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)

FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 1972

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 447 ]

FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 1972

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable, the Premier.

MR. W.A.C. BENNETT (Premier): I am glad to notice in the

gallery today the daughter of a former very distinguished Attorney

General, Mr. Bonner. Miss Bonner is my only God-daughter and I ask you

all to give her a very warm welcome.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable first Member for Vancouver East.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, to complete

the introduction, beside Miss Lou Bonner is Miss Christina Macdonald

and beside Miss Christina Macdonald is Miss Barbara Marshall, the

granddaughter of Mr. DeBeck.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable lady Minister without Portfolio.

HON. I.P. DAWSON (Minister without Portfolio): Mr. Speaker,

we have in the gallery today a group of students from Brooks High

School in Powell River. What is exceptional about these folks today, I

think it's tremendous that they earned their money to come down to

Victoria themselves and I am sure the House would like to welcome them

here this afternoon.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Kootenay.

MR. L.T. NIMSICK (Kootenay): There are only seven left in the

gallery to speak about and that is a family from Vancouver, the Zimmer

family — my nephew, nieces and my wife's brother and his wife, and my

wife too. This is the first time, and they paid their own way to come

over here too. I am just asking you to welcome them and give them a

good hand.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Yale Lillooet.

MR. W.L. HARTLEY (Yale-Lillooet): Mr. Speaker, this is a very

special day. Many of the beauty queens from throughout B.C. are

descending on the capital and I am particularly privileged, not only do

we have a beauty queen — Miss Lois Doherty from Merritt and I know

there are many beautiful girls throughout the province — but we have

Miss Cariboo with us again this year. The Cariboo have many beautiful

young ladies but for the past two years they have had to reach over

into the town of Lillooet to choose Miss Lillooet and promote her to

become Miss Cariboo. So, Miss Louise Barry and Miss Lois Doherty.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable lady Minister without Portfolio.

HON. G. McCARTHY (Minister without Portfolio): In the

galleries this afternoon, we have a group of very bright and very

well-mannered students from General Brock Elementary School. They are

accompanied by their teachers and by their parents, and I would ask the

House to welcome them today.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for North Vancouver-Capilano.

MR. D.M. BROUSSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Thank you, Mr.

Speaker. I would like to ask the House to welcome 13 beauty queens who

are members of the Girl Guide troop from Canyon Heights in beautiful

North Vancouver.

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

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay a special welcome to all of those in gallery who have not yet been welcomed.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Introduction of bills.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE ADMINISTRATION ACT

Hon. Mr. Peterson moves introduction and first reading of Bill No. 28 intituled

An Act to Amend the Administration Act .

Motion approved. Bill No. 28 introduced, read a first time and

ordered to be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the

next sitting after today.

Orders of the day.

ON THE BUDGET

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Minister of Mines.

HON. F.X. RICHTER (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources and Minister of Commercial Transport):

Mr. Speaker, what I'm going to say is probably anti-climax in light of

the statement made by the Hon. second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey,

(Mr. Gardom), but it's purely coincidental in the fact that I have two

very highly-respected gentlemen from my constituency here in the

galleries today in the person of his worship Mayor Liard of Penticton

and also Mr. Cook, chairman of their industrial development committee

of the city of Penticton. I would ask the members to join me in

welcoming them here today. Of course, naturally, they paid their own

way too.

Mr. Speaker, in contrast between the address of my colleague given

about this time yesterday and at 1:10 last evening or early this

morning, I wasn't just too sure whether I was going to be on deck today

here to say a few words in relation to the administrative

responsibilities which I have. But if there is any contrast, it might

be attributed to the very quiet nature and modest character of myself.

I wouldn't want it to be felt that I was taking any particular stand

in relation to the debate yesterday, which was very disturbing to me,

and I'm glad that it's over and that we can get on to more of the

business of the House.

At the outset, this being the first occasion that I have risen in my

place in this current session of the Legislature, I propose to give

some time to a few matters that affect the

[ Page 448 ]

constituency of Boundary-Similkameen.

There has been steady progress made in highway improvements and this

is welcomed by the local and travelling public. True, there are other

projects to be completed and others to be started within a long range

programme such as has been developed for the province. These various

projects will get underway soon. I was pleased to see an increase in

funds would be made available to the Department of Highways to

undertake additional work during the coming year, within the budget.

Our fruit industry, our fruit growers, in the Okanagan Valley have

been plagued as usual with many problems, the solution to which is

difficult to devise because of the world production of fruit and

distribution problems. I am still convinced that better service and

distribution within our own province can be attained and while not the

complete answer, would undoubtedly siphon off a substantial quantity of

fruit into the hands of our own consumers. After all, our own market is

our best market and I have stated this on many occasions. I think that

my honourable colleague the Minister of Agriculture has done an

exceptional job in attempting to overcome some of the many problems

which are monumental as far as the fruit industry is concerned. But I

say, as I have said in the past, we must work at this on a continuing

basis to resolve these problems.

This government has been confronted and criticised on its efforts to

correct environmental pollution that has accumulated over the past 100

years. No matter how strong the pollution and environmental legislation

might be, unless the public and the individual take their

responsibility, the progress will be slow.

I was particularly pleased to see the publicity in the Press of

Project Six — a project undertaken by the Grade 6 class and two of

their teachers in the Oliver School.

The project is to undertake bottle and soft-drink can drives along

with various other undertakings, to raise funds for a class trip to the

lower mainland and Vancouver Island, where they advance their education

by visits to industries, the parliament buildings and other attractions

of interest.

Their trip takes place in the month of May and this project was

brought to public attention by the problems encountered by the group in

attempting to dispose of the soft-drink cans they gathered, when the

local depot would not refund on the containers.

They therefore brought the matter to the attention of the Attorney

General and the Press and myself and nearly 500 cans were sent to the

Attorney General.

The refund obtained was sent along to the group to augment their

bank account and help with the cost of the forthcoming trip which the

students pay for themselves through their own efforts. Now, I was

particularly pleased to hear of the group from Powell River; one of

their teachers was a classmate of my son, in the Similkameen Valley. I

was most happy to see him here present in the galleries and I must

commend them for the efforts that they go to in paying their way.

Now what's the moral of this incident? It's that if Grade 6 students

recognise and can be serious about environmental pollution control, why

can't our adults be just as serious and enterprising in cleaning up the

countryside and taking care of their own polluting habits?

Another subject that has been a continuing concern to me is the

shooting by permit of deer during the winter months when they are

driven by the elements from the higher levels to the valley floor in

search of food — for which the deer cannot be blamed. Under natural

conditions the lower elevations and valley floors are the natural

habitat of pretty well all wild animals of the ruminant species.

When the deep snow drives these animals from the higher elevations,

where it is virtually impossible for them to find food, what have we

done to these animals? We have taken over their natural wintering

ground for higher use, namely, orchards and agricultural production

without providing any alternative for the wild animals. We propose to

erect high fences, as others have done, causing the hungry animals to

follow the fences to their end where a new hope of food appears,

whereupon the agricultural crops are a welcome sight to the hungry

animals who enjoy the tender growth of the fruit trees, the haystacks

and other forage that is available.

The high fence, in my opinion, is not the answer to the problem. It

is only a stop-gap measure and in itself will not force the migration

of the game herds.

In my opinion, although contrary to game biologist theories,

artificial feeding stations must be provided. This in itself poses a

very great problem to the government and the department involved with

wild game management and we must review our concepts. It is only common

logic that by putting a barrier up to prevent the game animals from

attacking agricultural crops, it will leave these animals to die of

starvation.

Certainly, I agree with the game biologists that if animals are

allowed to become emaciated and weak before having access to artifical

feed, a great mortality will occur when access is gained to feed in

such a weakened condition.

However, on the other hand, if feed is made available as the game

progressively are driven from the higher elevations they do not take

such large amounts and soon acclimatise themselves. It is the weakened

animals that eat too copiously and die.

In my few short years in the wilderness I have always observed that

the deer that had access to my haystacks and feed grounds by free

choice were always the strongest and healthiest animals in the spring

and produced the strongest young with the best survival ratio.

Successful artificial feeding of our herds of deer and California rocky

mountain sheep has been proven to be sound practice, not only in the

State of Washington immediately south of us, but also in other states

of the U.S.A. and right at home in the South Okanagan.

The experiences of the game farm at Kaleden and the experiences of

the South Okanagan Sportsmen Club, with the cooperation of Mr. Abe

Braun of Vaseux Lake, have proven to me beyond doubt that artificial

feeding programmes can be the means of survival of our game herds.

I mentioned earlier that fencing the game animals away from feed is

only part of the answer to invasion of agriculture crops by game

animals. The provision of food for the game is the second part of the

answer to the problem, if we wish to keep our game from starvation and

maintain this natural resource for the future.

In many cases feeding stations would obviate the necessity of

fencing in some areas. I urge the government to give very serious study

to this growing problem when we experience winters such as that of the

current one.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I wish to now make a few remarks respecting those portfolios which I have the honour to administer.

1971 was a year of continued progress in the mines and petroleum industries of British Columbia. For the first time

[ Page 449 ]

in history the total value of mineral production

reached and exceeded $500 million. It is estimated to be $531.9

million, or 7.4 per cent over 1970. This is the 10th consecutive year

that a new production record has been achieved.

Encouraging as this record may be, it is nonetheless important to

note that this continuing upward trend was due almost entirely to the

marked increase in coal production value. This resource jumped from a

$19.5 million value in 1970 to $50.5 million in 1971.

In the metals category, depressed markets and reduced metal prices

took their toll and only a marked increase in copper and zinc

production enabled the overall value of metals to be maintained to a

point slightly lower than that of 1970.

But for the Kaiser Coal operation, mineral production value in

British Columbia in 1971 would have faced a serious decline. This year

should see an increase in production from Kaiser Coal, and with the

coming on to line of Fording Coal, production value of coal in 1971

could jump from $50.5 million to $70 million.

While our four new metal mines commenced production in 1971, several

closed down operations, including Bralorne which was the last operating

gold mine in the province. The preparation for production of seven new

mines this year indicate that 1972 should be another good production

year for mining in British Columbia.

Having said this, I wish to point out that mining is a high-risk

industry and the vagaries of international markets and economic

conditions coupled with national fiscal policies make any real

prediction of conditions a year from now a most hazardous venture.

A number of the major metal mines in the province are operating on

the border line of economic viability. For example, the downward trend

of copper and molybdenum prices on the international market have made

the continued operation of some of our major mines extremely marginal

propositions. World competition is severe and in some metals there is

an over supply. Should prices take a further downward trend, continued

operation of these mines would be brought into serious question.

While there has been a severe drop in metal prices, the costs of

establishing and operating new mines in British Columbia have continued

to climb. The continued growth of the industry has been maintained

solely by the industry's ability to successfully work large low-grade

mineral deposits.

The impact of conditions I have outlined are readily seen in the following facts:

The future of the mining industry depends primarily in the

confidence of the industry to invest capital for the purpose of

exploration. There are four areas in which there is evidence that this

confidence is diminishing in British Columbia. They are:

Claims staked in 1969 totalled 84,665. In 1971 this figure dropped to an estimated 64,500.

Diamond drilling, which is probably the best barometer of mining

activity, dropped from an estimated 2 million feet in 1970 to an

estimated 1.5 million feet in 1971. A further reduction is anticipated

in 1972.

