTS SOLD COMMERCIALLY IN THE VANCOUVER AREA IS

CREATING A SERIOUS HEALTH PROBLEM. I HEREBY REQUEST THAT SUCH SOLVENTS

BE INCLUDED EITHER UNDER PART ONE OR TWO OF THE

SCHEDULE TO THE

HAZARDOUS PRODUCTS ACT. I REQUEST THAT ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATION BE

GIVEN TO RESTRICTING THE SALE OF THESE TOXIC SOLVENTS TO PERSONS OVER

THE AGE OF 16 YEARS.

and that is the end of the text, the end of the telegraph, it was sent Monday

morning.

Mr. Speaker, the matter can be dealt with, not by debates in the

House of Commons, it can be dealt with simply by an order-in-council of

the federal cabinet.

I would hope that if the Hon. Leader of the Liberal party is

seriously concerned — and I accept his sincerity in this respect that

he is concerned — that he would likewise join in asking that this

action be taken. Because while the problem is perhaps most acute in the

city of Vancouver, nevertheless, it is a problem, not only in Vancouver

but across Canada as well. It relates not only to nail polish remover,

but to other products that also use toxic solvents.

Now, Mr. Speaker; both of the Honourable Members who moved and

seconded the Speech from the Throne on Friday last have represented

their constituencies over the years extremely well in this chamber.

Their views have not always been in accord, if I can put it that

way, with government policy. In fact, they have not always seen fit to

vote in support of the government. Nevertheless, the Social Credit

movement, Mr. Speaker, is large enough and will always recognise the

independence of the individual member in this chamber.

While we also recognise the independence of the individual member we

also welcome constructive criticism from our own members as we do from

opposition members.

Not all the criticism we receive of course, from the Opposition can be put in the category of constructive criticism.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's a fine statement.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Well, you know, I think we have to face

that the primary objective of Hon. Members over there is to unseat the

government. They want to be where we are. Criticism is their best

weapon in this respect. We saw just how far they were prepared to go in

that respect. They pulled out a lot of the old cliches once again. You

know: "Oh, the tired government, lack of leadership," that they have

said from time to time. Although, when we listened to them yesterday, I

just wondered who was old and tired.

This is the 16th Speech from the Throne that I've listened to since

I've been a member, Mr. Speaker. They've all been subject to this same

kind of criticism from the Opposition.

Each of these Speeches from the Throne, if you look back over the

years, have referred to the past achievements during the past year.

They refer as well in most cases to the current state of the economy

and they project to some degree the plans and programmes of the

government in the future. To a greater or less degree, because every

day even in the first week after the Speech from the Throne has been

introduced in this House, we are announcing additional pieces of

legislation et cetera that will be coming before this chamber. But you

know.…

AN HON. MEMBER: Recognise the facts.…

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. PETERSON: I don't blame the Hon. Member for Cowichan

trying to make up for yesterday on the part of the Opposition but I

want to remind that Hon. Member, as well as all the members, that

whenever the voters of this province have had the occasion to pass

judgment on these Speeches from the Throne on the plans and the

programmes of this government, they have endorsed them. They've

endorsed them.

The only ones that have been out of step in this political march of progress have been the N.D.P. and the provincial Liberals.

Is it any wonder, is it any wonder that the public today are

questioning the validity of the criticism they have to offer? Because

it is criticism, same old stuff, not based on facts but based on their

own political aspirations to take over the reins of government. I

invite these members across the way, Mr. Speaker, to compare the

current state of this province as reflected in the Speech from the

Throne with any other jurisdiction. Any other jurisdiction.

Let the N.D.P. select a province where they are government — and

unfortunately, there are one or two instances. Let the Liberals select

a Speech from the Throne where they were government and let them

compare.

Compare the economy in this province with the economy of any other

province in Canada. We're the fastest growing part of all Canada and as

the Speech, from the Throne indicates on page six, the population

growth of approximately three per cent is the highest in Canada, while

the labour population growth is more than six per cent, more than six

per cent. The Leader of the Opposition referred to Manitoba…more than

double.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

HON. MR. PETERSON: The rate of growth in the labour force in

British Columbia compared with that of Manitoba. I'm not going to dwell

on the economic situation at this time, because it would be more

appropriate. to do so in the budget

[ Page 39 ]

debate, Mr. Speaker. However, let's at least agree

on one point, and that is that British Columbia leads all Canada in our

prospects for the future. Our prospect for sustained economic expansion

in British Columbia is better than any other part of Canada.

Now the N.D.P. have a responsibility, as I said, for government. Let

them compare the Speeches from the Throne in their provinces with the

Speech from the Throne of this administration. I issue the same

challenge to the Liberals, the same challenge. It would be a welcome

relief, as a matter of fact, from those fictitious paper promises that

we were given yesterday of a supposed Speech from the Throne of the

Liberals.

AN HON. MEMBER: Blowing bubbles in the air.

HON. MR. PETERSON: You know, a little less fantasy and more

fact would be most refreshing in the Liberal leader's presentation

because in the budget debate he gives us fictitious budget, a fantasy,

and now he has started to do the same thing in the throne debate — rather than deal with realities, rather than deal with facts. The

Leader of the Opposition, and I don't want to ignore him completely

today.…

AN HON. MEMBER: Champagne music!

HON. MR. PETERSON: The Leader of the Opposition had a little travelogue to tell us.

He told of his caucus travelling throughout the province, most of it

seemed to be in areas that were represented by members on the

government side of the house. But when he described what he found — you

know, the public not being adequately represented by the government

members and this sort of thing — he reminded me of the knight from La

Mancha.

Don Quixote's obsession you know, wherever he travelled, was that he

saw evil, and his quest in life was to fight evil. And here the Leader

of the Opposition wherever he travelled he saw the public not properly

represented by the Social Credit members.

He saw pollution, he saw unemployment, when the reasonable man, when

the objective man, would be prepared to acknowledge that in spite of

these problems — in spite of the problems of unemployment, the problems

of pollution — nevertheless this province has done more in terms of

increasing job opportunities. We are growing more rapidly in this

respect of any other part of Canada, and we are doing more to preserve

the quality of the environment as in other jurisdictions as well.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's nothing, that's nothing.

AN HON. MEMBER: Want

to rewrite your speech?

HON. MR. PETERSON: Well, the Honourable Member can refer to

the accomplishments of the provinces in which the N.D.P. are governing

as nothing. That's his privilege.

Some mention was made of unemployment. But you know, if it was not

as the Speech from the Throne indicated, if it was not for the great

influx of workers who come here from elsewhere, there wouldn't be an

unemployment problem in British Columbia, today.

There is no way to stop them, nor is there any desire to stop them.

We don't have border patrols, no one stops them at the Alberta-B.C.

border, they're welcome to come here. But there is no way that we can

have the number who come here equal the number of jobs that are going

to be available. There is just no way that those figures can balance

out and we might as well face that fact.

The Leader of the Liberal party — he said it a moment ago, and he

said it again yesterday — says the dynamic policies of the Liberal

Government were going to cure unemployment. Going to get rid of

unemployment, by the dynamic policies of the Liberal Government.

Mr. Speaker, if anything destroyed the creditability of his remarks

yesterday it was that one statement. Because we know where the root

cause of this unemployment problem has been in Canada. And as a plan in

their fight against inflation they announced in advance they were going

to create unemployment to fight inflation. Yet the Leader of the

Liberal Party has the temerity to refer to this as dynamic policy.

Dynamic policy!

The Leader of the Opposition was critical of the dates chosen.…

AN HON. MEMBER: Go and get yourself another writer.

HON. MR. PETERSON: The dates in the Speech from the Throne,

the October dates. Has he discovered yet why they were chosen? Because,

if you recall, and there should be no mystery in this respect, that was

the date in the budget of last year of the comparisons, the date of the

predictions as to what was going to happen — how many additional people

were going to be employed. It's only consistent to use the same dates

in this respect.

The Speech from the Throne referred to a number of programmes which

will provide direct employment this year. The highway construction

programme, page five of the speech, the extension of the railway,

hereafter known as the British Columbia Railway, on page five. And

these not only provide direct employment, but indirect.

Because of a good communications system being essential to the total

expansion of the economy this will create additional new jobs in to

those directly employed.

Then also, this reference to the Speech from the Throne which the

members of the Opposition and the Liberal group choose to ignore. The

references to the development of parks, the school construction

programme, the hospital construction programme, the improvement in

construction of buildings, all of these positive programmes are

important, Mr. Speaker, in the creation of new jobs.

It should also be emphasised that our policy is to encourage the

private sector of the economy to flourish and grow: With resultant

increases in employment.

Yesterday when the Leader of the Opposition was speaking, I couldn't

help but feel he was issuing a threat, issuing a threat to the mining

industry of British Columbia, when he referred to the amount of

royalties that were being received. Of course, he chose to ignore all

of the other revenue that comes from these industries. He chose to

ignore the number of the amount of the payrolls and what that does to

prime the economy.

He chose as well to ignore that these industries in British Columbia

provide more to the revenue from resources than they do elsewhere in

Canada.

The major difference — and this I think establishes, Mr. Speaker, a

major difference in philosophy between them and the Social Credit

government and I am glad they still recognise it because from time to

time — is that they tend to

[ Page 40 ]

camouflage their philosophy. This establishes the

major difference in philosophy between the N.D.P. and the Social Credit

government.

Because we believe that the best way to increase employment is to

encourage the growth and expansion of the economy through the

free-enterprise system. The workers — they whose votes they seem to try

and go after — workers of a free-enterprise system can create for

themselves a far better way of life than they can under any system of

socialism. And that's why they will continue to support this Social

Credit administration. When they get the opportunity to do so.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. PETERSON: And, Mr. Speaker, we can have this

expansion, we can continue our economic expansion and at the same we're

convinced that we can protect and preserve our environment.

We've got the opportunity to avoid the mistakes of other rapid

growth areas. British Columbia is often referred to as the California

of Canada, and we are, we are. But we can build a much cleaner place, a

much happier place then the State of California.

That's our opportunity, that's our challenge, we have the

opportunity still to learn from what the experience has been in these

other jurisdictions.

We can tap these resources and still have the best environment in

the world, Mr. Speaker, the best environment in the world. My

colleagues who have responsibilities in this area of pollution control

will be developing on our provincial programme as the session

progresses.

AN HON. MEMBER: When are they going to start?

HON. MR. PETERSON: Then we have the Leader of the Opposition

describing his visit to the United States, to Olympia, Washington. You

know, Mr. Speaker, his remarks yesterday reminded me more of a report

on the State of the Union, rather than a reply in the address to the

Speech from the Throne. He told us his purpose of his visit. We all

know the real purpose — the public knows the real purpose of that visit

is that it was an elaborate attempt to counteract the anti-American

image that his party has.