In December 1971, Canada Manpower in Vancouver recorded unemployed

50 geologists, geophysicists and geochemists. Also 20 mining engineers.

It is expected that this number will increase this winter.

Four major North American, one European and one Japanese exploration

companies have withdrawn their operations from British Columbia in

recent months.

Mr. Speaker, the reason I have outlined these facts is to bring home

to Members on both sides of this House an understanding that we in

British Columbia do not have a monopoly in mineral supply, that the

international market is an extremely sensitive market, and furthermore

our production costs are among the highest in the world.

If conditions governing exploration and development are not

conducive to economic viability of operation, capital will go to other

resource rich areas of the world, and once gone rarely returns.

I would remind the Honourable Members that in 1970, this industry

spent over $300 million in equipment, materials and supplies, $140

million in salaries, wages and benefits. The average wage and benefit

per employee exceeded $10,000 per year. Further to this, the industry

in British Columbia paid in excess of $44 million in federal tax, $32

million provincial tax and $2.5 million in municipal taxes.

In addition to licences, leases, assessments, and drilling fees, the

mineral industry pays land tax, education tax, mining tax, provincial

sales tax, corporation tax, income tax, hospital tax, regional district

taxes which included tax for libraries, parks, et cetera, motive fuel

tax, gasoline tax and federal building materials tax.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. RICHTER: I'm glad my friend asked that question

about royalties and I would just quote from a very well-recognised

authority, that authority being Funk and Wagnell's dictionary. And

under "royalty" it says: "A tax or seignorage paid to the Crown on a

product of Royal Mines."

Now what is so mystical about the word "royalty"? It is defined as a

tax. A tax is a tax, an impost is an impost whether it be by royalty or

whether it be by tax. I've seen nothing so mystical about royalties in

this way. It was the form in which an impost was applied to the royalty

in favour of the province.

I would be quite prepared to recommend to the government that it be

done away with and the results of royalties be incorporated within this

tax structure.

Now you don't receive a royalty until such time as you have produced

the product. The sales tax applies to the machinery, income tax applies

to the preparation of the mine, corporation taxes apply on down the

line, you name it ad infinitum. If they're not taxed enough now, it is

a high risk industry as I mentioned early in my speech, if there is no

incentive, let me tell you have no monopoly on this and I will list

some of these things.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Will the House come to order please? Order!

HON. MR RICHTER: As I mentioned, the revenue by whatever name

is just as sweet to the treasury. For any Member of this House to imply

that the mining industry is not paying a fair return in taxation for

the privilege of developing the resource is gross misrepresentation.

Mining employed 14,850 workers directly and a further 35,000 workers

in other industries supported by the mining industry. In total the

mining industry generated a provincial income of $550 million in 1970.

I would anticipate that this figure will be even greater for 1971. If

the problems facing the industry at the present time can be overcome,

it is

[ Page 450 ]

conceivable that this income generation factor could reach $1 billion by the end of the decade.

However, this will not be realised if investors are subjected to the

kind of irresponsible utterances made by the Leader of the Opposition

in his speech in reply to the speech from the throne. Threats of

punitive tax measures and takeover of the mining industry by an N.D.P.

government is the surest way of driving investment capital from the

province and is a direct threat to the 50,000 or more workers supported

by this industry.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. RICHTER: I'll answer that, my friend.

It is a clear indication that he would sacrifice the welfare of the

very people he claims to represent on the altar of his socialistic

philosophy. As for taking over the mining industry, how much would he

increase the tax burden on the people to pay for the $3 - $4 billion

investment the mining industry has in this province?

How much of the taxpayers' money would he use to maintain exploration at a level conducive to a viable industry?

Or would it be the intention of the N.D.P. to emulate the actions of

their like-minded friends in the "Banana Republics"? Socialists in

those countries take over private industry then present the former

owners with fictitious bills equal to the amount the government would

have to pay when confiscating their property.

Is that the intention of the N.D.P. if they ever come to power in

this province? It will be a sad day for the mining industry, it'll be a

sad day for the province.

The only redeeming feature of the Leader of the Opposition's

statements is that they make mockery of the benign and paternalistic

platitudes he has been peddling around this province in an effort to

beguile the people into believing he is no longer a left-wing

Socialist, but some kind of a concoction of Liberal-Democrat.

His statement assures the people of British Columbia that the

principle of state ownership of land, capital, and the means of

production is still the cornerstone of N.D.P. policy.

I'm glad that the Honourable second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey

protested, because I didn't think he would even associate himself with

a Liberal-Democrat but would always abide by the recognised Liberal

policies …

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. RICHTER: Well then, you've associated yourself with a Liberal-Democrat.

Another area in which members of the Socialist Opposition have been

misleading the public is in relation to royalties on coal production.

Now I'd like to make this very clear. A royalty of 25 cent per ton is

charged on all coal mined on Crown land. In addition they pay 15 per

cent tax on all profits in excess of $10,000. Coal mined from lands

which were Crown granted in 1899, part of which are now being operated

by Kaiser Coal Company, pay a tax of 10 cents per ton in lieu of a

royalty. Those lands are exempt from provincial royalties by decision

of the Supreme Court of Canada. This is only one fact which the

Opposition very conveniently avoids stating in their public harangue of

the mining industry.

As the Minister of Mines I am gravely concerned with continued

misrepresentation and persistent attack upon the mining industry by

politicians and other special interest groups in our province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Marvellous!

HON. MR. RICHTER: This industry is extremely important….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. RICHTER: You're the politicians that have been

attacking them. It's not this side… yes, other special interest groups

who you know well and people who you are married to.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. RICHTER: I hope they don't because I'll get lots of

support that way. I don't worry about campaign funds, I take them out

of my own pocket and I've got records to show it.

AN HON. MEMBER: What's been in your pocket?

HON. MR. RICHTER: Unfortunately, I don't have as lucrative

business as that of the law profession. However, I do contribute to the

law profession and I'm happy to do so because I have an exceptionally

fine lawyer.

AN HON. MEMBER: You need one.

HON. MR. RICHTER: I appreciate that, coming from the Leader of the Opposition. You would need to be.

As the Minister of Mines I'm gravely concerned with the continued

misrepresentation and persistent attack upon the mining industry by

politicians, as I said previously, and other special interest groups in

our province. While this industry is extremely important to our

province, it is not especially important to the rest of the world — 87

per cent of the world nickel reserves, 80 per cent of the world zinc

reserves, 88 per cent of its iron ore reserves and 97 per cent of its

copper reserves are all outside Canada.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. RICHTER: Well, if they're all gone by the year 2000 we will still have our own then won't we?

AN HON. MEMBER: Not if you give it all away…

HON. MR. RICHTER: You wouldn't even like to pay a tenth of what the mining industry has to pay to have the privilege of just to extract.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh, oh!

HON. MR. RICHTER: In addition to this and while presently

enjoying a healthy trading position in coal with Japan, the recent

emergence of the Republic of Canada … China. (Laughter). That's not so

far wrong. What did the Prime Minister suggest?

Interjections by Hon. Members.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you agreeing with the Prime

[ Page 451 ]

Minister?

HON. MR. RICHTER: No, I'm not agreeing with him. I'm telling you about the Republic of China. Do you want to hear?

AN HON. MEMBER: Which Prime Minister?

HON. MR. RICHTER: The Prime Minister in Ottawa.

In addition to this and while we enjoy a healthy trading position in

coal with Japan, the recent emergence of the Republic of China as a

world trading nation — and we recognise them in Canada as a…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. RICHTER: Are we not Canadians?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. RICHTER: As a world trading nation China may well present an extremely competitive challenge to the British Columbia coal industry.

The facts are that in the area of mineral and mineral fuels we are

going to have to compete vigorously for capital and customers.

We are not in a preferred position in world markets. Our service,

labour, and transportation costs are high compared to many other

resource areas. Any notion that we can use our resource wealth to

obtain special treatment in world markets is a fantasy. There are too

many other countries trying to develop their ore bodies and sell their

minerals in competition with us.

Mr. Speaker, it is partly because of the aforementioned reasons that

my department, in cooperation with the mining industry of British

Columbia, has been actively pursuing the feasibility of a copper

smelter in our province. We're not so naive to believe that we can have

a pollution-free copper smelter or steel mill as advocated by the

Leader of the Opposition. I should more properly say Her Majesty's

Loyal Opposition.

We are deeply conscious, together with industry, of the need of

processing a greater portion of our resources here in British Columbia.

The problem has been two-fold.

One was the acceptance of the product by the market. This I believe no longer presents a major problem.

Secondly, as the Hon. Members are aware, this government has set

anti-pollution standards below which it is not prepared to permit the

smelting of ore. This fact has presented a major technological problem

to the industry. I am pleased to say that there are strong indications

that this problem may well be overcome this year.

The smelting of ore is the first phase in the development of

secondary industry in our own province. As Member of the Legislature

for Boundary-Similkameen, an area whose history is studded with the

trials and tribulations and success of copper smelting, I look forward

with keen anticipation to the day in the not-too-distant future when

British Columbia ore is processed in British Columbia smelters in a

measure commensurate with our ability to market the finished product,

and in a manner environmentally acceptable to the general public.

The Mineral Processing Act , the Mines Reclamation Act , and the Pollution Control Act are, in measure, all designed to bring about this desirable aspect of economic expansion.

The dramatic public emergence of ecological conscience has brought

with it a positive change in social values. Industry has become one of

the major factors in this evolution. If industry fails to face up to

this challenge and does not effectively communicate its own desires and

efforts to maintain an acceptable environment, then industry must

realise that the attitude of society, whether by virtue of

misinformation or lack of information, can become unbalanced to the

point where there is a real danger of "the baby being thrown out with

the bath water."

The answer to this problem is only to be found in a spirit of

understanding and cooperation. The ultimate objective of all our

endeavours is to arrive at a better quality and standard of life for

each and every individual in the province and nation. Government,

industry and the general public must all maintain a high degree of

integrity if this most desirable objective is to be achieved.

Mr. Speaker, I wish now to say a few words about the petroleum

industry. Unlike the metals industry, production of petroleum and

natural gas is tied to a regulated market. Consequently, sale of these

mineral fuels does not fluctuate in the same manner as does metals.

The increase in revenue from these resources is due almost entirely

to the money paid in bonus bids for the right to explore and develop

these resources. We are, in fact, the only western province to register

an increase in 1971 on price per acre. For example overall overage

prices were Saskatchewan 85 cents per acre, Alberta $3.80 per acre and

British Columbia — and I draw this to your attention — British Columbia

$9.37 per acre.

The major interest of developers is centred in the foothills with

the hope of finding extensive reservoirs of natural gas. The month of

January this year saw up to 45 rigs actively drilling in the search for

gas and oil. From the start of the geophysical year commencing April

1971, over 100 programmes of geological and geophysical surveys have

been undertaken. This is in itself the real barometer of exploration

activity in the province.

For the calendar year 1971, we saw the highest revenue year on record, the total being $46,318,143.90.

I was particularly interested yesterday in an

article that appeared in the Vancouver Sun

and certainly I have no intentions of reading the

article but in the

light of the debates that have occurred in this House and the

discussions that have taken place in relation to the equalisation of

payments and so on, this

article was certainly of distinct interest to

me because of my administrative responsibilities.

In the Sun yesterday was the

article on resources and

resource revenue, written by Mary Rossen, an economist and planner, and

I was particularly interested in this aspect.

I have known economists and I have known planners but I think the

combination has probably done something for both and I think this might

be a good combination. Anyone who is a planner, I think, should become

an economist and anyone who is an economist should become a planner

because I think the

article written by Mary Rossen has a lot of good

logic and good sense in it.

In that

article are competitive statistics related to British

Columbia and Quebec. It is a full page

article as you have noticed. I

will not attempt to elaborate more but in a portion dealing with

minerals it is interesting in view of the position of the official

Opposition on resource development and revenue to quote the figures.

Quebec mineral production value in 1969-70 was $720 million. The Quebec government mineral production

[ Page 452 ]

revenue was a meagre $2 million.

British Columbia mineral production of $422 million but the

government receives virtually 25 times more in the amount of $49

million.

AN HON. MEMBER: That includes oil.

HON. MR. RICHTER: What is mineral, my friend?

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. RICHTER: I'll have something to say about the oil.

Mrs. Rossen used an estimated British Columbia revenue figure which was

not quite reached but virtually reached.

Mr. Speaker, in no way do I attempt to defend the meagre returns of

revenue to the Quebec people from their mineral resources. However, I

have also noted that statistics for the same year in the Province of

Ontario which by any standard can be compared with British Columbia.

What is their position on mineral resource revenue for the same period?

The Ontario mineral production value was $1,223,380,337 and they

received the magnificent amount by way of government revenue of

$26,653,874. Now, who's giving their mineral resources away?

AN HON. MEMBER: What about forestry?

HON. MR. RICHTER: I thought I would leave that to my

colleague, the Minister of Forestry (Hon. Mr. Williston) to deal with

in his competent way and I'm sure that he will make his point. In other

words, Mr. Speaker, British Columbia collects almost twice the revenue

from a mineral production which is only one-third the amount which

Ontario produces. I think that answers the question in some degree of

this give-away accusation that's being made by the official Opposition.

For some time now there's been a number of statements from every

point of the political spectrum in relation to exploration for oil and

natural gas off the shores of British Columbia. As Minister of the

Crown-provincial responsible for these resources I want to state quite

categorically that there are no provincial permits active in the waters

off our coast line.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is the right permanent?

HON. MR. RICHTER: There are no active permits in the water

off our coasts, they're all suspended and I'll come to that point.

Those which were issued have been suspended as of July 28, 1970. The

only permits active are those issued by the federal government,

notwithstanding the recent statement of Environment Minister Davis that

permits issued to Petrotar Development Ltd. have been cancelled. With

the assistance of my colleague I would like to display to the House a

map of the west coast of British Columbia, and on this map you will

note that in the red you have the land mass and in the blue there are

221 federal petroleum or natural gas permits.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR RICHTER: There are no B.C. permits active and there

are none offshore, my friend. The fact is that there are over 200 other

permits representing over 14 million acres of British Columbia offshore

waters which have never been cancelled and are still in existence — even though it is proposed that the 21-odd permits by way of the Press

that were issued to Petrotar Developments Limited would be rescinded as

stated by the Environmental Minister, the Hon. Jack Davis.

This has not yet occurred. These permits have not been cancelled and

are still in existence. This map is a copy of the map put out by the

Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, a

summary of the activity in

Canada lands off-shore dated November 1971 under the heading "Active"

West Coast are 221 permits covering an area of 14,963,762 acres.

Mr. Speaker these are facts and it is time the people of this province were told the true position of the federal government.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. RICHTER: Now, I want to show you a further map if

you'll just turn this over. I might bring to your attention that the

first map is drawn on a scale of 1 inch to 16 miles. This map is drawn

on a scale of 1 inch to 32 miles. Now, the other side of this off-shore

oil question in Canada which needs to be told is the double standard

applied by the federal government. One law for eastern Canada and

another law for the west, despite the facts I have just quoted the

federal government would have the people of British Columbia believe

that they are opposed to off-shore exploration and drilling.

Mr. Speaker, I have here this map which points up the federal

government off-shore policy. This map is of the east coast and as I

have indicated, this shows the area of off-shore permits issued by the

federal government as of November 1971. There were 4,281 permits in

existence covering 317,849,405 acres of water blanketing the east

coast, surrounding Prince Edward Island. As is noted, along with that

probably the area which has the highest tides in the world, and running

up in the Bay of Fundy running up to the Anticosti Island in the Gulf

of St. Lawrence, also it goes beyond Newfoundland.

That is not all. I didn't have a large enough map to put the balance

on so that the balance of the permits stretch out towards the United

Kingdom because if you can only travel on those by foot or by

automobile you would be able to go the majority of the way to the

United Kingdom from Canada before you would hit the periphery of the

permit area.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. RICHTER: David Anderson is probably just as

interested in the ecology as anyone and should be equally interested

not only in west coast but also the east coast.

Mr. Speaker, so far 30 wells have been drilled to completion on our

east coast and currently three wells are actively drilling. It does not

matter that oil in quantity has yet to be discovered. The fact remains

that environmental Minister Davis and his local cohort, Mr. Anderson,

see something sinister in permitting oil and gas exploration in west

coast waters but so far as they are concerned east coast waters are

something different. And let's remember Chedabucto Bay.

For years the crude oil needs of eastern Canada have been supplied

by imports mainly from Venezuela. This massive flow of some 570,000

barrels of oil per day is brought up the

[ Page 453 ]

entire length of the United States eastern shore.

Some 460,000 barrels are unloaded at Portland, Maine, thence conveyed

by pipeline to Montreal. The remainder is taken into the St. Lawrence

River system by a tanker. In the east coast case, the possible spillage

of oil in the unloading at Portland is added to the perils of ocean

movement. The United States has not objected or criticised movement of

California oil up through their west coast to serve this province

before oil became plentiful in Alberta and British Columbia.

I might add further to the fact. Since the beginning of the use of

oil, we have continuously had tankers moving the product up the coast

of British Columbia to Alaska and the converse can be said. They've

been moving it down too.

I'm concerned about the pollution aspect. My colleague the Minister

of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Kiernan) has made statements

on this along with myself. We're naturally concerned. We want to

preserve the amenities that we have on our coast. Certainly we are not

looking for what is being said about the drilling for oil, I'm more

concerned with the movement of it, in the methods of there being moved

or contemplated being moved today.

Mr. Speaker, I mention these facts to bring to the attention of the

House just how some of our Liberal friends in Ottawa do literally speak

out of both sides of their mouths at once for political reasons only.

Mr. Speaker, Davis and Anderson, in their off-shore policy and with

the apparent consent of the Liberal government, are deliberately

creating two distinct classes of Canadian provinces.

It is my understanding that the present Liberal government was

working towards unity in Canada. Certainly, how do you establish any

logic when you make second-class citizens and a second-class province

of one of the contributing provinces to the equalisation payments of

the federal government? They establish them as a second-class category

to eastern Canada. I'm not condoning what they're doing, I'm not

speaking on behalf of oil companies or anything of that nature. I am

very, very concerned about what is happening to our country. If we

can't have equal treatment as far as east and west are concerned, how

can we ever achieve the unity which we rightfully wish to establish in

this great Canada?

Mr. Speaker, as with the general economy of the province — and I'm

going on to another subject here — the past year has been one of

continued expansion in the area of transportation. Railways, aerial

tramways, pipelines and commercial road transport has continued the

curve upward.

Regarding road transportation, the fiscal year 1970-71 saw 222,921

commercial vehicles licenced. This is an increase of more than 7,000

over the previous year. However, this increase is in marked contrast to

the year 1969-70 when the increase was over 20,000. The average

increase since the fiscal year 1966-67 is in excess of 13,000.

Preliminary estimates of 1971-72 figures would indicate a continued

rise in the number of licences issued. These statistics in relation to

commercial motor vehicles are an excellent reflection of the state of

industrial activity in the province which in itself is a mirror of the

state of the national economy.

The past year was marked by a significant change in weight

regulations as they apply to axle, axle group, and gross vehicle

weight. What the new regulations did among other things was to provide

an immediate increase to 82,000 lbs. from 76,000 lbs. for the

conventional five-axle combination.

In view of the increased weight allowed by the new laws, it was

thought desirable to include in the regulations provisions that would

prohibit the proliferation of vehicle combinations with inadequate

horsepower and tractive effort and to reduce these problems on existing

equipment over a period of time.

Accordingly, regulations were made to prohibit operators taking

advantage of the new regulations by increasing their gross weight

unless their power units were equipped with engines capable of

producing one gross horsepower for every 300 lbs. of gross weight and

by 1975 all vehicles with a gross vehicle weight in excess of 59,000

lbs. will be obliged to meet these requirements.

Also, any vehicle having one driving axle was prohibited from taking

full advantage of the new allowable weights and by 1975 will be

restricted to gross weights of less than 60,000 lbs.

The last two regulations are the first to be applied in this manner

by any jurisdictions in North America and they were promulgated with a

view to discouraging undesirable types of equipment and to provide

performance standards and guidelines to industry, as well as to protect

the interests of the general public.

A further innovation during the past year has been the construction

in conjunction with the building of a new weigh station at Kamloops, of

a truck inspection pit. This will enable the R.C.M.P. to carry out

normal inspection of trucks covering such items as brakes, steering and

exhaust systems. This will also enable the individual truck driver to

inspect his vehicle and make any necessary safety adjustments.

An area of continuing and serious concern to my department is the

tendency to oversize loads. Most manufacturing industries have been, as

far as possible, made aware of the limits it has been necessary to

impose on oversize loads. Industry must face up to the reality of those

regulations or face the economic consequences.

Particular note of this should be taken by industrial designers. The

fact that the manufacture of a particular component is accomplished

will not of itself be sufficient to guarantee its movement on the

highway. If it cannot be moved without the interest of the safety of

the road using public being jeopardised, it will not move at all, no

matter what the financial loss to the manufacturer or others concerned.

The regulations in Canada, and particularly in British Columbia,

have been formulated with the geographic and topographic nature of our

country being a critical factor. These regulations will be strictly

administered in the interest of public safety.

Why do I say this? Even with the increase in weight up to the

figures that have been set out, there has been a continuing pressure on

my department and myself that we should not only extend the width of

loads from 12 feet to 14 feet to 16 feet, when it's only common sense

that the travelling surface of a highway is only 12 feet wide. You are

going to jeopardise somebody. You are going to jeopardise somebody and

I have no intention of giving it. I have no intention.

I will resist this because it is not within reason to expect a 14-

or 16-foot load to be moved on the highway on a 12-foot lane. You are

going to jeopardise the motorists. If someone else carrying a similar

sized load attempts to pass each other the ones that will be injured

the most is not the loaded vehicle, it will be the motorist who

innocently is encountered with a problem of attempting to do a

defensive driving job

[ Page 454 ]

where he has no opportunity or no possibility of

coming out. Any loads that are in excess of this must be carried out

under very special circumstances, very special times, very special

precautions with a lighted vehicle ahead, a lighted vehicle behind,

even in the daylight and we don't issue permits to move at night except

in exceptional cases where a short move is made in moving a house or

something of that nature, and they must take all the necessary

precautions.

I would like to say something about the provincial railway

extensions amounting to more than 250 miles of mainline track together

with major improvements in road bed, shop facilities, additional motive

power and rolling stock, which together with the continuing increase in

car loadings have made 1971 one of the most outstanding years of

railway history in British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about Kootenay Hills?