From the Press coverage given to the visit, I gather that his visit

created some confusion and misunderstanding. The confusion stems from

the fact that the American legislators didn't really know who the

N.D.P. were, what their philosophy was.

For some reason — and I'm taking this from a news report — U.S.

legislators thought the N.D.P. were Conservatives. Conservatives,

that's what it said in the Victoria Colonist ,

by Ian Street. But you know, it didn't take them long to discover

otherwise, and in the same newspaper report this appeared, and I quote:

"After one closed meeting, a legislator, wearing a slightly bemused

smile, emerged to announce to no one in particular; 'They're all pinkos

in there'."

All pinkos in there. (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: Pinkos, pinkos, they talk wonderful, they talk wonderful.…

HON. MR. PETERSON: I wonder, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the

Leader of the Opposition has been completely frank with us. l wonder if

he had told them that both he, the Leader of the Opposition and several

members of his group were signatories to the Watkins Manifesto — I

wonder then what the reception might have been.

I suggest that the colour they would have used to describe the N.D.P. would have been considerably darker red than pinko.

AN HON. MEMBER: Have you ever heard the American Manifesto?

HON. MR. PETERSON: You know, even the Watkins Manifesto was

too anti-American for the Federal Leader, Tommy Douglas, to sign. But

Mr. Barrett signed it. The Leader of the Opposition signed it and what

does it say? I'm not going to read it all but it would have been

interesting I'm sure for his American friends to know what he endorsed.

This is what it says in part and I quote:

The major threat to Canadian survival today is

American control of the Canadian economy. The major issue of our times

is not national unity but national survival, and the fundamental threat

is external, not internal. American corporate capitalism is the

dominant factor shaping Canadian society. In Canada,

and he still believes all of this because after each sentence, Mr. Speaker,

for the record, he is saying "that's right, that's right"….

In Canada, American economic control operates through

the formidable medium of the multinational corporation. The Canadian

corporate elite has opted for a junior partnership with these American

enterprises. Canada has been reduced to a resource base and consumer

market within the American empire. The American empire is the central

reality for Canadians. It is an empire characterised by militarism

abroad and racism at home.

Did the Hon. Members tell the American legislators

that? Did they tell them that they were an empire characterised by

militarism abroad and racism at home?

Canadian resources and diplomacy have been enlisted in

the support of that empire. In the barbarous war in Vietnam; Canada has

supported the United States through its membership on the International

Control Commission and through sales of arms and strategic resources to

the American military-industrial complex.

The American empire is held together through

world-wide military alliances and by giant monopoly corporations.

Canada's membership in the American alliance system and the ownership

of the Canadian economy by American corporations precludes Canada's

playing an independent role in the world. These bonds must be cut if

corporate capitalism, and the social priorities it creates, are to be

effectively challenged.

End of quotation. And there are other quotations in this document

which the Leader of the Opposition endorsed which would have made very

interesting reading for the Americans.

AN HON. MEMBER: For the public too.

HON. MR. PETERSON: So far anti-American, that even the federal leader, Tommy Douglas, would not endorse it or would not sign it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Lewis too.

HON. MR. PETERSON: I am still glad that the Leader of

[ Page 41 ]

the Opposition didn't make a full and frank

confession to our American friends because they are our friends and we

have a good relationship with them, we have excellent cooperation from

them, and if you think that you are doing us a favour in respect of

establishing a good relationship or cooperation please don't do us any

more favours. Please don't do us any more favours.

Travel all you like, I encourage you to travel, not only to

Washington but to the other states and learn from their experiences.

Travel from across the country in Canada as well, travel is a

wonderful, educational experience for everyone. But as far as

cooperation and a relationship exists, I suggest that there is no

province in Canada that enjoys a better relationship with its

neighbours to the south than does the Province of British Columbia.

You know the Leader of the Opposition tried to make quite a point

yesterday with a resolution that had been passed by the House of

Representatives in the State of Washington in May, saying that he was

called upon to make excuses for the Premier as to why they hadn't

received a reply to it.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, no.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Well, that was my

interpretation of his remarks.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, yes!

HON. MR. PETERSON: He'd asked why we hadn't replied. Well I have a letter here and it's dated January 14.

SEVERAL HON. MEMBERS: Not when he came home. Not when he came home. No, no,

not when he came home.

HON. MR. PETERSON: That certainly wasn't made clear to me.

January 14, 1972, it was made clear when the Premier interrupted the

Honourable Member across the floor.

AN HON. MEMBER: And only then.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Only then. And this is the letter, dated January 14, 1972.

Through an oversight in this office, I am now

enclosing herewith House read floor resolution number 71-86 adopted by

the House of Representatives on May 10, 1971.

Adopted May 10, 1971, sent January 14, of this year. Just this last month of this year.

AN HON. MEMBER: You didn't know, you didn't know until I told you yesterday. You didn't know that.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, there are obviously other things that the Honourable Member does not know perhaps.

AN HON. MEMBER: Talk to the Governor.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Talk to the Governor? Well, you know, they tried

to paint the picture that there was no association, no liaison, no communication

between the Governor of the State of Washington and the Premier of this province.

I have here a letter dated January 5, 1972, from Daniel J. Evans, Governor

of the State of Washington, Olympia. January 5, 1972 — directed, by the

way to His Excellency, Premier W.A.C. Bennett, Parliament House, Victoria,

British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: You didn't educate them very well. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. PETERSON:

Dear Premier Bennett:

On October 21, 1872, Kaiser Wilhelm I of Germany

as arbitrator established a border between the United States and

British Columbia. Thus ending a 13-year dispute in which the San Juan

Symbolically, the 13-year war is an acclamation that man and nation

need not resort to the force of arms to settle differences. During the

13 years of joint military occupation the United States suffered

through the agony of the greatest conflict ever seen in this continent.

forces on the San Juan Islands. Interest in the centennial has not been

limited to the San Juan Islands. A working committee of San Juan

islanders has received several inquiries from Victoria and from other

Vancouver Island communities regarding commemorative civil and military

plans for the centennial.

Our national parks service celebrates the

centennial of its founding in 1872. The San Juan Islands national

historic park is now part of our national parks system, and scheduled

for commemoration next year. The working committee has asked that I

head a honorary committee for the Centennial year, and I ask your

consideration in joining me as honorary co-chairman.

Historians have termed the treaty and the

settlement of the water-boundary the greatest triumph for arbitraled

methods the world has witnessed in an event of cardinal importance in

legacy is as significant to British Columbia and Washington State as to

the National powers.

As honorary co-chairman, you will undoubtedly

wish to have representatives of British Columbia and the Canadian

government, military and industry included in this centennial

commemoration. Those of your choice are most welcome.

Commemorative plans are still in the formative

stage, with several events now tentatively scheduled for August and

September. The working committee will periodically apprise you and the

members of the honorary committee selected by you of its progress.

I look forward with pleasure to your joining me.

Sincerely,

( Signed ) Daniel J. Evans, Governor.

The Premier has replied by letter dated January 24, accepting and becoming an honorary co-chairman, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell the truth when you go on trips and when you come home.

HON. MR. PETERSON: And you know, Mr. Speaker, if you need any further evidence of cooperation between the

[ Page 42 ]

State of Washington and this province, you need

only look to what they are doing and consulting on the day-to-day basis

on matters of pollution control.

You need only look to what is happening in other areas as well.

Tremendous assistance, a tremendous cooperation we received from that

state just last week and at the present time when these two major power

lines from the Peace River were put out of action, when your lights

would have been off if it hadn't been for the State of Washington.

Your lights would have been off, as serious an interruption of a

power supply as any since the one in the 1930's. Since the 1930's.

Washington even re-directed power going to California, to British

Columbia. Now, what greater assistance, what greater cooperation can

you ask than that? And all I ask of the Hon. Members of the Opposition

is to recognize that they were not elected to govern this province, not

elected to govern this province, not elected to represent this province

internationally, and not to meddle in the relationship that exists.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. PETERSON: I wouldn't want our good friends in the

United States, while they came to the conclusion that the delegation

visiting them were pinkos, to think that this government is a pinko

government, Mr. Speaker.

Now, Mr. Speaker I would like to enlarge on some items referred to in the Speech from the Throne.

Following an extensive two-year study, we will be proposing a

codification of the laws pertaining to matrimonial and family

relations. There is an announcement in the Speech from the Throne in

this respect.

You may recall that last year we introduced some amendments to the Wives and Children's Maintenance Act

which were not proceeded with. In the intervening period the existing

provisions relating to divorce, annulment of marriage, judicial

separation, alimony, maintenance, custody, and property rights between

spouses and children, have been examined.

Some of the matters being dealt with will be new responsibilities

for spouses, children, and parents. In recent years there has been a

growing agitation for complete equality between husband and wife, and

this philosophy is reflected in the rights which will be proposed. We

are also endeavouring to streamline Family Court practice, to provide

an aggrieved spouse or a child with easier access and faster relief

through Family Courts. The details of these proposals will be placed

before you as early as possible.

Then also, Mr. Speaker, in the Speech from the Throne there are

reference to reports of the Law Reform Commission. The report of the

Law Reform Commission is now being printed by the Queen's Printer. Just

as soon as it is ready it's my intention to have it given study by

members of my department and the various Crown agencies that may be

affected by any changes proposed.

Concurrently with that study I hope that the report can be given

consideration by a special committee of this House. This report

contains a number of recommendations that can form the basis of new

uniform expropriation procedures in this province. It will be necessary

that a choice be made of those equitable remedies contained in the

report which will be of greatest benefit to the landowner, and which

will not unduly retard the development of the province or place an

undue financial burden on the taxpayer of this province.

The advice of a committee of this House in this would, I suggest, be most useful.

I hope that as soon as the reports are ready that this special

committee could be established and get under way. I mention it now so

that the Honourable Members will know in selecting the committees they

wish to serve on that such a special committee will be established.

Now I'd like to deal briefly with the general subject of automobile

and highway safety, as the final subject today. There has been concern

expressed by myself in the past, as well as Hon. Members on all sides

of the House about auto insurance premiums and rates. It was for that

reason that one year ago, we appointed the British Columbia Automobile

Insurance Board.

At that time we were the second province in Canada — I think Nova

Scotia was the first, although they didn't set up a separate

organisation — we were the second to take a step in regulating

automobile insurance premiums by outside authority.

Alberta has recently appointed a similar board, and I understand

that in Ontario legislation is under consideration giving this general

power, rather than to a separate authority, to the superintendent of

insurance.

Under our legislation in this province, the board is charged with

many responsibilities. For example, they require insurers and rating

bureaus to file rates and premiums. The board has the authority to

investigate cases of discrimination in auto insurance rates. They can

prohibit any rates found to be discriminatory. An order of adjustment

can be brought into effect after due notice and a hearing, whenever the

board finds that automobile insurance rates are excessive or inadequate

or unfairly discriminatory or otherwise unreasonable.