HON. MR. RICHTER: We'll come to that in due course. It's

before the courts at the present time, and my friend is well aware of

it because I get material the same as he does and I noticed his name on

the list along with others.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. RICHTER: With the Pacific Great Eastern, to be the

British Columbia Railway Company, pressing northward, new areas of

resource potential will be opened up and those developed which already

exist will obtain ready access to the markets of the world. The whole

railway system in British Columbia is expanding to meet the challenge

of industrial growth. It is the backbone of industrial transportation

and despite the innovation of more sophisticated methods of

transportation, is likely to remain so throughout the foreseeable

future.

During the past year 234 miles of oil and gas pipelines were

completed with a further 241 miles under construction. My department is

presently updating its maps of all provincial pipelines and it is

interesting to note that eight companies operate over 4,500 miles of

lines between them, and the mileage of numerous small companies adds

considerably to that total.

The pipelining of solids still occupies the attention of

researchers. However, there are no firm indications at this time that

either market acceptance or technological feasibility has been

accomplished. Consequently, I have no immediate confidence that this

mode of transportation is about to supplant the need for an expanding

railway system to move the product of the industry.

During 1971, the federal government created a new harbour commission

to administer the Port of Vancouver. While its composition is not all

that one would have wished, nevertheless it is a step in the right

direction. I believe that the most important task of this commission

will be to plan carefully the future development of this Canada's

gateway to the Pacific rim. I am particularly concerned that the

concentration of bulk loading and container facilities in Burrard Inlet

is not to be continued.

With the availability of Roberts Bank, bulk loading at the inlet

should be progressively phased out from this heavily populated

metropolitan area. If container facilities are increased, this also

will present a major problem of traffic movement.

If Vancouver is to handle the volume of container traffic which it

undoubtedly is destined to do, serious consideration must be given to

the cost of constructing adequate access routes through the already

overburdened municipal road systems.

What I am suggesting is that the new commission take into

consideration the amenities of water depth, available land and

virtually uninhibited access at Roberts Bank and plan to concentrate

all future development at that location.

This action would do two things. It would put a stop to the

increasing industrial congestion in the metropolitan area around the

inlet and over a period of time make available some of the land around

the inlet for the recreational use of people. This commission has a

tremendous opportunity to make Roberts Bank one of the world's greatest

superports, while at the same time enable its citizens to enjoy to a

much higher degree what is probably the most beautiful setting of any

metropolitan area on the continent.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I wish to say that I have no hesitation in supporting this budget which once again is balanced.

This scuttlebutt that has been going around about election budgets — I have never seen an election budget in this House and I have been here

fortunately almost 19 years. Each year the budget progressively

increases to meet the requirements of the province and every budget

could be called an election budget, just because of its size alone.

This budget does many, many things. It covers a broad spectrum. We

have a broad cross-section of population in this province, not all

alike but having many requirements. This budget is doing for these

people what they would expect a government to bring in, a budget for

the people. It imposes no extra taxes and accents its spending on

providing services and jobs for people. I have every confidence the

people will support such a budget and I thank you very much for your

attention.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Surrey.

MR. E. HALL (Surrey): Thank you Mr. Speaker. First I would like to say

that unusually for me I can say to the House today that I have a relative in

the gallery to listen to my speech, my young niece has come from school with

her friend to meet you. They came to Canada on my recommendation in 1963 and

the Minister of Industry might be interested in this, because my niece's father

is mentioned in one of his reports. He set up a flourishing business based on

the most unlikely proposition that you can get — making a cement boat,

float it and sell it and get a lot of people interested in it, both commercially

and for pleasure.

I don't think it will float, but my niece's father says it does, and

he's got one and he's selling them very well and the Minister mentioned

it in his report.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. HALL: Since 1957, Mr. Speaker, our family has grown from 1 to 17. That's one way I've found out how to beat the Premier.

Mr. Speaker, the Member who has just sat down made some

announcements and I welcome them. Because if indeed that Minister will

resist the blandishments of the Canadian Pacific Railway and others

regarding the size of trucks he will be the first Minister who ever

resisted the Canadian Pacific Railway since confederation. I think that

he's to be commended, if indeed each year he's able to say that. I will

commend him now by saying he's done it successfully for the

[ Page 455 ]

two sessions that he's had this portfolio which we've been discussing from time to time.

However, in the increase in the size of the vehicles he refers to, I

wonder why he said nothing about tire standards and why he said nothing

about brake standards — both subjects which members of his own

department, who I now understand have left the service of the province,

have had a lot to say on in previous years.

Similarly, I listened with interest to the Minister and I share his

concern and his criticism and his anger with the federal government

regarding the differentiation between east and west of this country.

While I listened to him I still really couldn't find out — I think it

was only because he failed to tell us — whether the Minister is for or

against oil drilling in the Straits of Georgia and in the Straits of

Juan De Fuca. He didn't say so categorically and I hope he will say so

during his estimates. I know he's against the movement of oil, but he

still hasn't said it.

The Minister talked of ecology. He's in charge of mines and yet he

didn't put to rest the feeling that the forthcoming inquiry into that

industry is going to be conducted by the pollution control board in a

way that is not going to satisfy a number of people.

There's a lot of comment that strip mining, for instance, and its

problems will not be discussed at that inquiry, because of the presence

in our statutes of the Act —

chapter 18 of the 1969 statutes — and I'd

like the Hon. Minister to tell us on some future occasion that indeed

that mining inquiry which I think starts next month will be able to

receive comments about strip mining.

Similarly, in the very reference that set up that inquiry into

mining — and I know the Minister of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources

is listening — one of the reasons that it gives for that inquiry is so

that inquiries will be obviated in the future on individual

application. Now, that's my reading of it. If I'm wrong I will be

pleased to be corrected.

As I understand it, the purpose of the inquiry into mining next

month, one of the purposes, is to do away with the need for inquiries

into individual applications.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not right.

MR. HALL: In that case, I will convey that information to

those people who are worried about it. In that case I suggest that

somebody in the department could do better on his typewriter and not

put the two lines in at the end of the terms of reference.

Mr. Speaker, in this debate we've been told right the way through

the piece that we're debt free. We've been told that we treat our

municipalities better than anyone else, we've been told that our school

districts are in better shape and we've been told everything's fine.

Mr. Speaker, I'm sorry, but I don't believe it.

If it were true, then I wouldn't be getting letters from the Surrey

letters from the Surrey school board asking for assistance in solving

financial problems. I wouldn't be getting letters from constituents in

the proposed regional park asking for help. I wouldn't Mr. Speaker — if

it were true — have in my mind the inescapable fact that out of every

$11 send to B.C. Hydro 34 cents goes to pay for debt interest.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did Surrey send a letter on the five to four vote?

MR. HALL: On the five to four vote? No, they didn't send me a letter, they knew where I stood on that one.

To pay the interest on debts, Hydro 34 cents out of every $1, Mr.

Speaker. And in a pay-as-you-go province I can't quite square those two

things together. In the district that I represent, the Surrey

municipality has got in its current budget a provision for nearly

$900,000 for debt charges — $900,000 for debt.

Mr. Speaker, in the school board, School District No. 36, the figure

for debt including, I think the expression is, expenditures on

principal and interest for sinking funds, debentures, term loans and

bank charges, is over $2.5 million in the last reported year and on the

provisional budget which is probably due for discussion under Bill 3,

is up to $2,849,000.

If we take two of those items alone, Mr. Speaker — sinking funds,

principal instalments, and debentures — that's code H1 and H2 for those

who know anything about these forms, it adds up to $1,600,000. We take

half of that as being a rough estimate on the 25-year series and you

can see how much in debt School District No. 36 is.

It's estimated that something like 1.75 mil goes for debt — financing the debt of that school district.

I put a special plea in for those areas, School District No. 36, 37,

38, and 43 in the horseshoe starting off in Coquitlam and finishing up

at Roberts Bank — the areas of growth, the areas that fell behind with

per capita grants, the areas that had to do with the phenomenal growth

in school districts.

They're the areas, Mr. Speaker, that are becoming somewhat cynical

over the claims that the province is debt free. Those areas are

becoming somewhat cynical over the democratic process when they hear

the claims of the government. They know that their taxes have gone up.

They know how much the government's home-owner increase means to them.

And the areas from Tsawwassen right the way through to where my friend

the Leader of the Opposition lives are suffering even though the

clamour from the government benches is that "you've never had it so

good".

Mr. Speaker, the debate yesterday ranged high, wide, and handsome

and the Minister of Municipal Affairs just two days ago — it was just

the beginning of the week — said that the speeches of the Leader of the

Opposition and the leader of the Liberal Party would not be on the

front pages of the Vancouver papers.

You know, he was right. One of the few times during that speech he

was right. What was on the front pages of those papers that day wasn't

the speech from the leader of the Liberal Party or the speech from the

leader of the New Democratic Party. It was indeed the fact that

unemployment soars 25 per cent in one month. I don't know which the

Hon. Minister would sooner have had on the front page.

The B.C. rate hit 8.7 per cent. Unemployment soars 25 per cent in

one month, the B.C. rate hits 8.7 per cent. Last night the Minister of

Labour made a speech that lasted just over an hour. He spent fifteen

minutes on the Vallieres case, he spent 15 minutes abusing the New

Westminster Member. At 2:40 p.m. he commenced to read his statistics

and he gave us the usual parade of growth, he took credit for

everything that was good and blamed Ottawa for everything that was bad.

The final 15 minutes of his speech were concerned with

apprenticeship and industrial training and not one word, Mr. Speaker,

about the front page story, not one word about 25

[ Page 456 ]

per cent increase in unemployment, not one word about the unemployment figures in January, not one word about that movement.

I listened to every word, Mr. Speaker, and I would tell you it was a

very poor performance, a very poor performance from a new Minister of

Labour.

Let's deal with the 15 minutes of his speech that had something in

it. Let's deal with the 15 minutes of worthwhile content in his speech.

For the past three years, Mr. Speaker, I've been asking questions about

apprenticeship in industrial training. I know that both labour and

management are not satisfied with what's going on. I know that the

Minister of Labour is not satisfied with what's going on and he said so

yesterday.

But the record of the government isn't very satisfactory either,

prior to this Minister. Let's look at the figures again. Mr. Speaker,

in 1966-67 there was appropriation of nearly $3 million in the budget.

We spent less than $2.5 million, we had $500,000 left over at the end

of the year. The year after that '67-'68, appropriation $4,200,000,

spent $2.5 million, $1,700,000 left over. And it gets worse.

Mr. Speaker, two years ago I asked the then Minister of Labour, that

is the first Member from Vancouver–Little Mountain (Hon. Mr. Peterson)

if all the money would be expended. I had in my hand the nine-month

figures because I know like many Members that the big expenditure comes

after that nine month figure is in — in terms of housing shelter and

accommodation. I had the answer "yes", from the Minister of Labour.

That was the year we under-expended apprenticeship in industrial

training by $900,000. One thing we could do about apprenticeship and

this is right off the top of my head is to say that never will an

apprentice ever be laid off.

I could tell you stories, Mr. Speaker, that come from your home town

and my home town in the old country when in 1924, 1922, 1926, the only

money that was coming into people's houses came from apprenticeship

wages. That's the kind of thing we should have in the back of our minds

when we make legislation.

Let's look at what we achieved during those years that I referred

to, 1966-71. Let's look at the kind of trade, the kind of skills that

we are producing. Mr. Speaker, out of 1,552 apprentices — and these are

mentioned in the Minister of Labour's last report — out of 1,552

apprentices 217 had to go with the car industry, learning how to bash

dents out of fenders and repair automobile engines, 15 per cent of the

output went to the automobile industry.