Their authority is really very extensive. They can in fact

investigate all matters relating to automobile insurance. They have

just completed their first public hearing which was held recently in

Victoria to discuss lower premium rates and the result has already been

published.

The board has directed that the premium for the no-fault accident

benefit portion of the compulsory policy be reduced to $15, effective

March 1 of this year. Additionally, the board has commenced a study to

determine whether the no-fault premium should continue to be flat rated

— that is to say, the same for every insured throughout the province — or whether it should be varied according to some system of

classification which will reflect the no-fault use of the benefits.

Clearly, the present rating classifications, which are tied to the

traditional concept of negligence, are not altogether relevant as a

basis for assessing a no-fault premium, and the study will, in part, be

directed to finding a basis that is acceptable.

Again, remembering that British Columbia was the leader in blending

the no-fault benefits into a system that still makes a driver

responsible for his own actions, it is not surprising that such a study

is necessary — simply because no one else has done such a study to the

best of our knowledge.

Quite apart from the no-fault portion, the board will deal with the

general premium levels of the bodily injury, property damage and

collision cover. If rate increases are filed they have the full

authority and they have given certain warnings in this respect, as far

as insurance premiums are concerned.

During the year, the board has investigated 48 individual complaints, as well as enquiries about automobile insurance premiums.

[ Page 43 ]

Last fall, I announced formation of the automobile insurance

exchange, because whenever you have compulsory insurance, there is

always a tendency for some firms to try and take the cream of the crop

and have low premiums as a consequence.

No one wants to take the bad drivers, and of course, there must be

insurance provided as well for the bad drivers because it is compulsory

for all.

The question, of course, always arises as to what rates the bad

drivers should pay, but this is now determined through the facility,

which is the reinsurance pool for non-preferred risks. They have

established a scale of surcharges for such business based on accident

and conviction records.

Throughout 1971, the Automobile Insurance Exchange has referred

about 6,000 applications for non-preferred assignees to the facility.

Of course, the Automobile Insurance Board has the final authority in

respect of adjudicating on any of these rates as you will have read in

the way in which we establish these authorities.

But, Mr. Speaker, while great emphasis has been attached to the

expenses associated with providing and administrating automobile

insurance in British Columbia it is an indisputable fact that the one

area in which substantial reductions can be achieved is through

reduction in the cost of claims. The report of a committee of this

House in 1970 points out: Fundamentally, however, the public must

realise that the cost of automobile insurance merely reflects in

dollars the real problem of human suffering, and accidents that

careless and irresponsible drivers cause. There cannot be significant

changes in the rates until there are safer cars and safer drivers.

The annual report of the superintendent of insurance shows that in

1969 and 1970, an average 75.4 cents of every premium dollar was used

to pay for net losses. It is evident, therefore, that if we are to

reduce premiums materially without reducing the benefits available to

the motoring public we must attack the problem of traffic accidents and

resulting claims. I think this should be one of our major priorities,

and this is one of the major priorities of our department — the Motor

Vehicle Branch — and the board — the Automobile Insurance Board.

Accidents also directly affect premiums, and by concentrating our

efforts on why accidents happen we will assert some effectiveness, I

think, on future rates.

The Automobile Insurance Board also administers the motor vehicle

branch special fund provided in the legislation. They've given grants

for various projects.

The British Columbia Safety Council, the Vancouver Traffic and

Safety Council, the Capital Region Safety Council have also done a

great deal in respect of defensive driving which I want to speak about

briefly today. These are courses operated in conjunction with the Motor

Vehicle Branch and they've proven quite successful. They are available

now in all parts of the province.

Last year, 18,000 motorists took the course throughout British

Columbia. It is voluntary but perhaps one should qualify that in a

sense, because when you accumulate a certain number of points, the

superintendent of motor vehicles usually tells you: "Well, if you would

like to continue to keep your licence you have to take a defensive

driving course." That is a form of volition I suppose. But

approximately one-third are really voluntary, that aren't compelled to

take the courses at all.

As I say, these seem to be quite successful. The courses are

designed to assist the good driver in avoiding accidents when another

motorist is at fault. The key is preventability rather than

responsibility and that's the key of the whole programme.

To familiarise the Hon. Members of this House with the type of

course that is being conducted and perhaps to assist them in their own

driving habits I have made arrangements for a defensive driving course

to be held in the Motor Vehicle Branch building and urge each one of

you to take the course. It will take eight hours of your time — two

hours on each of four mornings. The course starts at 10:00 a.m. on

February 1 and will meet twice a week for two weeks. If enrolment is

sufficient, and I hope it will be, then another course will commence on

Monday, January 31.

I have a circular for distribution which describes the course, where

and when it will be held and you could indicate if you will whether you

would be interested in taking such a course.

Normally, if you go to your home community to take it, it will cost

you money. It's not going to cost you anything here. It will also, I

might say, not reflect to your detriment in your driving. Your licence

won't be suspended if you fail it. There are in fact no examinations in

that respect, but we can't fail as long as you attend. So, it's safe. I

think also I'd like to extend the same invitation to the members of the

Press gallery, not for any particular reason, but only so they might

also be more familiar with the programme. So will you send that up to

the Press gallery, please?

The Automobile Insurance Board is also investigating the possibility

of purchasing some simulators in conjunction with defensive driving

courses. Thus far, they haven't been used in defensive driving courses.

They are used in some other areas. And so that is under investigation.

I don't think we should conclude in any sense that defensive driving

is the final solution to the traffic accident problem. You can't be so

foolish as to suggest that eight hours of classroom lectures would

transform a million holders of drivers' licences into good drivers or

anything of that nature. But nevertheless, as a first attempt to

improve driving habits of the mature and experienced motorist, this

programme does offer some hope and encouragement for improvement.

There are other projects that I've referred to here that have been

in operation. For instance, the new curriculum for high school driver

training that's sponsored by the capital region safety council, etc.

Probably one of the most successful programmes, I think, last year

was the information campaign on seat-belt use and the hazards of

drinking and driving. This was aimed at the driving public over the

major holiday weekends and some research follow-up was done, which

indicated its effectiveness on the Labour Day weekend and showed that

public awareness of the programme and the desirability of using your

seat-belt, et cetera, was quite high with certain of the media.

The result was that a concentrated campaign was developed to

emphasize the hazards of drinking and driving, which are a major

problem over the Christmas and New Year holiday period. From all the

reports we received, this programme seemed to have had an impact on the

number of people found to be drinking and driving over the Christmas

and New Year weekends. In addition, the agency that developed the

television commercial that you saw won the top prize for these in

competition with all the United States and Canada, which I think is

quite significant as well.

On this question of impaired driving, this is one of the

[ Page 44 ]

most serious problems we have as far as traffic

accidents are concerned. For many years, the superintendent of

insurance has been dealing with people that have poor driving records.

For the past three years, he's taken the approach that where drivers

were convicted of impaired driving, they would automatically, without

any special review of their licence or their driving record, have a

suspension.

A case went to the courts and the courts decreed that the

superintendent did not have this authority and therefore this practice

had to cease.

This was last year that we ran into trouble on this. The result has

been that in the past nine months drivers have not faced the former

severe sanctions that they did heretofore. They received a more lenient

treatment.

AN HON. MEMBER: You can review them on their merits.

HON. MR. PETERSON: No, no, it's not quite that simple. To

review each case on its merits is not the answer, I suggest. The advice

that I have from the superintendent is that there has been more

leniency shown in the past nine months than there has heretofore and

the figures that he's provided me show a 20 per cent increase in

impaired driving convictions in 1971.

What we want to counteract in

part is the feeling that this is a

socially acceptable practice of drinking and driving, and there is

that. The feeling seems to grow and that's the purpose of the campaign.

That's why in my view it's necessary to deal firmly with the problem

and you're going to be asked to do so at this session.

You'll be asked through legislation to serve notice to every driver

that if they drink and drive and they are convicted of impaired

driving, they will lose their licence. Their licence will be suspended

for a period and there will be no exception to that rule.

No matter who you are, no matter how influential you are, no matter

how eloquent your lawyer is, you're going to have an automatic period

of suspension if this House approves the legislation in this respect,

and a higher period for those who are on second offence.

AN HON. MEMBER: How wide is this ban?

HON. MR. PETERSON: Complete, complete. Because everybody

makes a good plea — "Oh, I need my licence, I need my car in my work,

I'm a real estate salesman." This is awfully difficult for the police

to enforce, for one thing, as to whether a person is driving on

business or not and so you might as well face the fact now. You know,

right now, whether you need the car in your business so you know the

consequences of your action before you take the first drink. And that's

the policy that I'm going to ask this Legislature to endorse.

There are other amendments, Mr. Speaker. The Honourable Second

Member from Vancouver South (Mrs. Kripps) has directed public attention

to the fact that persons who hold out-of-province drivers' licences can

drive British Columbia licensed cars without the need for insurance

coverage.

These persons are availing themselves of concessions of the Motor

Vehicle Act which were placed there for the convenience of tourists.

It's become apparent that many new residents can somehow acquire a

driver's licence from another province and they use this loophole to

flout the compulsory insurance law in British Columbia. You'll be asked

to close this loophole, you'll be asked to close this gap. And we're

still trying to protect the position of tourists in this respect.

Hon. Members will also be asked to provide us with better means of

dealing with the person who presents to the enforcement agency a pink

card for an insurance policy that has ceased to exist. We need to

recognize that there will be dishonest persons who will continue to

present these cards as evidence of insurance. But I'm hopeful that they

will diminish in number when they learn that they may be brought into

court later to face charges for what we regard as a dishonest practice.

Now in most cases the drivers — and I've been talking thus far about

the drivers — are to blame for accidents. There are some, of course,

resulting from faulty automobiles. In this respect, I should tell Hon.

Members that the motor vehicle inspection services were expanded in

this past year. We opened a major station in Burnaby in 1971 — some of

the Honourable Members were there — and this serves the municipality of

Burnaby, the cities of New Westminster, Port Moody, Port Coquitlam and

the District of Coquitlam. With this station, along with other stations

operated now by the Motor Vehicle Branch — Hon. Members will recall we

now assume the operation of the Vancouver station, also those in

Richmond and in Victoria — we now provide motor vehicle inspections for

at least 60 per cent of the licensed motor vehicles in the province.

We have further expansions to the vehicle inspection programme in

the planning stage. We're getting a number of requests from the

municipalities, and it's been well received in the province.

But our immediate aim of course has been to place the stations where

the greatest number of vehicles can be serviced. But I hope before long

that the more heavily populated centres in the interior of the province

can also have this service made available to them.

In conclusion, the goal to which we are working is to make our

highways the safest in North America. Through these programmes, we

intend to increase awareness in the motorist of his responsibilities in

highway safety. It will require an attack of the problem on many

fronts. But the stakes are great, I suggest, because of the tremendous

loss of life. Hon. Members will find the figures, which I haven't

burdened them with today, recorded in my printed text. We must reduce

the loss of life, disablement through injury, as well as the mounting

property damage as a result of motor vehicle accidents on our highways.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Kootenay.

MR. L.T. NIMSICK (Kootenay): Mr. Speaker, Honourable Members,

I heard the Hon. Attorney General say he wasn't plugged in. I don't

know whether he's talking about plugged into God or not, but he might

have been.

It gives me a great deal of pleasure, once again, to get up and give

my contribution in reply to the Speech from the Throne. I've done it a

good many times. You know, I've done it more times than I will probably

in future, but it's because time catches up. Like I and the Premier

there — he won't give as many budget speeches in the future as he has

in the past.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Speaker, I guess that's how the

[ Page 45 ]

Honourable Member, the Minister of Municipal

Affairs (Hon. Mr. Campbell) feels about it when he's trying to get the

leadership. You figure the Premier is going to keep on going and he

doesn't like that idea.

AN HON. MEMBER: Watch your back.

MR. NIMSICK: Listening to the Honourable Attorney General,

some of his remarks were quite amusing and his excuses in regards to

the problem of glue-sniffing seem to me rather weak. He found many

other methods and took chances of crossing up the British North America Act in many other ways at times and without too much consideration. In this case, he didn't seem to find that.

Maybe he's more interested in covering up those statues up there

than the glue-sniffing proposition. Because I noticed that he went out

after the topless problem.

AN HON. MEMBER: Taking out waitresses.

MR. NIMSICK: You know, they told me the other day they saw

the Hon. Minister around the museum and down around Thunderbird Park

there and they figure that those carvings were going to be covered up.

AN HON. MEMBER: They hid all the paintings, too.

MR. NIMSICK: So, I'm not sure how it is coming. He spoke

about the majority of the people being out of step or that the majority

of the people supported this government but this is actually wrong. The

majority of the people did not support this government. They voted

against this government.

He also said that this is the fastest-growing part of Canada. We've

also got the fastest-growing unemployment and the fastest-growing

glue-sniffing areas in the province, in Canada.

And the same old cliches that he talked about the Opposition

bringing up, he brought up today because not less than a dozen times he

spoke about British Columbia being the best of all Canada and taking

the lead in all Canada and doing this in all Canada.

This we've heard this year after year, year after year the same old cliches.

AN HON. MEMBER: Using more of my stuff, is he?

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, you

need help, Bennett….

MR. NIMSICK: He admits defeat in regards to getting

people back to work, because he threw up his hands and he said: "What

can we do?"

HON. MR. PETERSON: I did not.

MR. NIMSICK: Well, to that effect, what can you do.…

AN HON. MEMBER: That's libel.

MR. NIMSICK: And you expect Ottawa to do the job.

AN HON. MEMBER: Let's have a daily Hansard .…

MR. NIMSICK: You know, when I am talking about our trip to

Olympia, I noticed in the paper this morning that they're going to

withdraw from Vietnam altogether. Maybe our trip down there did some

good after all. (Laughter.) That's all right. You criticise our trip

down there but somebody has got to take the lead and do the things that

the government should be doing. Somebody has got to take the lead. And

if you fail to do your job, then we have got to move into the vacuum

and show some leadership. Maybe you'll have to come after us. We

admitted this to the Washington government and we told them what the

government was up here. They didn't even know.…

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. NIMSICK: Yes, we apologised all over the place for your

inadequacies, of not recognising them in Washington. I know it hurts a

little bit now.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't come crawling to us.

MR. NIMSICK: That is exactly what you've got to do. You

should rationalise some of the dealings in Nelson, with the B.C. Hydro.

They tell me they're in a bad way, so you better look after your fences

there because it might not be so good.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where is Nelson?

AN HON. MEMBER: Your electrical fences.…

MR. NIMSICK: Now, in regards to impaired driving, I was very

interested in what the Honourable Minister said about impaired driving

and what he's going to do and how tough he's going to get.

I've got no brief for impaired driving but I sometimes wonder if

there shouldn't be some variation. I don't quite understand how you can

say that a person who has a 0.079 is not drunk and a 0.08 is drunk.

Once you reach 0.08 you get the total deal. I think there should be

some sort of an area in there. Now, the police have got the discretion

today to give you a 24-hour suspension. But, that discretion can go to

anybody whether he's real drunk or whether he isn't. It depends on the

police, and how he treats the party that he finds.

I say that there should be a grey area in there where the police

would have the discretion. I don't think a person that goes driving and

has got 0.25 percent of alcohol in his blood should be treated the same

as just one 0.08, for the simple reason that that person is really

drunk and he definitely went out on the road and was a real menace. But

to cut off the thing right at 0.08, I think is just a little bit severe.

There should be an area in there where the police would have this

discretion. For what it's worth, it's just my opinion, Mr. Attorney

General. Because I feel that sometimes some people are punished unduly

and other people are getting away and they were really bad.

Well, I know about roadside suspension — I mean, sure, a policeman

can come to you and doesn't have to give you the test, but you might be

drunk. But I say that the discretion should be for the purpose of

determining the area in which he could use that discretion. If a person

is really drunk, then I don't think that discretion should be allowed.

Now, I'd like to say that I was interested in, and congratulate the

mover and seconder of, the Speech from the Throne. They did a good job

with very little material. They admitted that there was very little

material in it.

[ Page 46 ]

The Speech from the Throne was very anemic and you know it. The

Honourable Member for Richmond (Mr. LeCours) said that he couldn't find

anything, he was going to leave it over to some other day, the Speech

from the Throne.

I understand it, because it's a rehash. The Speech from the Throne,

this year, was a rehash of other years. The government has reached a

stage where they haven't got the vision anymore that they should have

in the Province of British Columbia.

They've got to do something if they want to go ahead, but the Speech

from the Throne is nothing to go ahead with. It is a rehash of what

they did during the year and it didn't make very good listening, even

at that.

Unemployment and poverty, I think, are the two problems in this

province and in the country that should have top priority, top billing,

when it comes to what the government is supposed to do.

Governments are elected to look after the common good of the people.

And you haven't got the common good at heart if you don't try and bring

those people who are not receiving a decent standard of living up to

where they will have a decent standard of living.

The reference in the throne speech to making jobs was very weak, not

even as good as it was last year. And that was bad enough. The result

of that was very poor. From the remarks of the Hon. Member for Richmond

in regards to people living in poverty and the unemployed and the

reasons for it, we got quite a lesson. He blew up all sorts of bubbles

and then watched them burst.

He was telling us that the fault first was the federal government.

Then he said it was the system that we live under. But then he went on

to say we must perpetuate that system. Now, how do you perpetuate a

system that is creating all your problems?

The Hon. Member said that we must do everything to see that the

capitalist system goes on, and that's exactly what he said. I'll agree

with him that the economic system is basically down at the very roots

of our problems of unemployment and poverty. And as long as we don't

take a new approach, the best that any government can do that's

dedicated to the capitalist system is to try and patch it up, try and

make things a little better for the people in the lower stratas of

society.

The Hon. Member divided our society into two classes. You know,

we've been trying for years to get a way to think that there was no

class warfare in our country, but the Honourable Member for Richmond

brought it up quite vividly that there are two classes in our country

and that there is class warfare in our country. The one should be

allowed to have all the privileges and pleasures and good things in

life and the other class are not entitled to that kind of treatment.

The Hon. Member is critical of the worker when he organises for more

wages and he relates the top wages with the poverty level. But he

doesn't relate it with the coupon clippers and the elite.

He says that the fault of all our problems and our inflation and our

troubles with the poor people that are on fixed incomes not being able

to get a decent living, lies with the worker asking for more wages at

the top. He always brings this point in.

We must not forget that the worker is a part of the capitalist

system. The worker is in business and his business is to sell the only

product that he's got — and that is his labour power. That's the only

product that he has got.

And the worker has got overhead, too. He's got to see that he gets

enough food and he is entitled to the best, just like the coupon

clipper and the elite. He's got to have good clothing — himself, his

wife and children. And he's entitled, I'd say, to just as a good

clothes and just as good a living as the coupon clipper and the elite,

and the owning class.

He's got to have shelter and he's entitled to a comfortable home,

he's entitled to have a fridge, a TV, a coloured TV, good furniture.

He wants a summer home. He may want a second car so his wife can

drive. He may want a power boat to go out on the lake with. If he's up

in my country and probably down in Victoria, he may want a Ski-doo. He

may want a vacation to Europe or Hawaii. And why shouldn't he have it?

The news media tell him that he's entitled to it. They're

advertising every day. And if he can't afford it today, the loan

companies come out and give him a loan and put him in hock there.

So, when he adds up all these things that he needs and all these

things that he knows he should have, he's got to figure out how much

he's going to get for his labour power. And if he isn't getting enough,

he's got to sell that labour power for more and he's got to bargain for

higher wages or go out and get a second job.

With unemployment the way it is, it's not very easy to get a second

job: Then he has taxes, insurance to look after. In the business of

selling his labour, this is the only product he has got. He must get

sufficient to cover his costs.

There was a bargaining committee where one of the union

representatives came to the table and said: "Gee, I just got a notice

last night my taxes went away up." One of the representatives of the

company said: "Well, you don't expect the company to pay your taxes, do

you?" And the union rep said: "I don't know who else will pay it,

you're the only one I work for."

This is exactly the way you've got to look at this issue — that if

it's going to cost the working man so much to live decently, he's got

to get that increase. And if the cost of living is going to increase,

he's got to get an increase so that he doesn't slip back. Why should he

have to stop at $8,000 or $10,000?

Many people are amazed when a working man earns $14,000 or $15,000.

I'd like to ask the Hon. Cabinet Minister over there in the $40,000

bracket. Many people are in the high range. You pay a mediation

commission $40,000 a piece to look after their problems.

Don't you think that the man that counts most in the country is the

worker, a man that produces? He is a man that should have an equivalent

to anything that's going in the country. He should be able to take a

trip to Hawaii, just like some of the cabinet ministers this year. Just

like I did a year ago.

They should have that right, but there's a lot of people will not

give them that right and feel that they shouldn't have that right.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. NIMSICK: The organised workers, the only group in our

society compelled by law to negotiate for the price of his product must

adhere for that price for two and three years ahead. The businessman,

the professional, the coupon clippers, can increase their price at will.

Big governments like this one attempt to interfere even with this type of bargaining by setting guidelines. They set

[ Page 47 ]

guidelines for the teachers, they set guidelines

for the hospital workers, they set guidelines for different ones. They

don't take into consideration what they're making but they set

guidelines and say: "You can't go over that."

In my area, the government set the guidelines and interfered with

the bargaining process in regards to the school teachers. They would

have had that problem settled, all settled without any trouble, but the

minute that they found the guidelines put on by the government, up went

their backs and nobody would talk real negotiation from then on.