How much of the output of that scheme, those schools and this

branch, went into something that's got to do with 1972 and 1973 — the

last half of the 20th Century, the first year of the second century of

Canada?

Electronics, Mr. Speaker — 0.6 per cent went into electronics, 0.5

per cent went into instrumentation in its forms. Mr. Speaker, the

branch and the Minister, the then Minister — I'm not referring to this

Minister, he's got this year to come up, we'll watch for him next year

— they're locked into the fifties. They remember '52 and their minds

stop. They had a good idea in '52 and haven't had one since.

The Minister in charge then was also the Minister of Education and

he used to say it was a perfect mix — education and labour. It's a

dreadful mix, Mr. Minister, Mr. Speaker, through you. The same kind of

locked-in approach, the same kind of locked-in thinking went into

education as well. And when we look at the graduating lists out of our

Canadian universities — and these are available to the Members, they're

published by the Department of Manpower and Immigration, "University

and Community College Guide, 1970" — we look at some of the modern

techniques, modern sciences, the modern disciplines they require and

look where our universities stand.

Let's take, just off the first page, "Schools of Sociology,

Environmental Studies and Anthropology." Something that we're all

concerned with, something that we have to know something about if we're

going to make some decisions about where we go economically, where we

go from a development point of view, and where we go with the great

impact that government has on people today.

In B.C. we produced in 1970 eight graduates, in '71 10 graduates

while the University of Western Ontario produced 141. The same kind of

locked-in 1952 approach.

"Secretarial, Science, and Arts." Almost zilch as the Minister of

Municipal Affairs would say. Five graduates in '71 compared to Dalhousie University

and St. Mary's University in the east.

"Public Administration", Mr. Speaker. Now we all know that if there

is one trade union that is going to get bigger and bigger and bigger, it's the

Canadian Union of Public Employees. We all know that the bureaucracy and the

people associated with the civil service are going to get bigger, bigger, and

bigger. We do know that we better start to learn something about public administration.

There's not even a course, not even a school, nothing. And we can go

right through to the Master's degrees, Mr. Speaker, and the same

results apply. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that from '52 until last year

— and that wasn't '52, I guess it was around about 1956 or there abouts

— when that dual portfolio was carried by the first Member for

Vancouver–Little Mountain, we had locked-in thinking that seemed

standstill, standstill in terms of quality.

This Minister will have to do better. One thing he can do, Mr.

Speaker, is to pass, suggest, produce, encourage, do something to

produce a bill that would make sure that every vacancy in this province

is notified to some central source. Every vacancy.

I don't say that we do away with private hire agencies although I

could have a debate about it at some other time. I don't necessarily

want to pass any comment about the fact you're in competition with

Manpower, with the P.A.B. and the opportunities programme and soon. But

I'm saying that every vacancy in B.C. should have to be notified

centrally. So, at least the people who've got the lists for people

looking for work have got on the other hand the lists of jobs

available. That doesn't happen today.

If we do that, then that side of the House and this side of the

House can look at the federal government and we can say to the Prime

Minister of Canada, "either put up or shut up when you're talking about

unemployment". He won't be able to go around then saying there are

40,000 jobs here and 20,000 jobs there. We'll also be able to say to

Canada Manpower, "put up or shut up". I call for that control of

vacancies bill, that control of vacancies Act or that control of

vacancies order.

I'd like to say some more about this apprenticeship and industrial

training programme. I want to see a lot more people involved in that

new look as the Minister indicates. It's going to take a lot more than

the simple input of money. And I'd like to see the House committee on

labour take a look at it, because it's too important to leave to the

whims of the government or the whims of the Minister. I want to say,

Mr. Speaker, I would be a little bit more appreciative of the

[ Page 457 ]

Minister if he'd have made all of his speech in the House yesterday, instead of out in the corridor.

Mr. Speaker, when we sit in this House…

HON. J.R. CHABOT (Minister of Labour): I made all my speech in the House.

MR. HALL: No sir, when he talked about drastic changes to the

compensation board, which he did not say in this House, then I consider

that an affront to the House and it's in keeping with him cocking his

nose at the House like he did on opening day.

And we'd all get along a lot better if we pay the correct attention,

and the correct service to this House rather than lip service to the

House.

The Minister talked about changes in principle to the Workmen's Compensation Act

not in this chamber but outside. No sir, it won't wash, it won't wash.

He could have wiped out 15 of those 16 minutes on Vallieres and talked

about 15 or 14 minutes on workmen's compensation.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, if we want to get rough like that I

could talk about Social Credit members in Ontario, members of the

Edmond Burke Society, members who break into book stores and commit

violence, Social Credit members who attack visiting dignitaries — but

that doesn't get us anywhere. So don't start that kind of tone of

debate.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. HALL: I've done a better job of that since I've been in

the House than you have. And you've been in the House twice as long as

I have. Mr. Speaker, the last Minister of Labour used to just stamp his

feet, stamp his satin-covered slippered feet. That's what he used to

do, when we used to ask him about this kind of question. And I hope the

Minister doesn't take on that kind of abberant behaviour as well.

Mr. Speaker, the debate last night went on right through the small

hours of the morning. I was getting tired, like most Members I suppose,

but when I heard the Minister of Agriculture blaming everybody again,

blaming labour, talking about compulsory arbitration at one o'clock in

the morning I must confess that I wanted to heckle him and I did. And I

shouldn't have done that.

But as usual he castigated labour and recommended the old big stick

formula, compulsory arbitration. I'd like to go into that one more

time. One more time, because we've heard it over and over and over

again.

Mr. Speaker it's my opinion, and I think it's a fact, that

compulsory arbitration causes more strikes than it solves. It's not

good enough to just take compulsory arbitration in a singular fashion

and look at it as if it were frozen in one specific moment of time.

Mr. Speaker it is my opinion that those sections of our economy that

are sensitive and can fairly obviously be declared to be in the

essential public service field are willing to meet as both management

and labour, to discuss the future of whither goest labour-management

relations. But they've never been asked, they've never been asked. It's

my opinion, Mr. Speaker, that the compulsory sections of Bill No. 33

defeated its purpose from the government point of view. I'd like to

look at the labour scene as far as compulsory arbitration is concerned,

Mr. Speaker. If we look at the industrial western world — and that's

what we're talking about — all of which to varying degrees have

different collective bargaining arrangements, if we look at the

incidence of strikes and lock-outs in those countries, we start to see

a pattern emerging.

We take the last 13 years or thereabouts. We'll find out that if we

take four countries — the United Kingdom, Sweden, Australia and this

country — the days lost per work are varied, from 0.31 to 0.006. And

you don't have to be much of a genius to know that the one with

compulsory arbitration has got the worst figures — 0.31.

The four countries differ in the degrees to which the determination

of wages and conditions is regulated by law. And that regulation by law

is what's wrong with Bill No. 33.

Mr. Speaker, we can discuss in detail Great Britain, Sweden, and

Australia where they set up industrial arbitration courts which hand

down legally-binding awards. But I prefer to deal in a kind of a

principled way with the thing because maybe the Minister's not really

caught on to this yet.

The principle of compulsory arbitration, Mr. Speaker, is not based

on the need for any understanding whatsoever between the parties. It

involves the intrusion of a third party into the dispute. It involves

the intrusion of a third party to enquire into the issues and to impose

a settlement. And since the terms of the outcome of that intrusion will

be in legal form, legally enforceable, binding by the total weights of

this Legislature, you can see the disputing parties have no

responsibility whatsoever for the terms of the settlement to either

each other — and that's important — or to their members, either the

trade union membership or the shareholders, or owners or the corporate

structure. And that leads to a loss of both union and management

rights, and that's what we're talking about — rights.

This is not in the interest, in my view, of more peaceful industrial

relations. It's alright to take one dispute and say, "solve it". But

you've got to look at the overall picture in a long term, and the

greatest argument against compulsory arbitration or the threat of it is

that there is not a single shred of evidence that it decreases the

incidence of strikes. And that's what we're supposed to be talking

about. There's a lot of other reasons for objecting to it and I've

named a couple.

But, Mr. Speaker, and here we're coming to 1972 as distinct from

Bill No. 33 in 1968, if compulsory arbitration is a path upon which the

government has set its feet it follows that the government is going to

get involved right up to its neck in wage determination and therefore

must become involved in the determination of prices and profits.

Mr. Speaker, I said that in '68. And I would be out of order if I

referred your attention to Bill No. 3. But I think you'll see the

connection, I think you'll see the connection.

Mr. Speaker, I want to close on this item of compulsory arbitration

with just one further quotation. Not a self quotation this time but a

quotation from an

article in Business Week , and that's not required reading for members of the New Democratic Party, if you listen to what people on the other side say.

Consensus: The subject of emergency disputes got considerable

attention last week for an impressive assembly of labour-management

experts gathered for the anniversary of the Federal Mediation and

Conciliation Service in the United States. The participants' opinions

on the problems facing collective bargaining ranged the spectrum of

their special concerns.

And here may I add, Mr. Speaker, that when the Minister says "politicians and other special interest groups" I think we

[ Page 458 ]

were laughing over his head.

The participants' opinions on the problems facing collective

bargaining ranged the spectrum of their special concern — business,

labour government and the universities. And there was one unanimous

view, that compulsory arbitration is not the best device for handling

critical strikes, whether they create or threaten an emergency or lead

to substantial inconvenience for the public. Many of the experts at the

week-long session argued there is already too much federal intervention

in labour disputes. It goes on to then say how much they disagreed

about everything else. But the one unanimous viewpoint was, that

compulsory arbitration is not the best device for handling critical

strikes whether they create or threaten an emergency or lead to

substantial inconvenience for the public.

Mr. Speaker, we could debate, I suppose, for days on end what we

should do. But I think we would agree on this, that the most important

thing in labour-management disputes as far as the public essential

service field is concerned is the climate that is existing in the

province before ever a dispute or negotiations take place. And that

amorphous, intangible thing called "climate" is where the government's

going wrong.

And even calling for labour tzars, like the Liberals do from time to

time when they mention "a splendid man" when they talk about that — Justice Nemetz isn't going to solve the problem either. Because what

people don't realise is that there isn't necessarily a rational

approach to be taken in a dispute between labour-management. And I said

this last year. What you have to do is get the climate, what you have

to do is remove all the rubbish and the argumentation about whether

this is right or wrong, and that's where some parts of that bill might

have been useful. And then you say, "let them have at each other". Fair

and square, shoulder to shoulder. And there's nothing wrong with that.

Mr. Speaker, those things that I have mentioned are essential and

then we start to go on with some of the other stuff. But the government

doesn't even make the first step.

Part of the climate would be, Mr. Speaker, to make sure that there

is legislation in this province that is useful to everybody, not to

just one side. And when I look at what's happening to other parts of

this country I find again that this government has a short-fall in its

legislative programme.

Mr. Speaker, the question of plant closures and plant shut-downs is

one which is going to bedevil Canada for a while. And it's going to

start to make an ever-increasing amount of work for the Minister of

Labour. It's going to hurt British Columbia. B.C., the third largest

industrial province, is falling behind Quebec, and Ontario and the

federal government in legislation to protect the workers, the economy,

and the community against plant closures, and plant shut-downs.

Shut-downs, Mr. Speaker, are a product of the complex technical age,

a by-product of a branch-plant economy in this country. They are

usually caused by a combination of one or more of three basic reasons.