That's exactly what's happening many times and while you might think

you're doing the right thing by setting guidelines, you are interfering

and you know what it means to interfere.

Just like the Honourable the Attorney General said today. He was

very upset because we interfered with the powers of government by going

down to Olympia. Very upset. He said: "We're the government, not you,"

and that's exactly what the workers and the teachers and the people

say. That is their problem and not a problem of the government. They

have compulsory arbitration. How quickly the Minister of Labour can

step in when a strike is threatening that might involve a lot of

people. How quickly he can step in. But he couldn't step in on a simple

basic problem that concerned the Sandringham Hospital. He couldn't do

anything on that, could he?

AN HON. MEMBER: He didn't know the address.

MR. NIMSICK: I wrote to the Honourable Minister and I got a nice letter back from him. And this is what he said:

I wish to acknowledge and thank you for your letter of July 20

relative to the Sandringham Private Hospital strike. Let me assure you

that the government is doing a satisfactory solution to this problem.

In the initial outset of the dispute, a mediation officer was

appointed, and attempted to resolve the dispute but was unable to do

so. In an attempt to resolve the dispute, I have met with the union and

with management of the hospital, and at the moment this has not

resulted in a settlement. In the meantime, there has been a change in

management of this hospital, which further complicates the matter. This

department is ready and willing to assist in the resolving the dispute.

I wish to assure you that I am keeping a close watch over the situation

and I'm hopeful that some satisfactory solution can be found.

Now, the other day when the hospital workers threatened to strike in

the other hospitals, he quickly moved. But don't forget, in the

Sandringham Hospital they haven't even got the right to bargain. They

won't recognise them, or give them the right to bargain. And this is

something that he, as a minister, should grant. This is one of the

basic philosophies of organised labour, the right to bargain.

This is where he should have laid the law down. The hospitals should

have to recognise the right of the workers to bargain, the right to

negotiate. The right to negotiate, that's all they asked. He didn't

give them that right to negotiate.

To me, it's a weak argument when you consider a few people and do

nothing just because they only amount to a few voters in one place. But

to those people it's just as big in economical problems as if it was a

1,000 workers.

Those people who are in the picket line up there at the Sandringham,

walking back and forth, they're low-paid people. In most cases, they're

probably under the poverty level as it is and yet the minister is doing

nothing to see that they get their rights to get back and even

negotiate for a little better wage.

The Honourable Member for Richmond said that no one should be

earning less than $2. Many people today in our province are only

getting $1.50 an hour. Well, that's what I say. He said it shouldn't be

less than $2 an hour.

AN HON. MEMBER: Bring in a bill.…

MR. NIMSICK: And we're only paying a minimum wage of $1.50,

and this is below the poverty level in our country. All our waitresses

and I've even got people that are looking after senior citizens' homes

— managing them — on $300 a month.…

AN HON. MEMBER: A shame.

MR. NIMSICK: These people are beneath the poverty level. And

what is the Hon. Member doing about it? He's sitting on the side of the

night. What is he doing? What is he doing about it? Mr. Speaker, they

increased it to $1.75 at least.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, big deal!

MR. NIMSICK: Yes, big deal, we're still at a dollar and a half.

AN HON. MEMBER: Two-bit government.…

MR. NIMSICK: If those members want to do anything, get back

into that caucus meeting and fight to see that the Minimum Wage Act is

increased. When we bring a bill in — or bring a bill in yourself, we'll

support it.

Twenty-five percent of the people in the country are below the

poverty level and many are working. Many of these people are working.

Lip service, you give lip service to this. It's easy to get up in

the House, you know, on the government side and give lip service. I've

heard this for the last 20 years from many, many members on that side

about the poor old folks, about the people on low wages, about the

mothers with children and all the rest of it and yet the government

will sit on $100 million surplus this year and do nothing about it. Why

don't they get some action in seeing that something is done in this

regard?

These people that are below the poverty level, they don't get the

opportunities that you people get that have got cash, or myself.

AN HON. MEMBER: Crybaby.

MR. NIMSICK: They pay top prices, they get no cash price

advantage, they pay top interest, they don't get preferred rates. If

they need to borrow some money they've got to go to the loan company

and pay 15 or 20 per cent interest. They haven't got the opportunity of

the person that's got the money. You've got a double advantage when

you're in the high-paid bracket compared to the people that are in the

low-paid bracket.

With those receiving $2,000 or less, 60 per cent of their $2,000 is

drained off in taxes. Just imagine it, anybody earning $2,000 or less,

60% of that $2,000 is drained off in taxes.

If you earn $10,000, there's only 37 per cent of it drained off in taxes. Senior citizens get $135, a few maybe might get

[ Page 48 ]

up to $150 with a B.C. supplement in some cases.

Widows on compensation of $146 a month are below the proverty level.

It's cheaper for the company for a man to get killed than it is for him

to be totally disabled. Take a man and a wife. If the man is totally

disabled in an industrial accident then he'll get up to $400 dollars a

month. But if he gets killed the wife has got to reduce her standard to

$146.

And you proudly put in the paper last week that there was a 4 per cent increase for the widows.

While the cost of living has gone up 8 per cent you give them four.

Now, is that common sense? If you want to keep them in line with the

cost of living then you must give them at least the percentage that the

cost of living goes up.

And the government is not doing it, you're not doing it. The Hon.

Minister of Labour has got a responsibility in this regard. That widows

get $146 per month is not good enough. It is not good enough.

People who are handicapped and unable to look after themselves get up to $100 a month. Mothers with one child $135 a month.

Now, we talk about poverty. This is poverty and what are we doing

about it? What are we doing about it? How many Hon. Members will get up

over there and claim that this condition in an affluent country such as

ours is a shame? How many of them will go after the cabinet and see

that something's done? Because they can do it. They've got a $100

million surplus coming up and they sweat it out of these people.

This is how they got their $100 million surplus — by sweating it out

of these people that are not getting enough pension to live on. That's

how they got their $100 million surplus. They should be proud. They

should be proud of their government. They get up and talk about the

government with no debts and all the rest of it and $100 million

surplus. Then in the next breath they start to talk about the terrible

conditions of the poor people in an affluent society such as ours.

I get fed up, sick and tired of listening to people who especially

on that side of the House, who are in a position to get into the inner

sanctum. Many of them saying these things have been outside the cabinet

and when they got in the cabinet they grew very quiet.

The Honourable the Minister of Agriculture grew very quiet after he

got into the cabinet. The Honourable Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr.

Chabot) is quietening up considerably since he got into the cabinet.

MR. BARRETT: Silence is Golden.

MR. NIMSICK: Silence, silence. The Hon. Minister of Labour

got up and made a big splash last year in a very breathless speech

about transporting coal from Michel down through the United States.

They said if it was going to mean jobs they were in favour of it going

through an all-Canadian route.

Now, what have they done in the cabinet in regards to withdrawing

the support from the Burlington North? Have they done anything? Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to ask the Honourable the Minister if he has done

anything in his cabinet now that he is in there and can talk in the

inner sanctum. He hasn't done anything. And he knows he hasn't done

anything. He was talking for the benefit of his voters. That's what he

was talking for. Just as the Honourable Member for Richmond talked

about the poor people the other day. All this for the benefit of the

voters so the Press could pick it up and go out and tell the people

that so and so spoke clear and loud. That's what it is.

Responsibility of government is for the common good. Now, I say

this. If this government wants to do anything — and I know they're not

going down to the roots of the problem and make any real solutions — they should increase the allowance so that people unable to look after

themselves, mothers on pensions and senior citizens, will receive at

least $200 a month. Up the minimum wage immediately to $2 per hour.

Except the senior citizens receiving the supplement from paying

municipal taxes on their homes. Free bus fares for senior citizens

receiving the supplement. Free fishing licences to senior citizens.

Free passage on the Vancouver-Victoria ferries for senior citizens.

This is something that could be done immediately. And you might use

a few million dollars of that surplus but don't forget you should feel

ashamed that you can come up here with a budget and have a surplus at

the expense of these poor people. That's what the government should be

ashamed of.

It's easy to sit in the seats where they can get anywhere up to $40,000 a year. Anywhere up to $40,000 a year.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. NIMSICK: I know it irks the Hon. Member a little bit,

because he's one of them that can go to Hawaii every year. But these

people can't go. They can't go to Hawaii. And it's easy to say that

they should be getting it, like the Honourable Member for Richmond. But

when it comes back in their own little group I guess they figure that

the pie is just cut right so that they get the big pieces and the poor

people will get the small ones.

The Honourable Member for Richmond said there's only so much in a poker game, no matter how you divide it.

MR. BARRETT: Well, they've got all the cards.

MR. NIMSICK: Well, this is correct. There's only so much and

if you're going to give the big slice of the pie to a small

section of

the people the rest of them have got to take the little bit that's left.

AN HON. MEMBER: They get the House rake-off too.

MR. NIMSICK: Unemployment was referred to in the Speech from

the Throne. I rather smiled at the Honourable the Attorney General and

the Premier when they were suggesting that our expansion is going to

take care of the unemployment problem in the country. Our expansion is

going to take care of it. Do they realise that our gross national

product is increasing by leaps and bounds? And our unemployment is

increasing at the same time? At the same time our unemployment is

increasing. The reason is of course that automation has crept into a

lot of this. And we're producing so fast that the people are being

unemployed.

The Honourable Minister has got a good example in the mining

industry. In 1951 it took 8,000 men to produce $193 million of values.

In 1969, 4,000. One half the number of men produced $394 million of

values. Twice the amount, twice the amount with half the men.

Now, how do you figure out that by expanding the mining industry

you're going to catch up on employment? You just can't do it. You've

got a lot of other ways that you've got to do it.

[ Page 49 ]

The federal government in their desperate attempt to solve

unemployment are running around giving donations of millions of dollars

of welfare to industry, to expand the plants, to build new plants.

In some cases the new plants they build put other plants out of

business. No idea of where they're going or what the plan is going to

be. No equity for the people of Canada.

People don't criticise that kind of welfare. They don't criticise

when we give an incentive to big industry and say it's welfare. But if

some poor person gets a few dollars extra on welfare he's a dead beat.

Why shouldn't industry be treated the same way then? If they're

going to get this, let's get it on a means test or let's get an equity

for the people of Canada.

Why should this government go out and pay half the wages for anybody

that's taken off welfare? Why should industry get the welfare? That's a

contribution from the welfare department to industry in this province,

when you say to industry that we'll pay half the wages. What an

admission of the weakness of the system that you're operating under.

If we're going to give money in regards to the wages of these people

and pay half their wages, let's do it on socially necessary things in

the public sphere. Help out the municipalities. Fine — but for

goodness' sake I don't think transferring welfare from one individual

to industry or to the business people is solving the problem at all.

And it's proven that it fell down flat. Because you've got thousands of

very qualified men on the unemployed list that can't get jobs anyway.

So you're not solving your problem by this method at all.

The advertising. This is another thing about this job opportunity

programme that the Hon. Minister brought out. "Are you on social

assistance?" Now, paying hundreds, and hundreds, and hundreds, of

dollars — thousands of dollars — to ask people: "Are you on social

assistance?" Who are they asking? Don't you think that the people who

are on social assistance know whether they're on or not?

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't you know whether they're on or not?

MR. NIMSICK: Don't you know? Don't you send your people

around every so often checking up on them? Why did you have to

advertise this job opportunity programme and spend half a million

dollars advertising? I'm sure that the reason that the government put

this big advertising on was to appease newspapers. Because they took

away their liquor advertising. This is the reason that they're doing

it.…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. NIMSICK: And so is the liquor advertising a flop. I've got a magazine in my office there that had a big liquor ad in it.

MR. BARRETT: With Frank Ney's picture in it.

MR. NIMSICK: And a big liquor ad in it. And what do you mean,

that was just a foolish move as far as I'm concerned? It didn't do any

good except injure some of the people in the Province of British

Columbia. But to spend money on advertising when you've got all the

records — when you could have sent each recipient of social assistance

a copy of the job opportunity programme! You didn't need to advertise

it, to that effect.

MR. BARRETT: Frank Ney is pushing booze and Reader's Digest.

MR. NIMSICK: And in addition to that, what are you doing? You

are trying to destroy jobs. You're fighting on behalf of the Kootenay

Elk Railway, so Burlington North can haul our coal from the Crowsnest

down through the United States, and we can give the jobs to the United

States.

Just think of how many jobs it means. Every 100 car train that

leaves Michel or Sparwood by the time it returns has involved 72 wage

earners, not counting all the other things that are related to it.

Seventy-two actually that are operating the train — as they go along

all the way to the coast.

Now, how much would you have to pay out in paying half the wages to

solve unemployment if you're going to throw 72 men out of work every

100 car train by allowing the coal to be shipped down through the

United States?

The Honourable Minister of Labour said something about this and I

quote: "I strongly supported the all-Canadian route for the movement of

export of coal as in my opinion this would be most beneficial to

British Columbia". That's what he said in the House, for public

consumption. I wonder what he's done in the cabinet?

We've got another problem up in our area where we could get more

jobs. There's a consortium of companies across the line in Montana that

are going together and are going to build a thermal plant right on the

American side of the line — so that all the pollution will go up into

Canada because that's the way the prevailing wind goes. They use this

as a lever to get this Kootenay Elk Railway built. And if they've got

to transport the coal from the Crowsnest down to this thermal plant on

the line, once they get if of course they figure that this argument is

going to convince the supreme court to allow the railway to be built.

But I say if there's going to be any thermal plant let's put it up

at the source of the coal. Let's see that the pollution is controlled.

You've got no control when it's built across the line. So let's build it in Canada. Let's give jobs to Canadians.

I've got a letter here that says coal shipped down to Eureka will

bring $3.50 a ton. But when you turn it into electricity it's worth $27

a ton, and this will give more men work. This is what I say should be

done if you are going to try and create employment.

Other points the government should be considering is giving a person

the right to take his pension at an earlier age to make way for the

young people. Ten per cent of our unemployed are under 25. And this is

the time that you can either destroy or make a person.

AN HON. MEMBER: Fifty per cent of the unemployed are under 25.

MR. NIMSICK: Total — but I'm talking about the actual

unemployed — 10 per cent are under 25. This is the time when you can

make them or you can break them. If you've got them walking around

without a job month after month it doesn't take long until they get

frustrated and there's no way out of it. So I say let's give the

opportunity to people to take their pension at an earlier age. And the

government could start this right in the civil service, and in the

cabinet too. They can start this.

MR. BARRETT: Some are overdue.

MR. NIMSICK: Increase their annual holidays.

[ Page 50 ]

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. NIMSICK: Yes, I'll say that too. If the Premier quits, I'll quit too.

We should increase the annual holidays. We should develop projects

in the department of recreation, highways, forestry and assist the

municipalities. We should develop a secondary industry. We should

process our minerals in B.C.

I'd like to quote something here — a joint venture. This is how we send our jobs out.

Joint venture in ore smelting. A joint venture between

Canadians and Japanese is paying dividends to both. The venture — smelting lead ore in Japan — ensures the market for Canadian lead and

stable raw supplies for the Japanese companies.

The companies involved are Canadian Pacific

Investments Limited, its Pine Point Mine and its Cominco Limited Plant

in B.C., and Mitsubishi, which ranks with Mitsui as the largest of

Japan's integrated trading companies. They jointly own the smelting

operation on an island near Yokohama in western Japan.

Now, I think that lead concentrate should be smelted in British

Columbia. We've got the smelter in Trail, let's see that its's done

there, and not shipped out.

I know probably we have no power over Pine Point ore, but we have

power over the ore once it comes into British Columbia. And this is

what we should be doing. And if we did these things we would gradually

get rid of some of the unemployment.

Mr. Speaker, I notice too the throne speech made reference to

expropriation. And the Honourable Attorney General made reference to it

today.

You know, we've been promised this for 10 years. And it's difficult

to believe that there is any real substance in the promise. If the

government is serious about this I can only say it is long overdue. We

had a Royal commission on this about 10 years ago and it's still

gathering dust. It is high time that we made laws which will never

again allow the situation to develop that has happened in the East

Kootenays.

The war of attrition that has been carried on in Natal and Libby

pondage area is a shameful reflection on the actions of this

government. The settlements still to be made in the pondage area bear

the deadlines so we know that the battle will end soon in this area.

But the Natal issue is one where a number of elderly people have

been kept in suspense. In December expropriation notices were given to

these people that are left in Natal, because they did not wish to give

up what amounts to their life savings, their homes, for peanuts.

The prices offered to these people is much less than half what they

would be worth if they were situated in the relocated area of Sparwood.

To think they'd offer $7,000 for a home that's worth at least $16,000

to $18,000.

I sent a letter last summer to the Premier of this province. No, he

didn't answer it. I didn't rank in the same position as Governor Evans.

And I take it that none of the M.L.A.'s ranks in the same position in

his mind. Because they'd get short shift when it comes to letters from

the Premier. I said:

Dear Mr. Premier:

I am writing this letter as an appeal to your

good offices to correct the following injustices that I consider have

been created and sustained by your government.

The first one deals with the relocation of Natal-Michel.

You will remember your 1964 statement that your government desired relocating

the residence of Natal-Michel without any cost to themselves. For the purpose

of beautifying the eastern entrance to the province. This sounded very good

to the people who had struggled over the years to keep their houses neat, and

clean in an area smothered in pollution and dust. As a result they voted overwhelmingly

in favour of the relocations.

Following this, your government passed the

responsibility of proceeding with relocations to the regional district

of the East Kootenay. The cost of relocation was to be born by federal,

provincial and local governments. The amount considered necessary was

allocated and the regional district was to administer it.

Properties were appraised and while some accepted, a

number did not feel they were getting a fair deal. After visiting some

of the homes I heartily agreed.

For example, I was in two of the homes. One had three

bedrooms, living room, dining room, kitchen, bath and full basement.

The lot landscaped and cultivated for a garden, enclosed by a fence you

could not replace for $500.

Appraised value of this property was $7,000 including

the house. If you saw it I'm sure you would agree that it could not be

replaced for $16,000.

Another was a two-bedroom house with full basement on

its own lot. The value placed on it was $5,000. If you or I owned these

homes under present conditions we would be highly insulted by such

prices. To relocate to Sparwood an unlandscaped lot cost $2,000 or

more. At today's prices for building what sort of a house could you

build with the balance?

These are only two of many people who feel unjustly

treated. The lives of these hard-working people are enshrined in their

homes, while moving to a new location may be upsetting to them. They

should at least be able to continue without having to start all over

again, loaded down with a mortgage not of their making.

There have been threats of expropriation, and they

welcome their day in court. But it does not materialise. It seems that

you are carrying on a war of attrition with these people in hopes that

you can wear them down to the point where they will throw up their

hands in despair and accept any offer.

Mr. Premier, you are keeping them dangling on the end

of a string. I think it is cruel treatment. It is not too late to

correct this injustice and prevent lingering distastes in the mind of

these people. I appeal to you to act.

I didn't hear back from that but they did issue the expropriation

notices in December. They're going to go to expropriation and probably

spend $100,000 in legal fees to try and force these people to accept

less than half of what they should be getting. Is that justice?

MR. DOWDING: Social Credit justice.

MR. NIMSICK: One member of the regional board which had been

given the responsibility of relocating these people asked, why they did

not offer to buy the properties rather than to steal them? One member

of the board said this. Why didn't the regional board offer to buy the

properties rather than try to steal them? This is the thinking of one

of the members of the board.

I know many of you think that this isn't so. Many of you probably

think that this isn't so. But I'll make a challenge. I challenge this

House to send a committee of three people to Natal to check on these

houses, and form their own opinions

[ Page 51 ]

as to the value of those houses.

And I throw this challenge out today to the Premier, and to the

Minister of Municipal Affairs. Send a committee down to Natal. Let's

pick a committee from that side because it doesn't take anybody with

very much brains to figure out that with those houses what they're

offered is less than half of what they're worth.

Interjection by Hon. Members.

MR. NIMSICK: What? I didn't say ordinary laymen I said a

committee from that side of the House. That's what I said, I said, I

challenge them to send a committee and I said, it won't take very much

brains.

Anyway, that's a challenge, Mr. Speaker, to the government of the

province that they send a committee into Natal to form their own

opinion as to whether these people are getting justice.

We need justice in that area. And another thing that the government should do in the area is initiate a public housing scheme.

The relocation was instituted by the government. The local people

don't feel that they're qualified or ready, or had the time to go into

the public housing field. Let the government go in and make provisions

for these people so they have some place to move to, and use the money

that they're going to use for arbitration purposes. If we use the money

that it's going to cost the government and give it to the people,

they'd be able to make a settlement.

Now, we come to another problem, and I want to take a few minutes on

Mr. Speaker, and that is the problem of land use in the East Kootenays.

Land use in the East Kootenay has been kicked around for a good many

years. And promises on top of promises have been made by this

Government and yet nothing has been done.

The wildlife of the East Kootenay is a very important resource in

the East Kootenay. In a question that I put on the order paper last

year the government said $48 million was the capitalised value of the

wildlife in the East Kootenay, $2.9 million per year from wildlife

resources.

Today we find a dwindling resource, because this government has

fuddle-duddled along over the years doing nothing. That's exactly what

they've done over the years. Nothing. And the resource is dwindling. It

should be managed properly. The Honourable Minister of Labour made a

statement last year, in regards to this question.