Either foreign decisions — two, efficiency — three, mergers, or other

rationalisations, of the branch-plant economy. And the main fault of

these things, Mr. Speaker, is there's no advanced notice.

Now, I've been in management for a long time, and nobody's going to

tell me, Mr. Speaker, that this kind of decision-making happens at 9

o'clock on a Monday morning.

For weeks in advance, management know that this kind of thing is

coming along. No provision in the contract, usually, in this province

for advance notice. No compulsory machinery made available by

legislation. The employer has the whip hand, but the employer has a

responsibility. A responsibility, Mr. Speaker. And if you can think of

the effect it can have in one industry town you can rapidly see that we

need this legislation and that we're way behind the federal government.

Let's look at the legislation that's available for us as a model. To

speak of the legislation federally is the Canada Labour Standards Code,

section 34 of

part 4C — "group termination of employment".

Mr. Speaker, if any employer who terminates either simultaneously or

within any period not exceeding four weeks the employment of a group of

50 or more employees he has to give notice to the Minister — eight

weeks if he employs up to 100 — 12 weeks between 100-300, and 16 weeks

notice if the group exceeds 300. That's notice.

Now, that's not all, that's not the end of it, nor should it be. But

we go further and we see that the owner also has to notify the employee

organisation, where there's a contract. Further, the right to negotiate

and open the contract is available. And severance pay is laid down in

the schedule.

But more importantly, it means that the three parties that are

involved have got to get together, and that's the main thing. If the

Minister did nothing else but dedicate his whole life to getting the

three parties together day in and day out, he'd make a contribution far

in excess of the contribution that has been made over the last six

years by that Minister.

Ontario, termination of employment, effective date — same thing. One

week's notice, to a person if he's got less than two years employment

history — that's on the personal lay-off basis. When you come to the

group lay-off it's almost the same as the federal code. Eight weeks'

notice less than 200, 12 weeks between 200-500, 16 weeks if there's

more than 500.

The recent shut-downs in British Columbia, Mr. Speaker? Mining — Churchill, Bralorn, Noranda. Lumber — N.B. King, B.C. Forest Products,

Crown Zellerbach in Peachland, B.C. Laminated, and they've shut down

their power machinery in Richmond, and the list grows day after day

after day.

Nobody can complain or whine about it, it's a fact of life. I've

said in my earlier speech what's wrong with this economy that we're in.

It's now proven that you can do without 20 per cent of the people as

workers, as you can do without 20 per cent of the people who are

consumers. And that's something that neither Marx nor Keynes ever

envisaged. But apart from the question of notice there is whole range

of problems and a range of possible solutions.

Some of those companies I mentioned, Mr. Speaker, have because of

the persistence of some activists in the Manpower consultative service

and the trade union movement and in two cases to my knowledge, there

may be more, of excellent employer-employee relationship have

cooperated in lessening the blow.

What about the problems and what about the range of possible

solutions? Well, first of all we have to get some machinery to handle

the problem. That should be

section 1 or

section 2 of the Act.

Second, we can discuss, I suppose, the question of early retirement for those people over a certain age.

Thirdly we could talk about re-location. There's mobility assistance

available from the federal government and I'm sure that with all this

money that you're standing up to your hips in, you can afford a few

bucks yourselves. Maybe the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Chabot) might

be more aggressive in getting some of that money than his predecessor,

too.

[ Page 459 ]

I'd like to write a job description, Mr. Speaker, sometime for the new Minister of Labour.

There's absorption into the other parts of the branch plant economy

which could be written as indeed I think has been written in the case

of Crown Zellerbach and I think it was M.B. Kinglam.

Retraining — now we come back, perhaps, to what we were discussing

before where young people are concerned. Something which I expect no

agreement from at all on the other side of the House — the question of

take-over. There's been a study done, Mr. Speaker, and I …

AN HON. MEMBER: Which plant would you have taken over?

MR. HALL: It all depends which plant it was. Very selective.

I can think of a couple of plants not too far away from your doorstep I

might have taken over at one time or another.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. HALL: There's been a study done, Mr. Speaker, by the Ontario Federation of Labour.

Interjection by Hon. Members.

MR. HALL: I want to quote from parts of that study …

Interjections by Hon. Members.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will the Members please address the Chair and address the Chair from their own seats.

MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, carrying on about the study by the

Ontario Federation of Labour, I recommend it to the Minister, an

excellent piece of work. In our survey, Mr. Speaker, it was found that

not all plant shutdowns were the result of a depressed economic

situation in the country. Some of the shutdowns were caused by poor

management and inefficiency. Others were closed because of an inferior

end product. Others closed because of competition, domestic or foreign,

lack of restrictions on foreign goods. A good many plants were closed

because the decision to close was made elsewhere than in our own

country. We can't state that often enough, Mr. Speaker.

The study goes on to talk about the nature of unemployment today.

How the serious rise in unemployment cannot be attributed solely to a

gap or a mismatching between the availability of labour and the jobs

required.

They talk about structural unemployment. They talk about mismatching

of skills, technological change — and I repeat my plea, Mr. Speaker,

why doesn't somebody in B.C. start to investigate who is unemployed

instead of using the gross and raw figures all the time?

In this time we're facing a range of things, tax cuts, an expanded

social security system, higher wages, salaries, and government policies

of investing in large-scale capital works. That's what we could be

doing. That's what we're not doing. That's what we could be doing.

Mr. Speaker, the Members on the other side often deal in

old-fashioned myths. "High wages cause unemployment." There's been a

stepped-up campaign to convince the public that wage increases are the

cause of unemployment. The facts don't bear it out. Wage increases are

not the cause of unemployment. If they were, some of our greatest

competitors would be in the same position as we are.

In 1969-70 wages went up in Japan by 17.9 per cent. Unemployment

went down 2.8 per cent. That's right. Productivity. But then I cited

the case of steel where the union cost of labour still is going down,

down, down, down, down. We can go right through that series of random

statistics. We can talk about the psychological effects of plant

shutdown. Although a plant shutdown threatens all employees in the

industry unit alike in that they all lose their jobs, the less-skilled,

the ones with the lowest seniority and the ones at the bottom of the

income scale suffer the most.

Here, I want to stray and say I disagreed with one part of this

report because I don't think it pays anywhere near enough attention to

the white-collar worker in the shutdown situation who often is more

distressed. But then sometimes the answer for a white-collar worker is

to do something that a blue-collar worker did a long time ago and

that's swallow his pride.

Mr. Speaker, a comparison of the legislation in Quebec, Ontario and

the federal government I think I have made in terms of the number of

weeks of advance notice.

What it does, Mr. Speaker, is insures that the role of government

agencies in providing information assistance to workers who find

themselves unemployed because of mass lay-offs is as comprehensive as

possible.

Listen to who is involved in the Province of Ontario. Life's a whole

new ball-game for those Ministers who are dashing around. The

provincial Departments of Education, Social and Family Services, Trade

and Development, Treasury and Economics as well as the Canada

Department of Manpower and Immigration and an official of the Ontario

Department of Labour as chairman of the committee.

Now, I'm not too fond of that kind of structured committee in a way,

but the point is it's beginning to work. We've got a model legislation

and I think we can do something here.

Mr. Speaker, the questions of management rights is dealt with on

page 86 of this report. Here, I suppose, there will be a difference of

opinion between myself and the Minister of Labour and it's this. The

old concept of labour as a commodity simply will not suffice. It is at

once wrong and dangerous, hence there is a responsibility upon the

entrepreneur who introduced his technological change to see that it is

not effected at the expense of his working force.

I think we've got to admit that the old idea of labour as a product

just simply to be sold is old hat. We can dispense with it and come up

with some new values. Some new ideas about shares. You're all fond of

drawing these wonderful pies in the budget. Let's draw some new pies

for the kind of shares that we're talking about as we go into this last

20 years of this century.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to raise one point that is of interest

to those in B.C. That when a plant shuts down or closes, if that plant

is in possession of one of the myriad pieces of paper that it can get — and I don't profess to be any expert in the Department of Lands,

Forests and Water Resources but I know that you can get grants of

timber, you can get licences and there's a whole range of things that

have happened, happen now and will happen in the future — but I simply

say that if any plant that closes down has a piece of paper that has on

it a natural resource that was given to it by this government, but the

Crown, it should be returned to the Crown.

But when I remember, Mr. Speaker, the case of Georgia

[ Page 460 ]

Pacific — and I don't want to deal loosely in the

figures — but I know deep inside me that Georgia Pacific probably made

more money when it got out than it did when it was working. That's not

good enough. Anybody that's got a piece of paper with the Minister's

signature on it allows him to cut, trim, dig, to spoil, grab, come and

get it — all the rest of it. It goes back to the Crown, Mr. Speaker, if

I had my way.

In

summary there is a range of things that this government could do.

It could start with an inquiry about a House committee on the aspects

of apprenticeship. It could pass a control of vacancies order. It could

insist on the return to the Crown of all granted or licensed resources.

It could pass a bill controlling plan shutdowns and closures. It could

remove the compulsory sections of the Mediation Commission Act

followed by changes in the Act itself. It could dismiss the mediation

commission, and it could expect I think, Mr. Speaker, a better, fuller,

and franker series of statements by the Minister of Labour. I hope he

will do it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister without Portfolio for Mackenzie.

HON. I.P. DAWSON (Minister without Portfolio): Mr. Speaker,

before beginning my address on the budget debate, I would like to

mention first of all how pleased I am to see that the work has begun on

the reconstruction of Highway 101 on the Sechelt Peninsula. I'm also

very pleased that September, 1971 saw the opening of our new hospital

in Ocean Falls. An additional floor to provide more acute beds and

extended care at St. Mary's Hospital in Sechelt was opened in December.

I am extremely pleased that finally at long last negotiations with the

federal government have been confirmed for the building of a new

hospital in Bella Bella.

However, Mr. Speaker, I feel that the time is fast approaching when

serious consideration must be given to an alternate route to the

Sechelt Peninsula as well as to Powell River. These areas are growing

rapidly and would benefit greatly from such development.

I have had many letters and comments from people both in my riding

and outside of it on the tremendous park work that has been going on.

Especially in the Porpoise Bay and Roberts Creek area.

You know, this winter has been extremely severe and I feel that

great credit should go to our highways crews who have worked constantly

and indeed through the Christmas holidays — and most of us were able to

enjoy our family — to keep our roads ploughed and sanded out. You know,

this is not an easy task and I'm sure all the Members appreciate their

efforts on our behalf.

This past week I had the most pleasant opportunity to visit Merritt,

to attend the annual Moccasin Ice-hockey Tournament. Five teams

competed in the tournament and the standard of skating and playing was

exceptional.

I think the Canucks and some of our hockey teams might well take a

look at some of these young Indian hockey players. They're just

tremendous. The winners of the tournament will be travelling to Alberta

to play in the western championships shortly.

Mr. Speaker, not having a teaching background I cannot attempt to

compete with my colleague, the Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests and

Water Resources (Hon. Mr. Williston) in his adjectivally and

adverbially enjoyable, factual description of the 1972 budget. I can

however describe the 1972 budget in a few of the two- or

three-syllabled words I have at my command.

This year's budget, a budget that is a credit to the outstanding

financial ability of the Premier of this province, has a bushel and a

peck of quality and quantity about it.