He said: "I suggested that the Wildlife branch through its

biologists undertake a complete survey of the areas. Which they feel

are necessary to maintain our big game herds."

I realise that government has taken limited steps to protect sheep

after a serious epidemic develops, but I don't think we should wait

until such time as we are confronted with a serious problem before

acting.

I'd like to ask the Honourable Minister of Labour before he got into

the cabinet. I suppose he hasn't said anything, because there have been

no results.

MR. BARRETT: Silence and Golden.

MR. NIMSICK: We must recognise and place in some priority

this resource that can be continued into perpetuity. A renewable

resource, compared to the one-shot resources that we are dealing with

in that area — like minerals and coal, they'll come, and they'll go.

But we can keep the resource of wildlife going on.

I'd like to quote a warning that was given to the people of British

Columbia, back in 1915: "Nineteen Fifteen Game Scare. East Kootenay a

few years ago before 1915 was one of the best game countries in B.C. In

fact the Kootenays were synonymous with big game. But now through

indiscriminate slaughter game is scarce except in almost inaccessible

places."

Then there's another. The second

article was written in 1950. It was

published in the official transaction of the third British Columbia

Natural & Resources Conference held in Victoria. It is a text of a

speech by Dr. Clement then head of the U.B.C. Zoology Department. Here

are excerpts.

Grazing animals which spend the summer in the

mountains must find adequate winter food in the right type of habitat

or perish. Further investigations in the land-use survey of the Rocky

Mountain trench are urgently needed. It is desirable to conserve at

least limited areas of habitat ideals for various species of both game

and non-game animals, to provide the opportunities for observing,

studying and enjoying them under undisturbed conditions.

In 1963 the Libby project briefs were presented to this government.

We must not forget that we have taken 18,000 acres of land away…that

was winter grange land for the wildlife. When Libby is fully

flooded 18,000 acres of the best land will disappear. Now these

animals are not going to be able to find the feed that they found on

the bottom land. And we've done nothing about it.

In 1966, they sent the Selkirk Brief in, asking that something be

done in regards to the land use for our wildlife. And what did they do?

The minister at that time came up to Cranbrook and had a meeting with

the sportsmen of the area, and they set up a committee at that time.

The committee asked for more personnel. We didn't get that.

Down in Oregon they'll have seven biologists for 30,000 square

miles, while we'll have one. They'll have 66 conservation officers

while we'll have a very, very few.

This is the most important big game area in the province. And it

seems to me that this government doesn't put too much value on this

problem. Now they've put out another brief to the government, asking

them to do something because they're getting desperate.

I'll just read you the paragraph at the head of the brief — this was sent to the Premier of the province.

That our frustrations stem from the failure of members

of your cabinet to fulfill promises, to halt the misuse of Kootenay

land and waters, and to preserve our once magnificent wildlife

resource. We feel there is a great urgency to protect this natural

resource now, or it will soon be gone. Once gone it cannot be restored.

Then we had the Minister of Forestry, Lands and Forest come up. And

this is what he said — to the people, the owners and the farmers — and

this is trying to create dissension among the people there, because the

farmers and the wildlife representatives are quite close together they

even had a joint brief brought in here called the grass roots brief to

the government.

He said and I quote: "On a personal level I'm on your side"…he

said this to the farmers…"but there has been tremendous pressure

from the wildlife people". Who are the wildlife people the Minister

referred to?

Is it the fish and wildlife branch of the Department

of Recreation and Conservation? Is it the Rod and Gun Club or

conservation organisations? Who are the bad guys? Are they for another?

Are they people who believe that

[ Page 52 ]

an annual renewable resource is worth saving and could

be worth as much in the long run than a once-in-a-lifetime shot at

resource exploitation? Or are they those who believe that through

research and planning it is possible to have the best of two worlds?

Who are these people that the Minister of Lands and Forests said wouldn't let him do these things?

Here is another one, an excuse by the Honourable the Minister of Recreation and Conservation, and I quote here:

In 1967 the Minister of Recreation and Conservation at a public meeting in

Cranbrook stated that a land use committee was being set up by the government

and that the Department of Lands and Forests would be appointing representatives

on this committee.

Two years later after many enquiries regarding this

committee the Minister of Recreation and Conservation stated at the

B.C. Wildlife Federation convention in New Westminster that his

colleagues would not go along with this idea.

We must assume by this that in 1969 the Minister of

Lands and Forests and other cabinet ministers opposed a land use

committee to study land use in the Kootenays.

And this is the runaround the people of the East Kootenay have had.

The vegetation is eaten up, and if you're going to save these wild

animals you're going to have to feed them, pay the farmers to grow hay

or something, like they do down in Montana. They do this in Montana,

because they too in some cases have used up all the bottom land.

There's no place for the animals to go. They've got to live, these

animals have got to live. They'll die of starvation if they don't get

fed.

Now what are we going to do in this regard? Is the Hon. Minister

going to do like he did with the sheep some years ago when I fought

against him selling land on the Big Horn sheep range? Then about 10

years later, after he had lost a lot of sheep he bought the land back

at an exorbitant price. That's what he did. And that's good foresight.

If he had taken my advice then he would have been better off. But he didn't do it.

In "Progress Grass Roots", the Honourable Minister of Rehabilitation

even went to the defence, and stated he was wanting better management

for the wildlife. But I don't see it forthcoming from the cabinet.

Down in the State of Washington, of course, they have got dedicated

funds for wildlife and nobody can touch those funds. But up here, the

government even takes away from the sportsmen part of their fees to

assist them to make their surpluses of $100 million that are coming up

this session. They are letting the wildlife go down the drain, they are

destroying one resource, and the rest of the resources they are giving

away.

I say, Mr. Speaker, that this is not the way to govern a province as rich and as bountiful as British Columbia.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Second Member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. E. WOLFE (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, and fellow

members, it is a pleasure once again to take my place in the throne

speech debate and in somewhat of a contrast, I find the throne speech

packed full of goodies. I just don't know where to start.

You know, job-creating legislation, family relations, suggestion of

a new securities law — about the only thing that isn't in there is

something about fixing up the weather and maybe we will come to that.

Actually I am amazed at the attitude of the Opposition. Absolutely

amazed.

I guess it's a case, Mr. Speaker, of "the beauty is in the eye of

the beholder", I see a sort of beauty in the throne speech and that's

the important thing about our enthusiastic attitude on this side of the

House.

Mr. Speaker, I don't think it can be said often enough that we do

appreciate our new offices and that we do appreciate those who are

responsible for these. I find that they are extremely nice. Once again,

when this government decides they are going to do a job on something in

the way of buildings, or facilities, it's my opinion that they do a

very good job. Needless to say Hon. Members can do a more effective job

with these kind of facilities. As a matter of fact I am going to miss

writing letters on the windowsill.

I haven't heard anyone before this mention the sort of the unsung

heroes of these buildings and that is the maintenance people. I have

had people bring to my attention that these buildings are kept in first

rate condition by the people who keep our floors and windows and

facilities clean, and I am referring to the one that is principally

responsible and that is Mr. Bill Harris who is chief of our maintenance

crew for these buildings. So I think they are owed a lot of gratitude.

Now in case you want to jot these down, these are the subjects I propose to deal with today — very briefly in each case.

The subjects of sniffing, heart surgery, transportation,

detoxication centre, regional economic expansion and another item that

I will keep secret until the last. So any of you are not interested in

those subjects may feel free to leave.

This matter of sniffing: not to elaborate on what has been said

before, it seems to me it does indicate a basic social problem caused

by lack of parental supervision and the policy of housing families in

large-scale housing projects in certain areas.

I think that we can thank the Mothers who brought this to the

attention of the public. I would like to name two of them — probably I

would be passing up many others who are involved in this but Mrs. B.

DeLorni and Mrs. Rainer have been very active in focusing public

attention on the problems in one particular area.

Many suggestions have been made and not too many are practical, Mr.

Speaker. I would like to put forward a couple of suggestions. First of

all that the city council in Vancouver should pass a resolution making

it an offence against the licensing bylaw, if these products are to be

sold as a kit to kids under the age of 16 years. I understand such a

resolution would be before Vancouver council today and I would be

interested to hear what action has been taken.

As an alternative to this, as mentioned earlier by the Attorney

General, if this particular action is thought to be beyond the power of

the city, they could simply indicate by a resolution that they

disapprove of the sale of these kits following which if a complaint

arises, a merchant must show cause why his licence should not be

suspended. One of these two courses by the city could have a material

effect on the sale of these kits.

Also, Mr. Speaker, I do think that the federal government should

take some action under the new Hazardous Products Act or through the

excise tax department at the manufacturers' level.

From my own experience in dealing with bay rum — that's right, I've

brought it right into the House here Mr. Speaker — 1 know that it is

possible to place a quota on the

[ Page 53 ]

distribution of these products where it is obvious that excessive

volume is being sold which would indicate it was being used for

purposes other than as cosmetic.

I made such a recommendation to the federal authorities in

connection with bay rum over two years, at which time a company called

Bromley Wholesale Drugs, were selling as much as 800 gallons in 5

gallon drums in Vancouver per month. This suggestion was ignored

because it appears that the opinion of many is that bay rum is the

lesser of several evils and doing us no particular harm.

So getting back to the nail polish remover and products used for

sniffing, I understand that the sale of these kits has almost stopped

primarily thanks to the action being taken by these concerned mothers

and I say they deserve a lot of credit.

Now, Mr. Speaker, one of the more significant improvements in our

province in the last 10 years has been the rapid development in the art

of open heart surgery. Chest surgery is now an everyday occurrence in

Vancouver, and the result has been that many patients with chronic

heart and arterial problems are now able to extend their life span

significantly and live like normal human beings again.

Naturally, these operations are very complex and can only be done by

a team of special surgeons who are well trained in the procedures and

accustomed to working together as a cooperative unit. At the moment,

members of the team practising at the Vancouver General Hospital under

the direction of Dr. Peter Allen, are operating with a high degree of

success. They deserve much credit for their dedication to this job.

A year ago I became aware there was a long waiting list of patients

for heart surgery at the Vancouver General Hospital and I arranged to

visit the operating room facilities with the Minister of Health

together with Dr. Peter Allen. Subsequently I also attended meetings

with the Hon. Minister in Victoria to discuss the problem.

I have been involved in several discussions with members of the

heart team and other doctors who supposedly are knowledgeable in the

matter of hospital privileges.

I can only say as a layman that it has been a frustrating experience

for me to be in the middle between, more or less, two hardened

positions — the position of the doctors and that of the Hon. Minister — and to see to much delay as a result of this dispute.

In a way I sympathise with the position of the Minister in the

problem which he has, more or less, or who gets to use expensive

facilities paid for by the people of this province. At the time of our

visit in December, 1970, it was reported to me there were about 125

people on the waiting list. Five years ago the government had equipped

the complete operating amphitheatre for heart surgery at a cost of

about $250,000.

However, there was a real shortage of post-operative intensive care

beds which were needed in the vicinity of the operating room. The

provincial government Willow Chest Pavilion, immediately next door to

the heart unit, had some empty beds ideally situated for this purpose

and the heart team was anxious to have these turned over for its use.

These beds can be adapted to post-operative intensive care at little

cost. Turning these beds over to the heart team would enable more heart

operations to be performed and would result in substantial headway

being made in the backlog of patients.

Now Mr. Speaker, at that time, in December, 1970, the Hon. Minister

indicated to me that the entire north-south corridor of the Willow

Chest Pavilion of 21 beds could not be allocated but that one ward,

consisting of two or three beds, might be available and he asked for

information regarding the necessary alternations.

The Minister also obtained a report from the medical advisory

committee of the B.C. Hospital Insurance Service, outlining future

requirements for heart surgery in this area. This report listed

necessary improvements at Vancouver General and St. Paul's Hospital in

Vancouver; the Royal Columbian in New Westminster and Royal Jubilee

Hospital in Victoria.

In the meantime, the matter of deciding which doctors are privileged

to use these facilities has become an issue. Dr. George Stefanik, now

practising in New Westminster, has been anxious to use the facilities

at the Vancouver General. He is trained in open heart surgery but the

heart team at the General does not find him acceptable. The heart

surgeons don't want him on their team. Because of this Dr. Stefanik has

lobbied extensively with the Hon. Minister and other M.L.A.'s.

In other words, the matter of outside doctors having privileges at

the Vancouver General became a real issue in this case and I am afraid

as a result, the necessary renovations in the facilities at the Willow

Chest Pavilion have been delayed.

Just the other day, at the same time as Mr. McKinnon was being sent

to Montreal for heart surgery there, the Hon. Minister announced he was

approving an expenditure for renovations at the Willow Chest Pavilion.

I would like to add that I am encouraged by the Hon. Minister's

announcement that renovations at the Vancouver General would proceed.

Plans are now at the engineering stage and construction work is

expected to be completed some time in June. This will improve both the

operating room facilities and the post-operative bed situation to the

extent that the number of heart operations will be increased from about

eight per week to 13 Mr. Speaker. By this time next year, there should

be a substantial reduction in the waiting list.

Having said that, I would also like to suggest, if I may, to the

heart specialists, that they could enjoy a much more harmonious

relationship with the Minister of Health if they pursued a more

flexible course in permitting other surgeons the use of their hospital

facilities. In my view, they have been dogmatic and most uncompromising

in their attitude.

The Hon. Minister has announced the formation of a new advisory

committee which will have some say in deciding which doctors are

privileged to use the heart facilities and in determining which

patients have priority on the waiting list for surgery. It seems to me

this committee could serve a most useful purpose in establishing the

guidelines. But if it is to go further than that and make what could be

life and death decisions, is is essential that heart surgeons be well

represented in its membership. For, after all, the heart specialist is

certainly the best judge of which cases on the waiting list are the

most acute and should be dealt with on a priority basis.

Mr. Speaker, still on the subject of hospital patients, it is hard

to believe that in most municipal elections in this province, hospital

patients are not given an opportunity to cast a ballot. When one

considers the thousands of people in hospital beds who lose their right

to vote, through no particular fault of their own, this should be a

matter of real concern. By comparison, our provincial government does a

much better job in giving hospital patients an opportunity to vote.

During provincial elections, a poll is set up in each

[ Page 54 ]

hospital and the poll goes to the beds.

The federal government is also taking some steps regarding hospital

voting in their elections and have now introduced a proxy vote for

patients.

The City of Vancouver is now requesting an amendment to its charter

to provide for a mail ballot for hospital patients during civic

elections. Here it is proposed that only if a patient asks, he will be

given a ballot to mail back. I just don't think this is quite good

enough.

It seems to me that this mail ballot does not go far enough in

attempting to get a representative vote from eligible hospital

patients. The municipalities should follow the provincial example and

set up a poll in each hospital, which would be taken around to the

beds. As far as I can see, from enquiries that I have made, the only

reason this is not done is that it would be too much trouble.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that the Honourable Minister of Municipal

Affairs (Hon. Mr. Campbell) will see fit to take some action upon this

and perhaps he should consider some amendment to the Municipal Act

which would make a hospital poll mandatory in civic elections.

On the subject of transportation and particularly as it applies to

rapid transit and the proposed First Narrows crossing, the Greater

Vancouver Regional District recently took what I think is a most

significant step. They have now agreed in principle to assume

responsibility for the transportation function and they are now

negotiating with the provincial government on the question of cost

sharing and the constitution of the proposed regional transportation

authority.

Mr. Speaker, by now you will be all too well aware of the fact that

I have been stressing the need for a regional approach to

transportation and the need for a regional transportation authority to

be established.

In fact, two years ago I introduced a private bill to establish a

greater Vancouver Regional Transportation Authority. So, naturally, I

am more than happy to see the regional district take these steps.

A part of their intention is to take over the existing B.C. Hydro

bus system for $1 and to share in any increases in the annual deficits

attributed to the Hydro transit system. As you know, Mr. Speaker, this

proposal was put forward last February by our cabinet ministers who sit

on the board of the B.C. Hydro.

The Greater Vancouver Regional District Transportation Committee

recommended immediate and extensive improvements to the regional bus

system, including a network of express lines as a logical first step to

be followed by the introduction of a mini rapid transit system.

Mr. Kelly, chairman of the Regional District Transportation

Committee, is of the opinion that we are not yet ready for a proper

rail rapid transit system. This part of the transportation committee's

report really concerns me and is in disagreement with the findings of

the Deleuw Cather study as to the feasibility of rail rapid transit for

this area.

I can see the establishment of a proper rapid transit system being

delayed 20 to 30 years if we don't include it in the transportation

plans of the regional district now.

Mr. Speaker, the Deleuw Cather study of September, 1970, which was

commissioned jointly by the regional district and the provincial

government, came up with the following significant recommendations:

First of all that there is a role for rapid transit in the Vancouver area in the next 20 years.

Secondly, that the population of the Vancouver area will be two million by the year 2000.

Thirdly, that we should build a two-stage network involving 24 miles

of track, and costing about $300 million. And last, that this would be

only part of a balanced transportation system to function under a

single agency or authority.

The report further states:

Based on passenger estimates, a route in the Kingsway

corridor of Vancouver would be a viable rapid transit project now. If

an early decision is received to proceed with rapid transit, this line

could be in operation by 1978. Other lines could be placed in operation

one by one to complete the 20 year network by 1990. For rapid transit

to be fully effective in the longer term, construction should start at

an early date and be well under way by 1990. This would polarise

development into the rapid transit corridors and build up a pattern of

travel by this mode.

Now that's the end of the quotation of this report.

I want to say that I admire the work being done by the

transportation committee of the regional district. And I agree with the

need for improved bus service in surrounding municipalities — but I

think we're wrong to set aside the plans for a proper rail rapid

transit system merely because we may feel that we can't afford it and,

in particular, because we are afraid that the federal government has no

plans to participate or assist in the urban transportation scene.

As far as the provincial government is concerned we have certainly

shown our willingness to support rapid transit in Vancouver. Our

government has made a commitment to pay 37 1/2 per cent of the $300

million cost on condition that the federal government put up a similar

amount.

The replies to this offer from the federal government haven't

exactly been deafening. Furthermore, I understand that the federal

minister of Transport, Mr. Jamieson, refuses to discuss this matter

with the regional district. He will only discuss this directly with the

provincial government.

I understand Mr. Kelly, chairman of the region's transportation

committee, has made attempts to negotiate with the federal government

for assistance on local transit and has discovered that the federal

Minister of Transport won't discuss local participation with regional

district — he will only discuss this at the level of the provincial

government.

Mr. Speaker, just to remove any road blocks — and since the

provincial government offer has only been announced through the Press — I believe it would be worthwhile for a direct meeting with our Minister

of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Campbell) and the federal Minister of

Transport Mr. Jamieson, with the purpose of discussing a formula for

financing urban transportation with particular emphasis on rapid

transit.

I believe our Hon. Minister attempted to arrange such a meeting last

year in Vancouver with the federal minister of Transport and the

federal minister was not available. Another attempt should be made, and

I hope such a meeting can be arranged in the near future.

I wouldn't like to think that such an important matter was bogged

down merely through lack of proper communication between senior levels

of government.

What we need is a formula for all major inter-urban transportation

projects — say 37 1/2 per cent Federal, 37 1/2 per cent Provincial, and

25 per cent local money. After all, the rapid transit system is only

part of the job ahead of us.

Mr. Speaker, this is my 6th session in this House. At each previous session I have always mentioned the subject of the

[ Page 55 ]

famous First Narrows crossing and I certainly don't want to disappoint you now.

I said once before that the Second Crossing was waiting out that

way, although I would have to say that it now looks more likely to go

ahead than ever before.

Thanks to the constant efforts of Alderman Halford Wilson, who urged

the federal government to pay its share of the cost of the Second

Narrows bridge now, providing the Hon. Minister of Finance for this

province (Mr. Bennett) would turn these funds over to the completion of

the First Narrows project, the cost-sharing formula has been completed.

And I'd like to thank our Premier for cooperating.

HON. MR. BENNETT: We get no cooperation from Ottawa.

MR. WOLFE: No, I know we don't.

And I want to say, despite recent newspaper reports, that I don't

believe however that the agreement to proceed with the First Narrows

project is 100 per cent sure. Of great help at this stage to get the

project moving would be for the provincial government to lay out more

emphatically with the federal authorities those sections of the

crossing for which British Columbia will be responsible — specifically

the approaches at each end of the proposed tunnel, stretching from the

Upper Levels Highway on the North Shore to the waterfront and then from

the south escarpment through the Thurlow tunnel and the False Creek

bypass to the Georgia Viaduct connection — and for the Vancouver MP's

to go to bat for this area and indicate to the federal cabinet very

strongly that we want this First Narrows crossing.

As far as I am concerned, this proposed crossing is of particular

importance to the City of Vancouver. It will provide us with what we

need, Mr. Speaker, the beginning of a balanced transportation system.

It will remove a considerable amount of through traffic from our

downtown streets, and rather than destroy the possibility of rapid

transit, will provide the future access for rapid transit to the North

Shore. It will also give a psychological boost to starting rapid

transit throughout the lower mainland region.

And all of this Vancouver would pay almost nothing — most of the

cost would be paid by tolls and by the provincial government. We just

can't afford to turn down a bargain like that.

It is interesting to see certain groups now suddenly arriving on the

scene to argue against the crossing, particularly when it has been

under discussion for some 20 years. However, the Vancouver and District

Labour Council is one that particularly surprised me. I always thought

the Labour Council were primarily in favour of in