It is a mine of information. It indicates a forest-like growth. It

holds water. It is a scenic tour of success. It is as rich as the brown

soil — a veritable parkland, a landslide success. An educative

accomplishment. A judicious presentation. A highway to the future. A

labour of planning. A public work of stature. A healthful presentation.

A recreative conservation of funds. It has planned excellence. It puts

people first. It is trade-promoting and last but not least is a

treasure chest of value for the people of this province.

When the privilege of ending the debate of the throne speech for the

Opposition was granted to one of my own sex, I somehow believed that

Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition had suddenly awakened to the place women

have to play in our parliamentary process.

When I considered that the ending of the throne speech debate was

traditionally a summation of what the Opposition considered to be their

stand as opposed to that stated by the government side I eagerly and

avidly anticipated a clear and lucid statement on the part of the

Member from Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly). However, Mr. Speaker, I was

not only amazed but also dumbfounded and indeed baffled by the remarks

of the Hon. Member concerning her visit to Willingdon School where she

was accompanied by the Member from New Westminster (Mr. Cocke).

I must express disapprobation to the remarks of the Member when in

her evident hunger for attention she limelighted the girls at

Willingdon School. A result of her comments was not averse to

promulgating the limelight situation onto the parents of youngsters at

the school and coupling both the parents and the girls with her

histronics concerning "solitary confinement" and "last resort" and

other items that once were used to describe penitentiaries, I found her

statements over-coloured, extravagant, excessive, inordinate and a

masterpiece of rhetoric.

In revealing that she gained all of her knowledge of the school as a

result of a couple of short visits I can only assume that she is

looking for headlines rather than for a change.

The call on the part of the Member for regionalisation of facilities

is merely a pompous echo of what has been and a hollow one at that.

This government's policy has been regionalisation for many years. A

policy that is enshrined in legislation in 1969.

The professional staff at Willingdon school are well trained people

and I feel quite certain that they know what they are doing. Their

first concern is for the welfare of the girls at the school. The days

of the sadistic type of institution are, thank goodness, long past and

the concern of government today is in providing a variety of facilities

for the care of young people and it is centered around professionally

trained and competent people being placed in positions where they

provide the know-how necessary for the care of young people.

It is very easy to jump to conclusions and this is what I feel the

honourable Member has done. I can think back myself to the first time I

visited a school which had incorporated open-area teaching concepts in

its curriculum, then a very new departure for the particular school I

visited.

I wondered during my visit how any learning could take place. It

seemed to me that there was a great deal of confusion in the learning

areas and the noise level appeared to be excessive. Students were all

over the place and a great amount of messy stuff seemed to be going on

in one corner

[ Page 461 ]

of the room. However, it became apparent to me,

after several visits to this and similar planning teaching areas, that

the teachers who were handling the open-area sessions were indeed

competent in handling their area of teaching and that they students

were given encouragement to be creative in their own way.

While I may still have some reservations on the open area teaching,

I have to recognise and accept the roles of the teacher in this area of

education. It is clear that the trained educator in this specific

teaching situation is competent to provide and to maintain a learning

situation which is a value to the students who participate in such a

teaching concept.

In my speech in the House in 1969, I advocated more facilities at

the community level for the young people who are in need of various

care facilities and I will quote in part from my speech at that time.

"Children should not be considered in isolation from

their families and their communities. A concerned and action oriented

community strengthens the ability of each family with it. We must look

inwardly into the communities, the families within the community areas,

as well as to our social institutions, to determine where the cause

stems from.

"Provincial institutions may have their place, but it

seems to me that solutions are best found in the community from which

the child emerges."

That's what I said in 1969. I need not remind this House that I also

issued a challenge to any M.L.A. in this House to get involved in

starting such programmes in any area and that I would gladly accompany

any M.L.A. anywhere in the province to present my personal conviction

and help that M.L.A. in creating and developing the types of resources

for children that the community say as best serving their own

particular needs. Did I get any takers from the Opposition? No, not one.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MRS. DAWSON: We have an excellent treatment resources programme

and there are many communities which have accepted the challenge themselves,

and in the last two years alone, some 67 child-care resources have been opened

in the eight regions in the province. Total capacity of these homes alone is

439. They cover short-term in family settings, receiving homes for infants up

to two years, receiving homes for the mentally retarded, court remand homes,

prereplacement homes, group homes for disturbed or delinquent girls and boys,

group homes for the physically or mentally handicapped, homes for the emotionally

disturbed, homes for those with behaviour problems.

In addition to those I have mentioned and in addition to Brannen

Lake, Willingdon School and New Denver Youth Centre, there are special

care resources available to the Department of Rehabilitation and Social

Improvement.

These include intensive treatment for the emotionally disturbed,

residential school for those with learning difficulties, hostels for

the older girls, educational programmes for autistic children,

programmes for the retarded deaf children, et cetera. There is a total

capacity for 1,234 boys and girls in the eight regions.

I would say that the Member from North Burnaby, (Mrs. Dailly), as a

result of her remarks, indicates a lack of comprehension of the

problems that children are suffering and of the anguish and heartbreaks

that the parents of these children experience.

She reveals a total disrespect for the communities and the dedicated

people who are throwing all their energies towards helping these

families. She creates additional worries and anxieties on the already

overburdened families by continuing to perpetuate an outworn myth.

I can only conclude that the Member is giving new life to an old

myth, really believes that the girls that go to Willingdon School go

there to be punished and not to be helped. I cannot really believe that

she still holds in her heart the conviction that the troubled child is

not troubled, but is bad, as I am aware of that Member's own role in

the educational areas.

I say this with deep conviction because I lived in Willingdon School

and I have shared with the girls some of their joys and some of their

sorrows. From my experiences during my visits — my many visits I might

say — to the school, I cannot credit even from the casual visitor the

kind of conclusions that the Member from Burnaby-North has made.

If that Member had but stayed and listened she would have discovered

that the common cry from the girls in that school was that they want to

be wanted. She would have heard of the many girls who have in their

confusion run away and then phoned at any hour of day or night for the

staff of the school to come and get them.

The Member visited the school, but she certainly and obviously did

not make an in-depth visit. How can one assess in a two-hour visit the

problems of these young girls, problems which have built up over a

period of many years?

The Honourable Member should return to Willingdon, the girls there

after all are quite forgiving, and she should spend some time gaining

an understanding concerning young women in trouble rather than going

there for the purpose of writing her speech for this House.

If the Member is sincerely interested in thoroughly comprehending

the regionalisation of resources in this great province, I would be

glad to give her all the information and examples of comprehensive

community endeavours which she will need to round out her knowledge of

how to help the troubled child — girl or boy.

It is interesting to know that the day after she had visited

Willingdon School my good colleague the Minister of Rehabilitation and

Social Improvement (Hon. Mr. Gaglardi) visited the school too and you

know, her visit to the school was only, it would seem, to appear for

the purpose of what political gain she could get out of it.

She chose, Mr. Speaker, to ignore all the good work the staff is

doing at that school. The staff of the school was visited by the

Minister as I said, the following day, and he found these people

extremely disturbed over her cavalier and haughty attitude. Her

criticisms are against some of the finest people in the civil service

and she should be exposed, as I say, as a meddler for political gain at

the expense of some very wonderful people.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why don't you go stab yourself with a ball-point?

HON. MRS. DAWSON: One other point I would mention, though, at this time

— I wonder if it was the intention of that Member from Burnaby-North when

she said "get rid of Willingdon School," did she mean that it was

not good enough for girls but it was good enough for senior citizens? Surely

that was not her intention.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

[ Page 462 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please! The Honourable Member will have his opportunity

to take his place in the debate.

HON. MRS. DAWSON: I have here in my hand today a complete list of receiving

homes for boys and girls in this province, a special resource for the treatment

of those who require intensive or various types of care.

I say, with all sincerity, let your Member come sit down with me and

we'll talk about it. I'll go to the school with her too if she wants me

to. I'll go with her on the condition that she'll sit down and listen

and try to give understanding with the superintendent and myself. I

will willingly do that but she must go and be prepared to listen to

what is said.

AN HON. MEMBER: She did and they went away satisfied and then changed

their minds.

HON. MRS. DAWSON: The superintendent did her best, but they wouldn't

listen to the superintendent.

I was going to speak on the elderly citizens a great deal today but

because of so much discussion last night, I'm going to leave most of

mine until we get a little further along, possibly in the estimates.

I'll have an opportunity to tell you some more or some of the

programmes that are going on in this province. But I am going to make

mention of one today.

This is called the holiday programme for seniors. A holiday, a

change of scenery, a different environment is necessary for all of us

from time to time. We feel renewed, refreshed, and rested and perhaps,

even more so, a change is necessary for our senior citizens.

Ordinarily those of us who work regularly, tend to take our holidays

at the times of the year suitable to family plans and generally while

our children are out of school the family takes off. However, senior

citizens are not necessarily confined to taking holidays during the

holiday peak season. It would seem reasonable to assume that were

senior citizens to plan holidays during other than peak holidays,

tourist oriented industries, the private citizen, might consider

extending to these people a reduced rate whether they travel

individually or in groups, within the Province of British Columbia.

To this end and because of talks I've had with the elderly citizens

— and they showed interest in this type of planning — I've had meetings

with the heads of transportation companies, hotel, motel and restaurant

associations, and I plan to meet with those active in the entertainment

fields.

Bus line operators, railroad and water transportation officials,

hotel, motel and restaurant people, have all assured me of their keen

interest in such a programme. Although we have just recently made a

start, I have already had indications of reduced rates for our elderly

citizens on the railways providing that they travel at certain times of

the week. These are for the elderly citizens 65 years and over.

The hotel association has recently assured me that generally

speaking they will cut their rates at least by 25 per cent on

accommodation. The motel association has also indicated that they are

greatly interested in this programme and we should be hearing from them

in a matter of days.

Should a situation exist where a husband or wife is 65 years or over

and the other partner is under 65 it is anticipated that the reduction

will apply to both partners. The programme will extend from October to

April, in each year anywhere in the province, anywhere they want.

In order that senior citizens may avail themselves of these

reductions, an identification card is being prepared and production of

this card will entitle them to all available reductions under the

programme no matter where they go in the province, when the programme

is set up.

Interjections by Hon. Member.

HON. MRS. DAWSON: Oh, no, you'd be surprised. There are some who like

to travel. I get lots of requests. Mr. Speaker, it's quite surprising. I've

been surprised at some of the requests of the senior citizens on travelling.

You know what they want to do, some of them, especially who live alone, up in

the interior and up Vancouver Island, Port Alberni, and other places? They said:

"We'd like to go to the city for Christmas." They live by themselves.

They like to go down and enjoy the bright lights and have a little fun at Christmas.

This shows you.

They want to go not only in the summer time, they want to go in the

winter time as well. I can see where the people up in Cranbrook area

and Kimberley might like to choose to come down here, say in April or

October and I would, if I were an elderly citizen. I would love to go

up to the Kootenays in October and see the beautiful colouring of

leaves. It's a sight to behold. You must agree to that.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MRS. DAWSON: Someday I'm going to be and someday you are too, aren't

you? I know you're going to enjoy all the services the Province of British Columbia

is providing for the elderly citizens. That's what I can't understand about

people. I can't understand people who talk against senior citizens and I do

have and you know you have had much discussion on this.

But I'll say this, boy even if you're going to be selfish about it,

even for your own self, I would be behind every programme going on

these holiday trip programmes for senior citizens, no matter what you

are, because not only the present senior citizen of today is going to

enjoy it, but so are you, and so is every one of us. I hope I am, I

intend to enjoy it. I intend to enjoy the programme.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's still alive, hit him again.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's later than you think, Leo.

HON. MRS. DAWSON: As far as I'm concerned I have not heard of a similar

programme being developed anywhere and I would like to say at this time if we

can start this in British Columbia, I'm hoping that this kind of a holiday set-up

will spread all across this nation because I think we have a wonderful country

in British Columbia and in Canada and let them see it if they can at a reasonable

rate.

Interjection by Hon. Member.

HON. MRS. DAWSON: Yes they have rates, they have some plane rates too

but it is the whole of transportation, the whole area of services that we're

after and I think we can come up with a pretty good programme.

Interjection by Hon. Member.

HON. MRS. DAWSON: I know, but a lot of elderly citizens

[ Page 463 ]

do not want to travel by plane. You'd be surprised how many don't.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MRS. DAWSON: This is good, you know. This is a round table discussion.

Mr. Speaker, as a result of my work with elderly citizens throughout

the province, it became apparent to me that there was need for

investigation of the needs of the hard of hearing, especially where

their needs relate to sales and services of hearing aids.

I was told by many people, and so were the people in this House, of

the abuse in sales and servicing of hearing aids in relation to the

high cost of aids and poor after-sales service.

For those of our citizens who in their later years must have

recourse to a hearing device, the expense of such a device is often

prohibitive, in particular if the device must be serviced frequently.

The senior citizen often cannot afford the expense of constant

servicing of hearing aids. And while this may not seem quite such a

problem to get down to your hearing aid dealer in the cities, it

certainly is difficult out in the rural communities. Particularly if

such servicing does not produce satisfactory results.

Initially we were concerned with that area of people in a community

who could easily be taken advantage of — and could ill afford the

constant expense of the hearing aid repairs. However, as we progressed

in our investigations the programme became expanded to include all of

the hard-of hearing, young and old alike.

A speech and hearing planning committee, under the chairmanship of

Dr. Elliot of the health department has been doing an excellent job of

looking into hearing problems. The committee's aspects were broad and

they have representation from the Department of Health, Department of

Education, Department of Rehabilitation, University of B.C., the

Western Institute for the Deaf, the medical profession, and

audiologists.

The need of a speech therapy programme within our education system

is certainly worthy of consideration. And I would like to see the

departments concerned take a close look at this in the coming year.

In 1970 the Hearing Aid Bill was first introduced to the Legislature

and the hearing aid industry was forewarned of the legislation which

would come into effect as a result of the introduction of this bill.

Possible federal developments — which, incidentally were not

forthcoming — delayed implementation of the bill and it was

reintroduced in 1971.

The bill, Mr. Speaker, was an outstanding success with the general

public in British Columbia, and, as a matter of fact it was the first

legislation of its kind in Canada.

A hearing aid board was appointed and set up as follows — I wish you'd listen to this now.

A member from the medical profession, one audiologist, one from the

health department, two only hearing aid dealers, one member of the

general public and a chairman who is a provincial consumer affairs

officer.

It may be interesting to the lady Member of the Opposition to know

that there are two women on the board. A quorum of five is necessary

for any decision which has to be made. The seven members of the board

represent…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MRS. DAWSON: Oh, we're protecting the public, don't worry…

we're taking care of the people. The members of the board represent professional,

consumer and hearing aid interests and the function of the board is to register

hearing aid dealers and to issue licenses to them so they can trade within the

Province of British Columbia.

The board has strong disciplinary powers which may be invoked where

a dealer is considered to be incompetent, where a dealer is considered

to have committed a breach of the Act or regulations pertaining to the

Act. The Act makes it clear that the board is competent to deal with

complaints either on its own behalf or on behalf of the general public

when it receives complaints from individuals, it is empowered to ensure

hearing aid dealers reach a standard of proficiency in knowledge of

their product, so that the public can be assured that the hearing aid

dealer knows his product and is competent to instruct in fitting and

use of the aid he sells.

The Act became law on July 1, 1971 and at this time the board

formulated regulations which were sanctioned and came into force on

October 28, 1971.

I must take this opportunity of expressing my appreciation to the

board members for their untiring efforts in bringing about the existing

regulations — it's not an easy job. Regulations which allow not only

the safeguards I have mentioned to be carried out, but also require the

dealer to: provide a bond, keep proper records and correctly describe a

hearing aid as new or used, maintain an adequate range of hearing aids

with the repair facilities necessary to give good service, maintain

equipment calibrated to acceptable standards.

In addition to this board a senior citizens' advisory committee

representing the interests of our elderly citizens in our province has

been formed to safeguard their interests in the area of hearing aid

devices. There's one man and two women on this advisory committee;

women's lib is getting ahead.

An educational sub-committee is presently looking into formulation

of an educational course for hearing aid dealers, and, hopefully in

mid-summer this year the course will be set up and will include a final

exam for hearing aid dealers taking such a course.

These are all positive steps to establish a standard and to help

individuals, and I'm pleased that the West Coast Hearing Aid Society

insists that their dealers take a correspondence course which is set up

by the national association. The course, which will be given by the

board, will not only embrace the theory that is contained in their

course, and from other sources as well, but will also have a practical

application as well.

Those involved in working out the course details for such a training

programme include: Mr. Stan Richards, director of the health division;

Gordon Thom, vice-principal, extension division University of B.C.; Mr.

Dave Hume, coordinator, extension division of the university; Mr.

Derrick Franklin, curriculum development; Mr. Dave Anstey, coordinator,

adult technical and vocational training; Dr. Irwin Stewart,

representative, board of hearing aid dealers and consultants, and Miss

Patience Towler, Department of Health. Now, I believe there are one or

two others but that's the list I have at the present time.

Manpower has agreed to lend support to two courses for the interior

of British Columbia and Vancouver Island. Spaces will be available for

20 dealers in each course.

The course will provide for:

1. Tests of knowledge in the following areas as they pertain to the fitting of hearing aids:

[ Page 464 ]

a. Basic physics of sound;

b. The human hearing mechanism, including the science

of hearing and the causes and rehabilitation of abnormal hearing and hearing

disorders;

c. Structure and function of hearing aids.

2. Tests of proficiency in the following techniques as they pertain to the fitting of hearing aids:

a. Pure-tone audiometry including air-conduction testing

and bone conduction testing;

b. Live voice or recorded voice speech and audiometry

including speech reception threshold testing and speech discrimination testing;

c. Effective masking for recording and evaluation of

audiograms and speech audiometry to determine hearing aid candidacy;

d. Selection and adaption of hearing aid and testing

of hearing aid.

And then, of course, taking ear mould impressions.

The hearing aid board was given firm reassurance by Mr. Anstey and

the members of the B.C.I.T. present that there seems to be no serious

obstruction to arranging the course and to providing instruction for

whatever numbers of candidates who decide to take the course.

It is interesting to note that there are already over 79 dealers and

consultants who have applied for registration and licences and the good

faith of the hearing aid dealers can best be described in their

willingness in cooperation with the government of this province to

supply a good-quality standard hearing aid and ear mould at a

reasonable cost of $50. Reasonable after-service goes along with the

aid.

Because such an aid may not be suitable for everyone and they aren't

all suitable for all persons as long as they give it a fair trial

period it is my understanding that the dealers will be willing to

refund the moneys already paid for this aid towards the purchase of

another aid of the buyer's choice.

I congratulate the dealers on recognising their responsibilities to

the consumer. However, I would like to state emphatically that all

those who feel they should have a hearing aid should see their own

doctor first. They should have a medical examination before they get an

aid. And hearing aids may not be of assistance in specific cases of

deafness.

At this time I would like to draw the attention of the House — by

the way, if Members would like a list of hearing aid dealers in the

province who have now got $50 hearing aids I would be pleased to give

them out tonight. Anyone can have this list, it's for all of the

province.

At this time I would draw the attention of the House to the close

cooperation I have enjoyed with the majority of hearing aid dealers

throughout the province. Cooperation has been enjoyed also by the

board. I have appreciated their cooperation and their acceptance of the

new regulations under the Hearing Aid Act .

Any changes must be of necessity thoroughly discussed and refined

before being implemented at this end I should say. I consulted with

members of the medical profession, audiologists, the Western Institute

for the Deaf and the consumer himself.

The Hearing Aid Act

introduced by this government following this discussion and refinement

clearly indicates the wishes of this government to bring about

standardisation of consumer protection in this field. The Act came into

effect as a direct result of large numbers of complaints from the part

of the users of hearing aids.

Dealers are required by the Act to put up a $5,000 bond as a

protection for the public. However, if was felt that those dealers who

had been in business as hearing aid dealers prior to July 1, 1971 when

the Act became law should have the opportunity to continue to trade

provided that they observed the intent of the bill. While the majority

of the hearing aid dealers have cooperated with the intent of this bill

it appears that there are a minority of dealers who see in the

provisions of our Act, an opportunity to continue to trade and to

receive their registration and licences without providing the

prescribed $5,000 bond.

Furthermore it appears that they do not wish to meet the educational

standards, or pay the fees which have been incorporated in the

regulations set out in the Act.

I want to state very clearly, Mr. Speaker, it's only a minority, it's not all the dealers.

All of us are aware that there are those who do not readily accept

change, for one reason or another. And there are apparently a number of

hearing aid dealers in this category. Since the sole intent of this Act

is to protect the consumer I find it hard to understand the attitude of

these dealers.

What is even harder to understand is that a Member of this House, so

I was informed, permitted himself to be placed in the position of being

retained by a group of hearing aid dealers who feel that they should be

able to continue their trade as they did before the Act became law.

What these dealers have done in effect, is submitted their

applications for licensing and registration, without the appropriate

fees. It occurs to me that any bona-fide dealer would realise the

advantage of being licensed and registered. Public confidence in his

services would be assured and the senior citizens in particular, as

well as others requiring hearing aids, would feel confident that a

registered and licensed dealer could and would supply him with a

hearing aid which would be effective in use and competently serviced

should the need arise.

In order to further ensure such public confidence in the hearing aid

dealers it is the intent of the Act that their dealers take a course of

training and examination so that their level of competency is clearly

established.

The senior citizen, on a limited income, and indeed anyone requiring

a hearing device, has a right to such safeguards, I say Mr. Speaker.

After all would any one of us knowingly engage an untrained person to

carry out a skilled or highly technical piece of work? No, we would

not, I'm sure.

Therefore I find it amazing to say the least that a Member of this

House would lend his talents to those seeking to evade proper

procedures under the Act —

an Act passed by this House —

an Act that

has the sole intent of alleviating distress and financial burden on our

citizens who have most need of hearing aid devices.

I am advised, Mr. Speaker, that not only has that Member — and I'm advised

of this by the board — not only has the Member been retained by this group

of hearing aid dealers…

AN HON. MEMBER: Name him.

HON. MRS. DAWSON: …but also he advised them, I'm informed, that

they should complete their applications in part only and they should submit

their applications without fee or bond.

Furthermore, he indicated to the board chairman that he would be

very pleased to see the board refuse or create obstacles for dealers

wishing to apply in this manner. He

[ Page 465 ]

would then act for the dealers who wish to proceed under

section 9 (1) of the Act.

Judas extracted his fee, 30 pieces of silver for betrayal of his

friend and his master. I wonder what is the betrayal fee of the Member

of this House for all the citizens of this province who have recourse

to a hearing device?

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON