1970 Legislative Session: 1st 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)

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 1970

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 325 ]

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 1970

The House met at 2 p.m.

The following Bills were introduced, read a first time, and Ordered

referred to the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and

Private Bills:

On the motion of Mr. B. Campbell, Bill (No. 50) intituled

An Act to Amend the Fruit Growers Mutual Insurance Company Act.

On the motion of Mr. Wolfe, Bill (No. 51) intituled

An Act to Amend the Vancouver Charter.

On the motion of Mr. Wolfe, Bill (No. 52) intituled

An Act Respecting Montreal Trust Company.

On the motion of Mr. Wolfe, Bill (No. 53) intituled

An Act Respecting Office Administrators.

On the motion of Mr. Merilees, Bill (No. 54) intituled

An Act Respecting Yorkshire Trust Company.

On the motion of Mr. Ney, Bill (No. 55) intituled

An Act Respecting Marine Surveyors.

BUDGET DEBATE

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources.

HON. F.X. RICHTER (Boundary-Similkameen): Mr. Speaker, in my

brief remarks today I propose to direct my attention to those

responsibilities that I'm charged with in administering the affairs of

the Department of Commercial Transport.

However, at the outset I wish to make a number of very pertinent

suggestions and statements for Government consideration pertaining to

the constituency of Boundary Similkameen, which it is my honour to

represent in this Legislative Assembly. With the growing importance of

the southern Trans-Canada Highway, more commonly known as Highway 3,

there are a few portions of this route that have not been brought up to

the standards of the rest of the highway. They occur mainly in the

eastern end of the constituency of Boundary-Similkameen, namely between

Greenwood and Grand Forks. Spencer Hill, west of Grand Forks, should

receive high priority. A need for re-alignment and widening is most

obvious. The type of material involved would not be expensive to move,

as it's mostly dirt and fragmented rock. Central Avenue in the city of

Grand Forks is in urgent need of having the present programme carried

out to facilitate the movement of traffic on the highway through the

city.

Realizing the difficulties the Department of Highways has had in

locating and designing the new approaches and bridge at Cascade because

of the terrain, I would urge that special attention be directed to this

project. There is an ever-increasing load of traffic, both commercial

and tourist, on the present structure. Before turning my attention to

the western end of the constituency, I would remind my colleagues of

the urgent need to carry out the development work on the beach and

picnic site, or day camp as it might be referred to, that was acquired

by the Department of Recreation and Conservation on the south end of

Christina Lake.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear.

MR. RICHTER: The pressure of use on this lake for

recreational purposes is almost unbelievable. In the Okanagan Valley,

and I speak only of the most southerly end of the Valley from the

international border at Osoyoos to Trout Creek near Summerland, it is

becoming a very debatable point as to whether or not the tourist

industry contributes more to the economy than the older industry of

agriculture. Certainly the tourist industry has provided a cash market

for some of the agricultural produce.

Mr. Speaker, here again I would suggest that consideration must be

given to the re-location of the most easterly end of Highway 3A, from

where it joins Highway 97 for about two to two and a half miles west.

This would improve alignment and grade. The highway between Penticton

and Naramata certainly requires re-location to get it away from the

orchards and the traffic adherent thereto. The volume of travel on

Highway 97 between Penticton and Summerland, in my opinion, has

developed to the point that four lanes are now necessary. Much of the

traffic load has come about through commuters from Penticton, who find

the constituency of South Okanagan a nice place to sleep and reside.

I want to commend the Minister of Highways and his Department for

the excellent programme they have carried out on access roads to skiing

areas. In the last few years some very challenging ski areas have been

developed within the constituency that I represent, and this

development has changed our whole tourist industry from a seasonal

nature to a year-round operation. I also wish to commend my colleague,

the Minister of Recreation and Conservation, and his Department for the

attention that they have given to the re-stocking of lakes and streams.

The benefit to both local anglers and visiting tourists cannot be

measured in dollars and cents.

Mr. Speaker, I could spend a great deal more time in discussing

matters of great importance to the constituency of

Boundary-Similkameen, such as the Okanagan Basin Water Board, its

programmes and studies, the highway improvements that have taken place

in the past year, the results of discussions in planning of the

Penticton truck route, the establishment of secondary industries, and

so on.

As I mentioned at the outset of my address, Mr. Speaker, and in

deference to those that follow me, I would now direct myself to those

matters that come within my jurisdiction as Minister of Commercial

Transport. I think at this point, Mr. Speaker, it might be fair if I

were to give a brief analysis of the budget that was brought in by the

leader of the Liberal party, more particularly regarding the Department

of Commercial Transport I was rather amazed at the fuzzy fiscal

gymnastics that the leader of the Liberal party went through in

explaining where he was going to make savings in his budget, such as

elimination of the Department of Commercial Transport.

Now anyone that will look at their Estimates will know that even by

absorbing the Department of Commercial Transport within other

departments of Government, you're still not going to save anything on

the cost, as far as the operations of the various branches of

Commercial Transport are concerned, no matter what department they

might be in. However, there would be a very great saving in doing away

with the Minister, and this, had we been adopting the Liberal leader's

suggestion, this would be my last address as Minister of Commercial

Transport. However, to show you how ridiculous the suggestion was, it's

the one portfolio I carry that I don't get paid for. So how you're

going to save nothing by nothing is more than I know. It just shows the

lack of thinking or understanding of the function of the departments

[ Page 326 ]

concerned that has entered into the whole

suggestion. However, it was a brave try and I commend the leader of the

Liberal party for his try.

The impact of the expanding economy of British Columbia is being

felt by the transportation industry in a manner which perhaps exceeds

that of any other branch of commerce within our Province. Wherever one

looks the economic explosion, whether it be in mining, forestry,

tourism, or any other facet of commercial life, is giving rise to great

demand on the transportation service. These demands are as diverse and

complex as many of the products which the industry is called upon to

transport. Fortunately, Mr. Speaker, transportation technology is

advancing at a pace which is equal to most of the demands being placed

upon it.

In the past few decades vast resource areas were opened up by virtue

of the roads, rails, and sea links developed in that period. As a

result, a spectacular expansion of industry has taken place. The

challenge which faces the transportation industry today is not so much

in the area of providing access to resources, although this is a

continuing need in a Province such as ours, but rather it is in the

technology of transporting the resources once access has been obtained.

It is in this area of material handling that a number of exciting new

concepts have developed and others are under active research and

experiment. Had it not been for the daring concept of the super ship

and the mechanical masterpiece of the unit train the conception of a

new life for the coal industry in Canada would be stillborn and the

Roberts Bank superport would be a dream.

Economical transportation of the commodity is a major factor in the

marketing, of the industrial products of this Province. In the mining

industry especially, but true of all commercial ventures, it is the

cost of transportation which often means the difference between landing

a contract or losing it. It is for this reason the expanding economy of

British Columbia cannot afford to be controlled by any monopolistic

media of transportation, whether it be privately owned or publicly

protected. Bureaucratic barriers set up to protect vested interests

must not be permitted to retard the progress of this Province.

There are compelling forces in world market today which make it

imperative that every feasible avenue of economic transportation be

explored and implemented. One such force is the super carrier, and when

I mention the word super carrier I think it is beyond many of our

farthest dreams the size of the ships that are today in service. We

have six ships of the capacity of 326,000 dead weight tons within

international trade today. These ships alone would be carrying

something in the neighbourhood of 2,200,000 barrels of oil. It is also

being accepted by the shipping industry that it is not beyond the

concept of possibility, and blueprints are being prepared, for 500,000

ton dead weight ships, and also — dead weight ton ships, yes. Also, it

is believed that in the foreseeable future that we will have 800,000

ton dead weight ships along, and in due course that it is possible to

have a million ton ship of a similar nature.

Now this is getting pretty fantastic and, as I say, it's probably

beyond any possible concept that we might have of the size of shipping

that we can contemplate. We already have ships of greater tonnage than

a quarter of a million tons actually right now. There are six that are

of the 326,000. I would't say that every port in the world would be

able to handle this type of shipping but there are some that would be

able to.

Mr. Speaker, I fail to see the reason behind decisions to pour

millions of dollars into harbour facilities at Burrard Inlet, when the

Federal Government's decision to build the causeway and island at

Roberts Bank was predicated upon the acceptance of the notion that this

new port was necessary to facilitate the use of super cargo carriers.

Furthermore, in this, day and age when the aesthetic qualities of life

are of great concern, why are they persisting in developing coal and

other raw commodities loading points in an area which is in the very

heart of what is acknowledged as one of the most beautiful metropolitan

areas in North American? One can only assume that these decisions are

made to maintain a bureaucratic empire whose value to modern

transportation concepts is outmoded.

But even this doesn't seem to be enough. The problems are to be

compounded. Now, more millions are to be poured into developing

container facilities in the Inlet. Any one who has studied the

development of containerization knows that there are two essential

facts to success of this method of transportation. One is in the

availability of large areas of land. To do the job properly it needs a

minimum 20 acres per berth. The other is the existence of arteries

capable of handling hundreds of tractor-trailers which, if it is to be

a container port in fact as well as in name, requires ready access to

highway systems of the Province and of the nation. Mr. Speaker, the

question is, who is going to pay for this — is the City of Vancouver,

or are the municipalities surrounding Burrard Inlet prepared to meet

this cost? With a National Harbours Board decision to develop container

berths at Lynn Terminal, I am wondering whether the Federal Government

will at last recognize its responsibilities and pay its just share of

that part of the Trans-Canada Highway which is the Second Narrows

Bridge. Without this bridge a container terminal in that location,

utilizing road transport, would be impossible. I believe it goes

without saying what increase in diesel trucks and trains will do for

the air pollution problem in the metropolitan Vancouver area.

Mr. Speaker, my whole point is this. Why, when we have Roberts Bank

miles away from the heavy populated area and with the opportunity to

establish adequate transportation corridors at minimum cost, do we have

to stand by while the National Harbours Board, sitting 3,000 miles

away, makes decisions which aggravates an already serious traffic

environmental situation. I believe the time has come when government in

British Columbia, both provincial and municipal, must have the right to

say what will, or will not be done in matters which affect the quality

of life and the economic opportunity of the people of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, the Government of British Columbia does not accept the

premise that the operations of ports, large or small, are the sole

prerogative of the Federal Government. I may add there is sound

Canadian precedent for such a position. And I might mention at this

time, and I quote from an

article in the Colonist — the Victoria Colonist

of January 31st — "Three Point Davis Plan. New harbours deal shaping up

on coast. There is a whole new harbour deal shaping up on the west

coast," and according to what Mr. Davis said, and I quote further, "At

the moment, insists Fisheries and Forestry Minister Jack Davis, this is

his own idea, and he has still to sell it to the Cabinet before it can

become government policy. But he has it well on the way to that now,

with discussions in progress between his department and Transport

Minister Don Jamieson's officials as to which harbours are to get what

classification." Any effort to reconstruct the port facilities of this

Province, of necessity, should only be carried out in consultation with

the Province and the municipalities

[ Page 327 ]

immediately concerned, and from Mr. Davis'

quotation this has not been done nor is there any indication that it is

even being given a thought. Mr. Speaker, if cooperative federalism and

Canadian unity means anything, surely it means this, that when major

proposals of this kind are made they are first communicated to the

appropriate authorities in the Provinces, and implemented only after

full discussion and with the agreement and participation by those

authorities most vitally concerned.

As we all are aware, the age of coal has been reborn in eastern

British Columbia. To facilitate this, new railways are being built and

the interesting new concept of the unit train is soon to go into

operation. The unit train to be used to haul coal from the Kootenays

comprises 39,000 horsepower utilized in diesel-powered units to haul a

train of 105 cars, each weighing over 1,300 tons. A number of diesel

units will be placed 40 cars back from the front locomotive and these

slave units, slightly ahead of the centre point of the train, are to be

controlled by the driver by means of radio. Mr. Speaker, this is

another indication of a modern concept and technology in

transportation, serving the needs of our ever-expanding economy in

getting raw materials to markets of the world in a fast and efficient

method.

Another exciting innovation in the world of transportation is the

solids pipe line concept. Is that what you wanted me to talk about, Mr.

Member? We have heard much of this method of transportation in recent

years, and I read with keen interest any reliable evidence of technical

feasibility and market acceptance of this means of transportation of

raw materials. Until such time, I have no doubt the emphasis of

transporting raw materials in this Province will be upon the

ever-expanding railway system.

Before leaving the subject of railways I would like to say a few

words about the railway to Roberts Bank. As the honourable members know

and are aware, this railway is due to go into operation in April. There

are over 20 crossings on this route which will be completely

signallized. Road overpasses are to be constructed on Pacific Highway,

King George Highway, and Highway 17, and others are under study.

Signallized temporary level crossings are to be installed at these

locations. My understanding is that due to the requirements of

pre-loading these locations, it will be approximately a year before the

construction of these overpasses will be completed. The honourable

members will find a more detailed report on the building of this

railway in the annual report of the Department of Commercial Transport

which I will propose to file later today.

Mr. Speaker, comment on the Pacific Great Eastern Railway is almost

superfluous. It continues to grow, stretching northward and westward.

This backbone of transportation in British Columbia is opening up new

resource areas and making what were once mere prospects into sizeable

projects. I might also add that a detailed report on this railway is

also contained in the Department's annual report.

Mr. Speaker, the unprecedented popularity of skiing our mountain

slopes has brought about a phenomenal increase in the construction of

aerial tramways. A few years ago there were just a handful of areas

with ski lift facilities. Today there are 85 registered areas with 150

facilities operating to serve the winter playgrounds of British

Columbia. The responsibility of my Department is that of public safety.

In addition to a busy

schedule of on-site inspections by the Department

inspectors, the Chief Engineer of Commercial Transport has participated

on an international basis to bring about safety standards of a

comparable nature throughout Europe and North America. Every new

facility involves a considerable amount of attention by this

Department. Each phase, from the initial drawing to the final

construction, must receive engineering approval before an operational

certificate is issued. Consequently, British Columbia winter

recreational areas enjoy an enviable safety record in the area of the

mechanical facilities it operates.

Mr. Speaker, one other aspect of winter recreation that I should

comment on is that of motorized snow vehicles. This form of recreation

has experienced an incredible increase during the past year or two, and

in the light of this I instructed officials of my Department to look

into the desirability of introducing measures to regulate the operation

of these vehicles within the Province. At the present time regulations

exist under the Motor Vehicle Act, Division 24, regulating the use of

such vehicles on the public highway. So what we were actually looking

into was their operation off highways. I should emphasize that what we

were and are concerned with is the safety of the public, not merely the

introduction of a licensing system.

If I might digress a minute from my notes, I have an

article here — an editorial regarding control of snowmobiles and a Bill that was

defeated in the Senate at Olympia just recently, which even went so far

as to having some control over snowmobiles on public highways, which I

think is very essential. At least we are that much further ahead, that

we do control these vehicles on highways that can pose a very great

danger to the travelling public. But our concern today is that it is

not merely on the highway, but it is in the other areas where a great

deal of damage, a great deal of injuries can occur for various reasons.

A result of this inquiry was that at the present time it was not

considered necessary to introduce regulations to control operations of

these vehicles.

It is interesting to note that several commercial ski operations

have set aside separate areas for the exclusive use of this type of

vehicle. However, I would caution the owners of the various types of

motorized snow vehicles — these vehicles can be a dangerous weapon when

speed becomes excessive. Also, there is concern for the safety to young

children being permitted to use these high-powered machines. If there

is a marked increase in the incidence of accidents with these machines,

I may well have to give further consideration to the introduction of

legislation which may severely curb the pleasure of the public in the

operation of these vehicles.

Mr. Speaker, activity continues in the petroleum and natural gas

industry, and during the past year some 223 miles of oil and gas

pipelines were built. An interesting sidelight indicates the growing

importance of Vancouver International Airport. In this respect a

six-inch jet fuel line, 26 miles in length, was completed to connect

Burnaby refineries with the airport. The throughput of the jet fuel for

the year 1969 is reported to be between 52 and 53 million gallons. This

will give some indication of the nature of traffic in air

transportation in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, there was an increase of some 7,384 commercial vehicles

licensed to operate on the highways of British Columbia last year. In

addition, almost 90,000 non-resident commercial vehicle permits were

issued for the same license period, April 1968 to March 1969.

One of the major problems facing this Department in relation to road

transportation is in the increasing trend to oversize loads. A recent

example of this was where a project called for a roof truss design that

would have necessitated a

[ Page 328 ]

series of 19-foot wide loads travelling 300 miles

on the highway system. Mr. Speaker, this type of movement is clearly

unacceptable. In this particular case, upon reconsideration it was

found possible to redesign to a maximum load width of 13 feet, and I

must give warning to architects and contractors that before designing

structures of this nature, which may have to be transported on our

highways, the most careful consideration must be given to the

transportation factor. If faced. with a decision in these respects,

there is no question but that my Department,officials will rule in the

interests of public safety and not in the interests of commerce.

Mr. Speaker, the transportation industry is probably the best

barometer of commerce within the Province. It may truly be said as goes

transport, so goes British Columbia. Every phase of the transportation

industry is expanding, whether it is railways, pipelines, road

transport, aerial tramways, harbours or ferries, the whole industry is

one action-packed entity which is equal to the challenge of change that

confronts it.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I wish to pay tribute to the employees of

the Department of Commercial Transport who, faced with an

ever-increasing workload, have given unstintingly of their time and

talents in the interests of public safety. It is, I believe, in great

measure due to the efforts of these men, particularly those out in the

field, that the accident level in the transportation industry has been

contained within reasonable limits. I wish to thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker, for allowing me this opportunity to give some time to the

Department of Commercial Transport which it is my honour to administer.

Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for New Westminster.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Speaker, having gone

through this once before, my maiden days are over, I understand. There

is one thing I have noticed, however, in my infancy in this Assembly,

and that is that there is a good deal of numbers floating around. I

think sometimes we tend to play the numbers game.

AN HON. MEMBER: 38 to 17.

MR. COCKE: Yes, 38 to 17, the member says. However, I would

like to inform the member that — you see we did an over-all average — it takes 11,000 votes on an average to elect Social Credit, 26,000 to

elect NDP, and 35,000 Liberal. I said that very softly about the

Liberals. We feel that our 12 are here representing, each one of us,

26,000 people….

You know, I could go on all afternoon if they keep interrupting, Mr. Speaker. However, I appreciate their help.

Now, there is just one thought that I have before discussing my

theories this afternoon, and that was the fact that I just noticed a

few minutes ago, somebody applauding a level crossing. I thought that

we gave that up years ago.

Now, I ask this question, Mr. Speaker, what's new in British

Columbia? The mountains and the trees, minerals and the fish, the

fertile grounds and lakes and streams, are not in my mind new. These

are our heritage and our riches which gave promise to this land before

we were born. What's new is man and his needs and wants, Mr. Speaker.

In the Budget Speech the Honourable the Premier indicates change in

that he says, and I note that indicates change, and that he says the

Government's first policy in this new decade is for people.

Mr. Speaker, I ask, what people? Is the Government talking about

senior citizens? Is the Government talking about the mentally ill? Are

they discussing alcoholics in our midst? Do they mean labour, Mr.

Speaker, and are they including the unemployed?

On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, could the Honourable Premier mean

the people who enjoyed the decade of the 60's, those wonderful years

and those beautiful people. This bountiful land has indeed provided

great riches and the rounded life for many. What of those who have been

left out? And the disparity becomes greater and greater. Clichés and

platitudes are poor substitutes for priorities. Now let me not be

misunderstood. I have enjoyed the bounties of this Province, thank

you…. but it gives me small satisfaction knowing that there are many

who have not. Most of those who have not been endowed with good

fortune, have not through no fault of their own. Some of those people

have had the misfortune of living too long. I'm reminded of "Honour thy

father and thy mother that thy days may be long in the land that the

Lord thy God giveth thee."

Let's just talk about some of those elderly people for a moment, and

I would like to start by illustrating with a story. This is made in

B.C. and it's all too common. It's about a farmer well into his middle

years. He was a prairie farmer. His farm on the prairie was part of the

dust bowl, however, which led him to B.C. seeking a new life for

himself and his family. Now, starting from scratch again is no easy

task, but after some years he had finally paid for a home and by virtue

of age had to retire on a small pension. Misfortune occurred in short

order. His wife was struck down by a massive brain hemorrhage, and she

spent 30 days in the hospital hovering between life and death. At the

end of the period, she moved to a private hospital outside the umbrella

of B.C.H.I.S. This was early in the 60's, Mr. Speaker. After some time

in the private hospital, she was discharged into the care of her

husband, who could barely care for himself. It seems strange that this

happened coincidentally with that private hospital coming under the

B.C.H.I.S. umbrella.

The story is very clear, and I think probably you will go right

along with me, and you'll be out there picketing the Parliament

Buildings shortly. Married children took the old couple in. Finally

after another year or so and a couple of moves, they rented a small

place near their children on the mainland. Here she died, leaving a

broken, defenseless man wishing he had gone with her. He is a ward of

society, having faced major expenses too late in life to handle them.

He had to sell his house and everything to pay for the expenses which,

unfortunately, he could not handle by virtue of having lost the first

half of his income during the depression in the dust bowl. Now he was

smitten, I say, by the good life in British Columbia in the 60's.

Now in the Budget, we find $35 monthly for nursing homes, and we

find $15 monthly for boarding homes — increases — and we also find nine

dollars monthly for many landlords in our Province, Mr. Speaker. In

many cases, I'm sure, the institutions need the extra, and I'm

referring to the first two institutions. They also have to contend with

inflation. What has the nine dollars done for our senior citizens,

whose fixed incomes are so vulnerable to inflation? The biggest single

bite out of most pensioners' cheques is for accommodation. This

Government's contribution to low-cost housing in British Columbia has,

in my opinion, been minimal. A fraction of the kind of money going into

our great power projects would do the job of providing low-cost

housing. It would also be a self-liquidating type of proposition.

[ Page 329 ]

Now what kind of people-concerned Government provides low-cost power

to a foreign country, and denies low-cost housing to its own?

Now, dealing with the decade for the people, the Budget does not say

too much with regards to radical changes in carrying out the

Government's responsibility to the mentally ill. The tragedy of mental

illness and mental retardation is compounded by this Government not

applying itself to the problem. There was a time in British Columbia

when we were considered way ahead of our time. We are no longer in that

position. If it were not for the tremendously dedicated staff we have

in the Mental Health Service, I'm sure that we would be even further

behind, and a trip to Riverview would quickly convince you of the

inadequacies of that gigantic institution. Most top professionals

recognize the need for change, but they are obviously not being

listened to.

Now I visited Riverview during the time that the renovations were

going on in West Lawn. It doesn't require much expertise to recognize

that a renovation such as this must be extremely expensive, and the

reason I draw out the fact, Mr. Speaker, of it being extremely

expensive, I believe that this sort of cements us into that kind of a

situation. Because once having spent a lot of money, it's like me, if I

put a major repair on my car, I feel that I must keep it for a lot

longer. Therefore I feel that a major expense on an institution such as

Riverview puts us in that position.

I might say, also, that the major renovation I thought was rather

odd in this respect, it was on West Lawn, as I said, and when we were

going through this particular part of the Riverview complex, we noticed

that they had built nursing stations in areas where they seemed to be

properly in place, but the problem with those areas was the fact that

they built the nursing station totally opaque, in that there were walls

on all sides and a door, without even a window. Now I ask you, Mr.

Speaker, how can a nurse view the ward through the walls, without

extra-sensory perception? Most of our nurses in Riverview, I am told,

do not have extra-sensory perception. I am sure that this will be

corrected, but I really think that it sort of displays the fact that we

really don't know quite what is going on, and that one department does

not confer with another department when they are doing this kind of

thing.

Now I also felt very badly that, the time I was there, jackhammers

were working away in this particular ward of people who were there

pretty well for lifetime. During the time that the jackhammers were

hammering away I could hardly hear anybody speaking, and I am sure that

the people, the inmates and the staff, underwent severe nervous shock

just being exposed to that kind of situation.

Now that expenditure, if put into small local annexes to general

hospitals, I think would have helped us turn the corner in our

direction. I hope there is nothing to the rumours that there are other

major renovations to Riverview in the future. Let this Government set a

goal of reversing its position, and really set about decentralizing

mental health care service.

One of the things that I noticed — and I know that there are some

aspects of mental health care that must be conducted in that kind of

setting, — when I was in Riverside, which is an area down by the river,

and this is the maximum security

section of the Riverview complex. Now

in Riverside we have three floors, and each floor is a ward. The top

ward is called R-3. Here we have 80 people who are maximum security,

there by Order-in-Council and so on, and there they are, 80 people

crammed into a situation that I abhor. Their bedroom, so to speak, Mr.

Speaker, is a large sort of three rooms in one where, standing at any

position in this huge bedroom, you can see the whole place, you can see

everybody in that bedroom aspect. Now in the bedroom itself the beds

are so close together, there is no privacy at all. Then to sort of

compound this problem, Mr. Speaker, go down the hall to the lounge

area, and in the lounge area you find two rooms that are like large

living-rooms together, and this is their lounge area. Shoulder to

shoulder, Mr. Speaker, shoulder to shoulder, that's what those people

are in that institution.

As I brushed through, and you know you do brush through an area like

that, a man walked up to me and said, "If you're looking at this place

or inspecting it," he said, "I want you to tell the people that are

here we live like animals." Now, you know, I'm just quoting what he had

to say, but really and truly, there should be some privacy. These are

sick people, Mr. Speaker, and I feel that we should certainly in the

Riverside aspect, a maximum security aspect, we should do something

more about these people.

Now I noticed, when I was attending a John Howard Society meeting

not too long ago, there was a discussion of a forensic clinic. Now I

don't believe that we have criminal psychiatry in this Province in any

way, shape, or form, except for a bit of a study that is going on at

the University. My understanding was that Dr. Lipinski was hired to do

the job, but did he quit out of just sheer desperation to bring this to

the forefront, or did he feel that we were making a showpiece out of

him and therefore quit on that account? But in any event I think, Mr.

Speaker, that criminal psychiatry must be the order of the day in the

future forensic clinics. These are people, and these are part of the

people that I'm talking about that I feel have been ignored.

Let's deal for a second with another aspect of the mental health

situation of this Province. You know the waiting list at Woodlands has

been a subject of conversation for so long I can hardly remember. You

know I live in New Westminster, thank goodness, and in Woodlands it's

certainly the subject, and I'm sure that some of it gets over to this

area from time to time. But in any event, it's shameful that this

situation has not been resolved. I had a case brought to my attention

of a 19-year old girl, whose parents first made application for

Woodlands in 1957. Now she's still waiting to get on the list. 1957 to

now is 13 years, virtually. She's still waiting on the list, despite

the fact that her parents cannot handle this situation. Twelve years,

or going on 13. Now this is not a simple case of retardation, it

involves a person unable to control her limbs properly.

I don't suggest that expanding the facilities of Woodlands is the

answer, the answer should be to provide the service on a mainly

decentralized basis again, but in any event, we have to provide

facilities. I have another letter that I just received yesterday that I

won't bore you with, but I did go around to see this situation. I saw

the girl, I saw the parents, a 60-year old mother who barely speaks

aged father. The only child at home. They cannot handle that child. Now

I am not a psychiatrist, but I think, were I a psychiatrist, I would

diagnose profound retardation, because she does not have the ability to

control her limbs, her hands, and her feet. So, this is a type of

situation, I think, that requires resolving. Once again, getting back

to what people are we talking about, the beautiful people or this kind

of people?

A few weeks ago, B.C., indeed Canada, was concerned over a threat of a typhoid epidemic, as a result of the

[ Page 330 ]

"Oronsay"

incident, Mr. Speaker. No effort or expense was spared in coping with

this problem. You know, medical men worked around the clock, and I'm

sure thousands and thousands of dollars were expended. Typhoid is a

dangerous disease, for those who don't know, it can even be fatal. Mr.

Speaker, there are 43,800 people in this Province, in B.C. suffering

from an even more dangerous illness — that illness is alcoholism. That

illness is alcoholism. Isn't it strange in this age of sophistication

and understanding that B.C., like many parts of the world, treats

alcoholism as sin. We like to think that we have an enlightened

attitude. You know, we discuss many things, but we are hiding the facts

from ourselves. The facts are we don't deal with alcoholism in any way,

shape, or form.

We pay lip service to the fact that alcoholism is an illness, and

deny it at the hospital door, Mr. Speaker. There is not any way an

alcoholic can be admitted to a hospital in B.C. as an alcoholic, for

the most part. We will admit him as gastritis or pneumonia. We will

admit him with a fractured skull, but just show me a hospital that

admits any number of acute alcoholics as such, and therein lies the

tale, Mr. Speaker. They are treated for gastritis, they are treated for

pneumonia, they are treated for a fractured skull, or what have you,

and they are released with their illness unchecked, Mr. Speaker. The

Government of this Province pretends there is no such illness. What

hypocrisy, when they are reaping the financial dividends through the

sale of alcohol.

Okay, this is not a dissertation in support of prohibition, which

would solve nothing. It's a plea to this Government to face the facts

and shoulder their responsibility to 43,800 people that are inflicted,

and untold thousands of others that are suffering as a result. This

Government last year realized a net profit of over $56,000,000 from the

sales of alcohol, and the brewers and distillers made huge profits.

What of this has been spent for rehabilitation? I wondered last night,

when I was doing some calculating, I wondered if in fact over the last

17 years we might very well have made a half a billion dollars in

profit. Half a billion — five hundred million — in profits, not even

taking into consideration the 5 per cent sales tax. How much of this,

how much of this half billion have the alcoholics themselves

contributed? I'm advocating, Mr. Speaker, and through you to the

member, I'm advocating an alcohol rehabilitation plan for the Province

of B.C., and we owe it to the people.

AN HON. MEMBER: Every winery should have a rehabilitation unit.

MR. COCKE: Hope, hope, Mr. Speaker, not hopelessness, is what

an alcoholic needs. He needs acute care, he needs clinical care, and

most of all he needs an education and post-acute treatment, and any

doctor in this House will agree with that I am sure. With these and

only with these does he have real hope. When an alcoholic is diagnosed

as one suffering from gastritis, then he's just being encouraged to

delude himself, Mr. Speaker, and with an illness such as alcoholism the

last thing needed is self delusion.

Firstly, B.C.H.I.S. must recognize alcoholism as an illness.

Secondly, hospitals must open their doors to the treatment of this

illness. That means doctors. That means A.A. Open wards to workers and

doctors and social workers and so on. Thirdly, Mr. Speaker,

detoxification centres must be established in this Province, in

metropolitan areas in particular. More important than establishment of

these facilities, is that they must be open to medical authorities and

A.A. workers.

Now the work that Alcoholics Anonymous has done and results that

they have had over the years is amazing, to say the least. There was a

time when an alcoholic was deemed hopeless, but A.A. has changed all of

that. They are dedicated to rehabilitation. They're dedicated to

rehabilitation. As part of this dedication they'd work with hospitals

and detox centres to help restore those afflicted to a more productive

life. A revolving door programme, Mr. Speaker, for alcoholics would not

meet with success. Dismissing a patient before providing an alternative

is not the way. Motivation comes with time and contact with A.A.

workers, because A.A. workers understand. A.A.'s success ratio has been

phenomenal. Don't forget that this was, at one time, a hopeless

disease, a hopeless illness, and now it is a treatable illness. Fifty

per cent is what they claim of the people who actually go right

through, 50 per cent of the original, you know, the people that are on

their own. You see, the alcoholic people tell me that unless a person

goes there on his own, you know makes the decision, that he is not

really one of those that is included.

The treatment of alcoholics is more economical than most, because so

much of it can be a self-help programme. The requirement of nursing

care and medication after the first day or two is minimal. Patients can

help patients and volunteer A.A. workers can provide much of the needed

time. The myth that a programme such as this is not feasible, Mr.

Speaker, is sheer nonsense. It's feasible. That it is necessary is

obvious by the fact that in Vancouver alone there are 2,500 drunk

arrests per month. 2,500 per month. So somebody has this illness.

Now, hospitals have assumed the role in community centres for health

care. You know that they're pretty well given that responsibility. Some

health problems are distributed among other agencies, private and

public and so on, but the hospital is the central point, particularly

for severe illness. To most people, physicians, nurses and other staff

of hospitals are the teaching authorities on medicine. The hospital is

a learning centre for students interested in health and disease. It is

a laboratory to the medical school. Here is the setting that the

student applies his knowledge under supervision. With all this goes a

particular responsibility, Mr. Speaker, the hospital must accept and

treat all of those who are acutely ill. In the case of alcoholism, the

hospital must accept its

part in this problem. Alcoholics are sick,

therefore require treatment. Acute intoxication can be and often is an

emergency. Alcoholics in this setting should be put in touch with A.A.

workers. A.A. can be a helpful ally.

Now, just to give you an idea how long this kind of thing — and I

know, probably somebody over there is talking about the fact that in

Vancouver now they are talking about a detox centre. They were talking

about a detox centre in 1952, Mr. Speaker, and here it is, a great

brief to B.C.H.I.S. endorsed by practically every big name in Vancouver

at that time. Most of them are dead, I think, by now, certainly some of

them are, but in any event this is a brief presented on behalf of

alcoholics in Vancouver, it's a hospital exhibit for the Provincial

Government and the city of Vancouver to take over the hospital, St.

Joseph's Hospital, on Powell St. That hospital now, I understand, is in

a position to be taken over and could be used as a detoxification

centre and a treatment rehabilitation centre for alcoholics in

Vancouver. But, in any event St. Joseph's on Powell, not Mount St.

Joseph's

[ Page 331 ]

on Powell. This is the whole thing, it's 80 beds,

and you know, the whole works, and I will lend this to any Minister who

wishes to see it or any other person who feels that they can contribute

to the cause.

We think that there is going to be a possibility now, I see in the

papers, that the Hollywood Hospital in New Westminster might be closed

down because it's a hazard or something of that nature. This is the

only hospital that's dealing with the alcohol situation really to any

extent, and that hospital, Mr. Speaker, is privately owned.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where is it?

MR. COCKE: Hollywood Hospital in New Westminster.

AN HON. MEMBER: I thought you said St. Joseph's.

MR. COCKE: St. Joseph's on Powell St. It's in your riding.

I'll show this to you after, Mr. Speaker, through you to Mr. Member.

It's an old hospital down on Powell St.

AN HON. MEMBER: Whereabouts?

MR. COCKE: It's somewhere around between Clark and Glen, or

somewhere in there. I can't remember the intersection. I have the

address in here, Mr. Speaker, but I'm not going to look it up because

the member can refer to the phone book, I am sure, in his caucus room.

You think I'm wrong. Consult your telephone directory.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the John Howard Society, in their most recent

brief to the Cabinet and to other members that were interested, talked

about a detox centre in Vancouver. I certainly support this. I support

anything that we can do in the treatment of people who are very ill

and, as I said, it is approximated that there are 43 odd thousand

people that are ill with this disease.

Now let me get on with other people who I wonder if we're talking

about in this matter of the Budget. Mr. Speaker, the labour force of

British Columbia is 836,000 people, 836,000. Some are organized and

some are unorganized. Mr. Speaker, never have so many been maligned by

so few. The cost of milk goes up. It's labour's fault. The price of

bread increases. It's labour's fault. The price of a house goes up.

It's labour's fault. I have never been in a position of being

classified as "labour," having never been involved in labour. I have

always been involved in some form of management or sales. I felt it

incumbent upon me, therefore, to do something and to find out something

about labour. I've talked to innumerable trade union officials in this

Province and found them to be ordinary men, Mr. Speaker, ordinary men,

in many cases with an extraordinary sense of responsibility. Naturally,

all don't fit into that package. But many of them had an extraordinary

sense of responsibility. These are people concerned about education,

they're concerned about pollution, medical care, general welfare of

their fellow man. They find themselves the most maligned segment of our

society. Management blames the leaders for price increases, Government

blames them for unrest, and so on and so forth. In this House, in this

House, Mr. Speaker, labour has been talked to again. This is a gloomy

forecast that was captioned in the Province the other day, this is the

gloomy forecast. After listing the clouds, which include a forecast

that 1970 will be a difficult year for labour-management relations in

the forest industry, Mr. Williston said, "Labour and management

associated with the forest industry must resolve their differences in a

realistic and responsible manner, if the Budget you are debating today"

— just wait, I'll go on — "if the Budget you are debating today is to

provide the necessary revenues to produce the services and the

increased benefits which have been set forth. And I emphasize that

fact. This is going to be one of the most serious years we've had, that

we as a Province will face." What a forecast. Why help them declare

war, Mr. Speaker? This is part of the situation, I feel, that the

people in general feel an alienation for want of a whipping boy, and

because of this, this indictment of labour has become a very popular

issue. However, the Federal Minister of Labour has been quoted as

saying labour in Canada is a responsible group. Let's dig down and see

who's really responsible. Let's dig down and see who's really

responsible.

It's on the record that many labour problems today cannot be settled

because the rank and file will not permit a settlement. Why are they

militant? Why are these people militant? Is it because they feel that

life is not providing the promised lands that they are told exist? One

of the greatest problems that we have today is advertising, which

indicates the Garden of Eden is at hand for a buck. People are

hoodwinked into this belief and spend their hard-earned dollars to make

it certain. They find themselves up to their necks in debt, and not

only Chargex, Mr. Speaker, but the finance companies that I haven't

heard denounced too much lately. When the interest becomes a major part

of the Budget it yields little satisfaction, and certainly does nothing

for the economy from the standpoint of creating jobs, Mr. Speaker. The

worker's in a wild melee fostered by money lenders and nurtured by the

advertiser. Who takes a good deal of the wrath? The labour leader takes

the wrath. I think, therefore, it's unfair for this Government to

continually take to task people doing a relevant and necessary job in

our society. Surely nothing can be gained by trying to destroy a

vehicle that brought the working man out of the dark ages.

I'm going to just talk about that now. Let's be realistic towards

labour's contribution to inflation. Here's an example of one of the

great contributors to inflation. According to the National Research

Council of Canada, this is a valid institution I would take it, the

cost of a home is broken down as follows. Materials, Mr. Speaker, 43.9

per cent materials. Land cost, finance charges, and profit 41.2 per

cent. This is the cost of a house. Labour costs 13.8 per cent, Mr.

Speaker. Miscellaneous costs — you know, who done it — 1.1 per cent.

Now as if that wasn't enough, and it isn't because people don't pay

cash for their homes. They have a $20,000 mortgage, right?, and a

$20,000 at 9.5 per cent for 15 years, means a total cost of $37,197,

Mr. Speaker. That's where the money is going. $37,197 that man paid for

that $25,000 home. The next man, he can't afford to pay it off so

quickly, because that man had to pay it at $206. The next man has the

$20,000 over 25 years at 9.5 per cent. His payments are $172, Mr.

Speaker, per month. He pays $51,926, Mr. Speaker. How about the poor

Joe who just doesn't fit into either of those categories? Here's a man

who takes a $20,000 mortgage over a 35-year period at 9.5 per cent and

really, I'm talking low interest right now. Everybody here knows that

they've gone up beyond that in most cases. 35 years at 9.5 per cent,

the total projected cost of that house, and non-productive cost, Mr.

Speaker, of $67,859.40. How do you like that? Wonder why inflation is

here? That's the reason inflation is here. Let's not make labour the

whipping boy.

AN HON. MEMBER: I wonder where the money went

[ Page 332 ]

to?

MR. COCKE: We'll talk about that.

Now, however, one of the great saving graces is the fact that most of

the people in our society now, are in a position where they can't even

buy a house, for the very simple reason that unless you earn $4 an hour

— you wonder why they're asking for more money — unless you earn $4 an

hour you can't properly qualify for an N.H.A. mortgage. So, therefore,

the whole problem begins at that point.

Now this Government talks about the sins of Chargex. Where, Mr.

Speaker, do they stand on usury in general? What about the mortgage

companies, the finance companies who are bleeding people to death? The

land speculators, and all the other people? Here is a very good

illustration of what happened just a little while ago in the building

of homes in Vancouver. On February 19th there was an

article by Ramsay

Mills that said that at that time, on February 1st, the 20 per cent

increase in lumber prices in the lower mainland caused an increase on a

$20,000 home of $1,000. You know, all of these little things are things

that beset labour, so I'm suggesting, Mr. Speaker, that maybe the

answer is in government, maybe the answer is in cooperative government,

but I tell you this, Mr. Speaker, in answer to the member's question,

we don't blame labour for it. That's all I'm asking. I have a tendency

myself to blame the land speculators, and the money grubbers, and so

on, that are charging extortionate rates. For my part, I feel that a

land bank and that kind of thing, and government getting into lending

for homes and so on, is the answer.

Mr. Speaker, there's little wonder that there's trouble in the land.

Incomes are being soaked up by giant blotters — all you have to do is

just take a look at the average person's income, his cheque, and where

that money goes, and you'll find a good deal of this money goes to the

money lender. Will these people police themselves? The answer is no.

How long do we wait for them to become good corporate citizens, Mr.

Speaker? Mr. Speaker, this Government talks about the high cost of

money but this Government legislates against the high cost of labour.

Labour is people, Mr. Speaker, but money seems to be the sacred cow. We

legislate against labour but we do nothing against the sacred cow — the

money lender.

Mr. Speaker, the honourable the Minister of Recreation gave us an

interesting lesson on inflation. It seems to me that the great sinner

is the Federal Government and their sin is deficit financing. Did he

mention the cost of money in passing? He did mention it. We can all

agree, at least in part, with the deficit financing and certainly the

cost of money, but the Federal Government's greatest sin, in my view,

was the fact that they lifted the lid on that can of worms when they

said — no ceiling on interest rates. Mr. Speaker, I would like to have

heard the honourable Minister talk about the two-fisted land

speculators. However, did he mention the phoney advertising that

promotes poverty by putting little people in a position where a great

percentage of their income is allocated into this interest only? People

need protection, that's why they have governments, that's the only

reason we're here, Mr. Speaker. We could live in an anarchist state,

but that's not what we want. We want to live in a place where we're

governed, and I think that this is part of the responsibility of

government.

Mr. Speaker, the cost of promotion and packaging is another area

that certainly has been overlooked and surely is a factor — 10 cents

worth of product, 50 cents worth of package, what've you got? Sixty

cents, Mr. Speaker, in anybody's language. I remember one time seeing a

product and seeing it manufactured. The product cost three cents, Mr.

Speaker, three cents. When it was finally packaged, beautifully

packaged, it was delivered to the consumers for 35 cents.

Most of the honourable Ministers have dealt in great detail, Mr.

Speaker, with the White Paper, and I might say that I'm not going to

deal in great detail with it, but I think that I would like to take one

aspect of it, just briefly. They have said they don't like it, period.

There are one or two basic reasons they don't like it, but it seems to

be coming through that there is one great area of discontent and that

is putting an end to split corporate tax rates.

Now before the White Paper, Mr. Speaker — remember the Carter

Commission Report, Mr. Speaker — this is what Carter said about split

corporate tax structure. Remember, one of the reasons that you want

this is so that financing is available, you know, so that you can

finance because you're taxed lower. You can put money into your own

business and that type of thing. But this is what Carter said, Mr.

Speaker. Two, it does not apply to unincorporated businesses which may

have just as much or more difficulty in raising funds, so it's no help

there. An income of $35,000 does not mean that the corporation is owned

by low income shareholders, Mr. Speaker, or has few assets or small

gross sales or is new. Thus the incentive has little relation to the

underlying problem. The shortage of funds for expansion is due to

imperfections in the capital market. Three, he said, the incentive is

inefficient because it has no regard for the magnitude of the

corporation's total income. It thus reduces the average rate of tax for

the larger corporations which have no difficulty in raising capital in

the market place. Four, Mr. Carter said, it also is inefficient because

it applies whether the rate of return is high or low, or whether the

assets or sales of the corporation are expanding or contracting. Since

it has no time limit there is no inducement for the corporation to

expand. And number five, Mr. Speaker, he said, by reducing the tax on

low income corporations in perpetuity it tends to cushion the market

pressures on inefficient or declining firms.

Six — that's Carter talking — the concession creates many potential

avenues for abuse. To stop the worst loopholes, Mr. Speaker, elaborate

provisions have had to be enacted to prevent the break-up of large

income corporations into small income companies that would enjoy a much

lower tax rate, and how many in this room, Mr. Speaker, don't know

where that is being used all the time? One man starts with one company

and suddenly you find him blossoming out into company after company

after company, finally he's got ten companies all within that very safe

$35,000, Mr. Speaker. Many plugs get unplugged by the lawyers, Mr.

Speaker, and this has been the lawyers' dream — the tax lawyers. A

great problem with small business is that there is no ready source of

capital, Mr. Speaker, and I'm sure if we began to make that capital

available, there could be a change in the situation. What we need, and

I mentioned this in my earlier speech, what we need is a Capital

Development Corporation — not criticism of the White Paper.

Once again, in viewing the Budget and the statement of the Premier

that the Government's first policy is people in this decade, does the

Government mean the unemployed, Mr. Speaker? Looking back at recent

history no one in government can claim much success in dealing with the

problems of

[ Page 333 ]

the unemployed. How can we, living in opulence, Mr. Speaker, justify

the tremendous unemployment that is prevalent in this Province? The

unemployment rate running from 5 per cent and up would be considered

unthinkable in Europe. To claim that we're sparsely populated, too

sparsely populated to support a full work force is nonsense, Mr.

Speaker. Surely we have the economy, the basic resources, and the

inclination to do something. Why don't we do it, Mr. Speaker?

This Government permits and condones the exportation of jobs. Raw

logs are a very minor point in this regard, in this area. We have not

put the case to the mining companies more, I am sure, because they

and other industries don't really care. They owe their loyalty to

directors, most of whom, I fear, don't even live in this country. We

knuckle under to these foreign corporations because we believe industry

when they use their blackmail techniques of saying they're going to

pull out. If companies now working in this Province are not interested

in our people, they should not be permitted an interest in our natural

resources, Mr. Speaker. We have what they want. We have what they want.

What's our hurry in depleting our natural resources? It's not just

common sense to accept the fact that every unit of material being

mined, logged, grown, or produced, just so many jobs are attached to

it. You know, every unit, if it's a log or if it's a ton of minerals or

whatever, has so many jobs that are going to be sort of correspondingly

attached to that unit, and if we export the great number of jobs, the

jobs for instance in refining — you know, let's be diggers of the soil

but let's not refine, the jobs of making plywood — let's hew them and

knock the logs down but let's not do anything with them. The major jobs

are outside of this country. When we permit this to happen, we

presently export the bulk of those jobs. Surely we can provide more for

our own, but it takes courage, Mr. Speaker, it takes courage. Will we

see our Government move in an area that's obviously quite alien? For

years I've seen corporation annual reports, and ask anyone here who has

pursued the hobby of looking at these reports, to think about how often

a report takes notice of its employees. They tell you about the tens of

thousand of tons of production, the money that they made and the fact

that the vice-president in charge of Ways and Means retired at age 38,

you know, but do they tell you anything about people? I got this just a

few days ago. This is from a whole industry. The Pulp and Paper Report.

This is the greatest reading you every saw in your life. The year 1969,

newsprint — the amount; the pulp — the amount; fine papers — the

amount; paperboard, Kraft paper, all these headings, newsprint again,

pulp, container board, Kraft and specialty papers, world competition.

All of these great and grand, but not a word about their employees

except, Mr. Speaker, the list of the association, and all the top men

in the association. These are the important people in our society, Mr.

Speaker, these are the people that enjoy the good life.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's right.

MR. COCKE: That's right. They're exactly the same. I'm not

here to defend them, Mr. Speaker, through you to whoever spoke. Now the

interest of business is making a profit, and so be it, Mr. Speaker.

It's therefore someone else's responsibility to be concerned with the

employment of people in our economy. The Government is reputed to be

our representative. Let this Government therefore represent, Mr.

Speaker.

Much of what I have spoken will cost no money, or little money. It's

merely a matter of priority and where that priority should lie. This

Government owes a debt to the people of B.C. Make the citizens and the

future citizens the number one priority, not in word, Mr. Speaker, but

in deed. The best government is not that which renders men the

happiest, but that which renders the greatest number happy, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I move adjournment of the debate to the next sitting of the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: ….moved adjournment of the debate until the

next sitting of the House. All those in favour signify by saying aye.

All those contrary minded please stand. Order please.

The House divided.

The motion was negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 17

Messieurs

Brousson

Williams, R. A.

Strachan

Gardom

Calder

Dowding

Cocke

Clark

Nimsick

Hartley

McGeer

Barrett

Lorimer

Williams, L. A.

Dailly, Mrs.

Hall

Macdonald

NAYS — 36

Messieurs

Wallace

Jefcoat

Wolfe

Ney

Tisdalle

Smith

Merilees

McCarthy, Mrs.

McDiarmid

Marshall

Jordan, Mrs.

Capozzi

Wenman

Dawson, Mrs.

Skillings

Kripps, Mrs.

Kiernan

Chant

Mussallem

Williston

Loffmark

Price

Bennett

Gaglardi

Vogel

Peterson

Campbell, D.R.J.

LeCours

Black

Brothers

Chabot

Fraser

Shelford

Little

Campbell, B.

Richter

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's nice to see all the members in their place.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just one moment. A point of order.

MR. G. MUSSALLEM (Dewdney): My point of order is that certain

undue influence was used by the member that is about to speak. I was

wondering if he has the right at this time to take his place.

[ Page 334 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound):

There was no undue influence, Mr. Speaker. There were so few

Government members in the House that I didn't know whether the motion

would pass or not, and I had prepared my speech and I wanted to deliver

it, so I wanted to make sure the motion would be defeated. However,

true to their kind, the Government all voted solidly behind the

gentleman who is now absent again. Well, the honourable the Premier has

gone, so any of you who want to go back and finish your coffee, you

are welcome to do so. Mr. Speaker….

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. WILLIAMS: During the remarks of the last speaker, he had

occasion to mention the matter of financing plans and financial

institutions. He talked about Chargex, and this brought to mind by an

event which recently occurred, and it brought to mind, also, that the

members of the Government of this Province have spoken in this House

and outside against Chargex, and Mr. Speaker, I agree with them. Not

for the reasons given by the honourable the Minister of Recreation and

Conservation who, I think, misunderstands the programme of Chargex — oh, I think you do — at least the remarks that you made and were made

in this House, Mr. Speaker, indicated that he doesn't fully understand

what the programme is. But my concern is because it tends to create the

illusion amongst people, particularly our young people, that this is an

age when if you want shoes, then click-click — Chargex, that is all it

takes. If you want a plumber, then click-click — Chargex, that is all

it takes. And this is I believe, another one of the unfortunate

examples which adults are showing to our young people.

But, Mr. Speaker, I am a bit confused because the policies of this

Government do not seem to be in accord with the concern which is

expressed by these Ministers. If you go into a cocktail bar in this

Province you can charge liquor, and you can charge liquor on Chargex,

and Chargex is the only credit card that is acceptable to the Liquor

Control Board in the Province of British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame.

MR. WILLIAMS: Now I find this to be an astounding situation

when Ministers speak out so strongly against this device and yet, under

the Liquor Control Board administration, it is permitted. If you go to

the hotel across the way from these buildings and attempt to use any

other credit card but Chargex you are refused, and you are refused

because this is the edict from the Liquor Control Board. Well, it is

wrong —

MR. H.P. CAPOZZI (1st-Vancouver Centre): That's wrong.

MR. WILLIAMS: No, it's not wrong. Well you go and talk to the

manager of the hotel, Mr. Speaker through you to the member, go and

speak to the manager of the hotel and find out, because this was

exactly the situation three days ago.

MR. CAPOZZI: That is not true.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you the booze expert?

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, are you the booze expert or do you just make it?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Will the member please address the Chair and observe the rules of this House.

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think you should explain the rules of this House to this gentleman.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound has the floor and unless there is a point of order he has the floor.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I must commend you on the evenness of your temper — (general uproar)

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just one moment. What is your point of order?

MR. CAPOZZI: He has made a statement to this House that this

is the only credit card that is acceptable and this is not the only

credit card for charging. It is an incorrect statement and it is

incorrect information.

MR. WILLIAMS: Would you tell him to sit down.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will you be seated.

MR. WILLIAMS: Would you sit down. You are always popping up….

DEPUTY SPEAKER: You are addressing the Chair and not the member across….

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, tell him to sit down.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well then, address the Chair.

MR. CAPOZZI: My point of order, Mr. Speaker, is that that is an incorrect statement and is not in keeping with the truth.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, that's fine. You have made your statement. Will the member proceed.

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am always amazed at

the equanimity, Mr. Speaker, with which you receive points of order,

particularly from the member who has just taken his place. I would have

thought that in four years in this House, he would have learned what a

point of order was.

But the situation, Mr. Speaker, with regard to Chargex is one which

is within the competence of this Government to do something about.

Under the Consumer Protection Act in this Province, if they wish to

ensure that Chargex is regulated in the proper way, then they have the

power to do so, and it ill behooves any Minister of this Government to

criticize Chargex unless they are prepared to do something about it and

to ensure that people of this Province are protected, as they believe

that persons should be protected.

HON. L.R. PETERSON (Attorney-General): ….legislate against the Liberal Act.

MR. WILLIAMS: No, just make Chargex — Mr. Attorney-General,

[ Page 335 ]

through you, Mr. Speaker — comply with the other provisions

of your Act with regard to people who extend credit. And then the

people will know if, as the honourable Minister says, that the interest

rates are exorbitant, then they will know just what the cost is to them

when they use these services.

However, I am glad that the Minister of Lands, Forests, and Water

Resources has returned to his place. I was concerned that he might be

leaving the House today, but I want to deal for a few moments again

with Cypress Bowl, and I make no apologies for raising it again at this

time. Under the rules which we have, though it seems impossible to have

a debate on the subject of particular concern except in this manner,

and I am quite happy to continue the dialogue with the Minister until

we can find some solution to some of these difficulties. When the

Minister rose in his place earlier this week he presented, in his usual

lucid manner, his Departmental view with respect to Cypress Bowl, and

he provided us with some information which has not been before this

House before. And he referred to the report which was prepared by Mr.

Sinclair in 1939.

If members will recall that at that time a proud individual, a

resident of California, purported to commence logging on timber rights

that he owned in Cypress Bowl. Well, at that time the general public on

the North Shore and in Vancouver generally set up a hue and cry because

they did not wish the logging to take place. They were concerned about

the destruction of the scenic beauty of the North Shore and of the

possible unfortunate effects it might have on the future of winter

recreation in that area. The Municipal Government of West Vancouver,

Mr. Speaker, was also concerned but for a different reason, because at

that time Cypress Bowl was a watershed and it was their concern that it

be preserved as a watershed so the municipality would not be faced with

the very large expense, in those days, of bringing water across the

municipality from the Capilano watershed. Following the filing of the

Sinclair Report back 30 years ago, the Provincial Government reacted by

exchanging for those timber rights, which were privately held, timber

rights in other areas and those lands became and continue to be Crown

lands. The fact is the people didn't want logging to take place in

Cypress Bowl and the Government of that day was in accord with that

wish. Well, now we come 30 years later, and find that it has taken this

Government and its policies to reverse that entire situation, because

logging is what we have had in Cypress Bowl.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right. Shame.

MR. WILLIAMS: Now the difficulty is, however, greater than

that. There is an impasse in Cypress Bowl. The Provincial Government,

as indicated by the honourable Minister earlier this week, is not

prepared to accept the Benguet participants in Alpine Outdoor,

Recreation Resources Ltd. and has made those views known. However, the

Government is not prepared to say that it will take away any interests

which Alpine Outdoor Recreation Resources Ltd. has in Cypress Bowl and

offer them to anyone else, and therefore it is the person — it, the

Government of this Province — is the group which is causing the

roadblock in Cypress Bowl.

AN HON. MEMBER: Benguet owns that land.

MR. WILLIAMS: That's right. It is a strange thing, Mr.

Speaker, what can be done with corporate organizations, and to say that

Benguet is not acceptable but Alpine is, but the participants are the

same.

AN HON. MEMBER: Benguet owns 75 per cent of Alpine.

MR. WILLIAMS: That's right, and the problem also, Mr.

Speaker, is further made difficult by actions of this Government in

accordance with the laws of this Province. In 1965 when this entire

project began, the area known as Cypress Bowl was handled by zoning

under what is called a community plan, and a community plan simply is a

plan adopted by, above all, the municipality. But because of its

special nature it is not effective and cannot be changed without action

on the part of the Cabinet of the Province. An Order-in-Council must be

passed. Well, in August of 1965 such an Order-in-Council was passed to

establish the community plan for Cypress Bowl, and the Minister kindly

tabled in this House this week that Order-in-Council, and the map

attached to it, which discloses the kind of development that was to

have taken place in Cypress Bowl. Well, what we have today, Mr.

Speaker, is not what was set out in that community plan, and no change

can be made in that community plan without action on the part of this

Government, and therefore it holds the key to the future of Cypress

Bowl. It controls the land. The Government of this Province controls

the land, and it alone can grant whatever rights may be required to

ensure the development of Cypress Bowl.

Aside from all this, however, there is another matter, I think, of

greater urgency. Time will, I am sure, produce a proper development of

Cypress Bowl when the Government gets around in its own time. But there

are other problems. Cypress Bowl is the watershed of Cypress Creek, and

Cypress Creek over the years has been a constant threat and, indeed,

cause of damage by flooding in West Vancouver. The Municipality of West

Vancouver has gone to great expense over the years to protect the lower

reaches of Cypress Creek from the rampages of that creek as it goes

over its banks. But now, with the trees gone in Cypress Bowl, with the

possibilities of serious erosion taking place, again the potential for

flooding is at hand. I say, Mr. Speaker, that the Government which

permitted the removal of the trees in Cypress Bowl, the Government

which profited from the removal of those trees through the stumpage it

received, is the one which must move now to ensure that the lower

reaches of the Cypress Creek area are not endangered from flooding.

By the end of 1968, according to examinations which have been made

of these operations, the Government has received approximately $90,000

from this area in stumpage. Additional amounts were received during

1969. If you believe the developers that they didn't profit, you

certainly cannot ignore the fact that the Government has profited. The

Government has profited from logging in Cypress Bowl which was contrary

to the community plan which the Government itself approved. And

therefore the Government has a responsibility.

During the last summer the Minister of Recreation and Conservation

viewed Cypress Bowl from the air. He made a visit to my constituency

during the last election campaign. He flew over it in an aeroplane, but

he is a man who understands the problem, Mr. Speaker, and following

that viewing, he expressed the concern about the destruction of the

ground cover which has taken place in that area, and the

[ Page 336 ]

need that there is to restore it. Well, there are techniques for

this, and I demand that the Government this spring utilize the monies

that they have received from the stumpage from timber in Cypress Bowl

to proceed with a programme of hydro seeding which will ensure the

production of grass covers throughout Cypress Bowl during the

forthcoming growing year. And that, having stabilized the soil in that

way and prevented erosion, they proceed diligently and expeditiously

with a programme of reforestation. Then, in the fullness of time, when

the Government determines what it wishes to do with Cypress Bowl, then

at least when recreational development can take place the effects of

erosion will not have left their scars on the mountainside. Man alone

has left enough.

We don't, Mr. Speaker, need to place the lower reaches of Cypress

Creek in the same jeopardy that Lions Bay faced in September of last

year when, admittedly by reason of extreme precipitation, the rivers

and creeks in the area of Lions Bay became so swollen, so suddenly, so

quickly, put of an area which has been logged off as Cypress Bowl has

been logged off, that the highway was washed out, bridges were washed

out, extensive damage to private property ensued, and one life was

apparently lost. We don't need any repetitions of this in the lower

reaches of Cypress Creek. This is only a holding, manoeuvre which this

Government can and must take in fulfilment of its responsibilities.

Mr. Speaker, as I went through the Budget I was pleased to note and

to listen to the honourable Minister of Finance when he read, "With

respect to local governments, the policy of this Government over a

number of years has recognized the rapidly growing needs of local

governments and generous financial assistance has been provided." And

certain statistics were given to support those statements. Well, Mr.

Speaker, I don't suggest that the honourable Minister of Finance chose

his statistics with care but it is, I think, worthwhile to consider

what has happened in some of the smaller municipalities of this

Province, and I use the one in which I reside as an example. In 1957

the Municipality of West Vancouver received from the Provincial

Government grants amounting to 13 per cent of its total revenue. By

1965 the Provincial Government grants to that municipality had dropped

to 10 per cent of its total fiscal requirements. By 1969, the year just

passed, the Provincial Government contributed 15 per cent of that

municipality's requirements, an increase admittedly since 1965 of 5 per

cent, but, Mr. Speaker, this increase does not even keep up with the

increase in costs incurred by the municipalities due to inflationary

processes. Certainly the increase does nothing, in a positive way, to

assist in the mounting demands for needed services which accompany

expanding populations in our cities, in our towns, and our

municipalities.

The Budget finds it significant that over 80 per cent of the

population of this Province resides in the incorporated municipalities.

Eighty per cent — and on those local governments are cast the burdens

of health services, schools, streets, urban transit, social welfare,

fire and police protection, sewage systems, and water systems. All

these services, essential to the people who live within the boundaries

of these cities, towns, and municipalities, must be provided, and the

landlord is the only revenue source which is extended to local

government. The home-owner grant of which this Government speaks with

such great pride, is not in any way an aid to local government, nor is

it an aid to school districts. The grant is only what its name implies,

a grant to home owners. A special bonus to a particular class of our

citizens, those citizens who are financially able to purchase their own

home. Ignored are the tenants, who form such a large part of the

increasing population in our urban centres.

In the Budget, at the bottom of page 34, I found what would be a

humorous statement if it wasn't so tragic. The budget reads, "As a

further indirect, but very important at this particular time, aid to

municipal governments, the Province has refrained from entering the

world money markets for now well over two years. Nor does the Province

borrow from any bank or other financial institution. This means that

total credit facilities are available to local governments without

competition from the Province." Well Mr. Speaker, it is just not true.

The total credit facilities are not available to local governments

because the Provincial Government has consistently maintained its

refusal to lend its guarantee for the sale of bonds which are required

for municipal services. True, the bond market is bad, there's no

question about that, but even if the sale of bonds is possible, either

through tendering, or sales locally to residents of communities, the

Government will not extend its guarantee to those bonds. Yes, it's

true, the municipalities have recourse to bank borrowing at current

rates, but this does nothing for the desperately needed monies which

are required for capital works, such as water and sewage systems so

essential to the growth of young, rapidly expanding municipalities.

Mr. Speaker, the Crown Corporations don't suffer in this regard. The

Government has no hesitation, on the day the Budget is brought down, of

bringing in legislation which will permit the expansion of the

borrowing power of the B.C. Hydro by $250,000,000, or Pacific Great

Eastern Railway by $50,000,000. Nor does the Government have any

compunction about taking tax money to the extent of $35,000,000

directly out of Provincial revenues and giving it to the P.G.E. through

the purchase of additional shares, additional shares in a company whose

shares are already wholly owned by this Government. Direct grant of

monies out of Treasury. But these advantages are not offered to local

governments.

This is one of the total credit facilities that exists in this

Province, the surpluses that this Government has out of its annual

Budgets. That's part of the total credit facility available, but it's

not available to the municipalities. Mr. Speaker, the effect of this is

to deny municipalities those things which they must have, water

systems, sewage systems in particular, those things which are essential

to the health and the welfare of the municipalities. Those that can be

provided are provided out of funds raised by the steadily increasing

burdens of property tax. Mr. Speaker, it may be possible for the

Provincial Government to escape the penalty of increasing tax rates in

this Province, but the policies of this Government do not permit local

governments to enjoy the same privilege.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few words about education in this

Province. When I went through the Budget, and it's true that there is

more money for schools, but the money that is being provided does not

meet the emergency situation which is a direct result of this

Government's failure to keep up with the need over the years. The

report of the British Columbia Public Schools show that 500,000, one

quarter of our entire population, are in the schools of this Province.

The need is one of which the Department of Education has been aware

year by year, and yet we had yesterday the Honourable the Minister of

Education stand in this House, and tell the members that just the night

before he had received from his department their report on essential

classroom need in this

[ Page 337 ]

Province. To think that this statistic is not constantly before the

Department of Education is ludicrous. What kind of planning do we have

when each year we have to have a special report on what is needed by

way of essential classroom construction?

AN HON. MEMBER: They plan one year ahead.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I suppose the planning takes place in

such a way that the Minister just gets his report, just before his

speech, not time to include the material in his speech, and then he can

forget the report after he has delivered himself of the address that he

got before….

AN HON. MEMBER: Ask him to table it in the House.

MR. WILLIAMS: He was asked yesterday if he would table the

report before the House and the Minister close to his prepared notes,

did not stray.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): The Premier told him not to answer.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the Minister told us yesterday of

yet a new study which is being launched by his department into

construction methods for schools. Mr. Speaker, through you to the

Minister, we've heard it all before. We've heard it all before. The

former Minister and his senior staff spoke at length about the wonders

of modular construction. The senior members of the staff of his

department went to Eastern Canada, and found out what they were doing,

and we were told in 1968 that there would be launched a new programme

to determine economical construction methods for schools. We have heard

it all before. My question, Mr. Speaker, is how many more generations

of students must enter and pass through our public school system before

this Government receives a report which it's prepared to adopt. Adopt

and then embark upon. A programme which will end the annually recurring

demands for school facilities. We need a little planning in that

department, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure that the honourable the Minister

must sometimes say to himself, "I didn't create the problem," and

that's right. I know he was a new boy last year, but he's not a new boy

now. Well, he may not have created the problem, but it's his

responsibility now to solve it and he is failing in that responsibility.

AN HON. MEMBER: He is the problem now.

MR. WILLIAMS: His failure is being manifested in

over-crowding in our schools, in the adoption of shift systems, the

adoption of shift systems between grade one and grade 12, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's a shifty Minister.

MR. WILLIAMS: We had here in this building yesterday,

concerned parents from school districts throughout this Province,

concerned mothers, concerned because they knew that grade one children

in their communities were going to be put on the shift system. The

shift systems, with their working through from 8 o'clock in the morning

to 5 o'clock in the afternoon. Young children in grade one have to go

to school at 8 o'clock in the morning, and when you have one, or two,

or three, or four children in school, all on different shifts, when Dad

works on a shift, how can the family unit ever be kept together in this

Province? Not only is this affecting our children in the schools, but

it is affecting our children in their home life as well. But all of

these discussions, Mr. Speaker, only deal with one aspect of the

problem. The quantity of educational facilities in British Columbia….

AN HON. MEMBER: What about the quality?

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, what about the quality of education in

this Province? The Government's introduction of the operating cost

formula in Bill 86 was a direct blow to the enhancement of the quality

of education in this Province. In its attempt to level or standardize

educational opportunity throughout this Province, it used all the

finesse of a steam-roller. It did nothing to encourage those who were

lagging behind to elevate their programmes, no, it shows the other

route. Suppress those school districts who would take the lead. The

lead in new techniques, new programmes, new methods to meet the

challenge of today's youth for tomorrow's world. That's what education

is all about.

I was delighted when I received the 98th annual report by the

Superintendent of Education on British Columbia's public schools, to

find that on page 48 was a photograph of one of the modern schools

which was constructed in my school district, and again, on page 66, the

picture of two young students who were busily engaged in the new

programmes which are being offered in those schools.

Mr. Speaker, you can only have these new schools, you can only have

these new schools, you can only have these new programmes, you can only

provide this new challenge for the youth of today in this Province, if

the local taxpayer is prepared to pay the full costs. Bill 86 amounted

to nothing more than an opting out, an abdication by this Government of

its responsibility to participate in the experimentation which is

necessary to any significant advance in education. That's the effect of

Bill 86. To talk about improving the quality to some people who don't

have adequate classrooms, is one thing, but when you solve that

problem, Mr. Speaker, the Department of Education in this Province,

controlled as it is by the Minister of Finance, will leave us so far

behind in our techniques that it can only affect our young people to

their disadvantage and to the disadvantage of the entire Province.

Now before I sit down, I wish to say just a few things about the

regional college system and its place in our educational system. The

regional college system is one with which we must all be in favour. It

is a step forward, it is a programme which can and must succeed,

because success will bring great regards to the entire Province,

through the type of training that it will make available to our young

people, our young people, and also those older people who wish to

re-enter the school system and re-equip themselves for their role in

our society. Success of the regional college system, as well, will

lessen the demand upon our University facilities, and permit those

universities to function with greater success in their proper place. By

reducing the demands on those universities, we may eventually find some

saving, some financial saving, and this above all should commend itself

to this Government. The Government is expanding the programme and I

congratulate them for it. We look forward soon to the day when all

students in all areas of the Province will have the opportunity to go

to a regional college, to take the benefit of that type of higher

education, either as their final move in education, or as step on to

university. But by

[ Page 338 ]

expanding this programme and making it available to all our

students, I say that the Government must do for the regional college

system what it has done for other systems of higher education, and that

is assume the cost. The whole Province benefits. There is no

justification, Mr. Speaker, to say to a particular group of school

districts — no! you bear 40 per cent of the cost of classroom

operation — your people benefit. The fact is that all benefit. And it

should form part of the general fiscal responsibility of this

Government.

(The honourable member for North Peace River, who was scheduled to

speak next in the Budget Debate, not being in his place in the House, a

point of order was raised by the honourable the Leader of the

Opposition.)

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, the only indication that the Chair has is the members that were given me on the list are not in the House.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): It is an unwritten

rule in the area of this House that arrangements are made through the

Whips. If the Whip system is going to break down and Government members

refuse to speak in a debate, Mr. Speaker, after an agreement is reached

on a printed list, then, Mr. Speaker, my point of order is this. That

this House for all the years in the history of British Columbia has

operated on agreement for speakers, even before Social Credit. There's

a Social Credit member whose name is on this list. There's an

honourable obligation between members in this House, on this list.

Honour is a structure of the system, Mr. Speaker, honour must be kept

more than anything else on a base of tradition in a parliamentary

system. Honour is what's at stake. That member should get up and take

his place in this debate rather than hiding behind the Premier.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just one moment. The House stands recessed for five minutes. The House is recessed for five minutes.

(Five Minute Recess)

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order please. Order!

Will the honourable Ministers please be attendant to the Chair, and

when order is called. I'm not just here to exercise my voice.

I must say, under the circumstances, the lists are provided to the

Chair and it is only a courtesy to the House that the members who are

to follow be in the House at that time. Under the circumstances we will

continue with the debate with the hope that the members will give the

courtesy and attention to the Legislature and to the debates that the

debates deserve.

I call on the member for North Peace River.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Mr. Speaker, in courtesy

to the Chair, I perhaps should say that I was a little tardy getting

back into the House. I had presumed that the previous speaker would be

on his feet a little longer than he was, and at the time that I should

have been taking my place in this debate I was outside and didn't make

it back in. I have no other excuse to offer than that.

However, I am happy to stand in my place this afternoon and take

part in the Budget debate. I haven't had an opportunity to stand in my

place yet this Session and so it's nice to first of all welcome all of

the new members to this House. I think that they should be

congratulated very much for the contributions that they have made to

this House and the type of speeches that they have given. Something

that we can all shoot for, I think, is the example that has been set

particularly by the new members during this Session.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak briefly, if I may, about a

remark that was made by the honourable the leader of the Liberal

Opposition party. In speaking in the House a few days ago the

honourable member made some references and passing remarks to Fort St.

John and to Taylor. I think he was speaking on pollution, and he

suggested that there was no treatment of sewage facilities in Fort St.

John or in the Village of Taylor. It would seem to me that he should

check his facts out a little bit closer before he makes statements like

that on the floor of the House, because if he had checked his facts out

he would find that there has been sewage treatment of a primary nature

in Fort St. John and in Taylor ever since the two communities were

incorporated. He would further find that the town of Fort St. John,

because of rapid expansion, has been in constant consultation with the

engineering firm which represents them and they have in their hands,

and I have a copy of the plan that will be implemented to increase the

facilities and make better provisions for sewage treatment and increase

the facilities in the town of Fort St. John.

It should be pointed out, Mr. Speaker, that a town that doubles in

size in a matter of less than ten years will have certain problems with

regard to the facilities that they have available to them. They are

prepared to meet this challenge and they are presently working on it,

Mr. Speaker. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that if they were not prepared to

meet the challenge then there would be a problem, but they are prepared

to meet the challenge and they're working on it very hard and they're

coming up with solutions, and that is more than some of the

municipalities in the lower mainland can say for themselves.

I don't intend to speak long on the matter of B.C. Hydro. As a

matter of fact, I guess I can't really speak on Hydro and hydro rates,

but all I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, is this, that in a recent

edition of the Vancouver Province , dated January the 20th,

there is an

article referring to Hydro buses and the rates that will be

charged and the fact that they may have to go up.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I might just point out to the member that I

did make a ruling in this House, and as long as that Resolution is

there and I am in the Chair it is the ruling that must be adhered to.

MR. SMITH: I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, that there has

been suggestions in the newspaper that bus rates in Vancouver would

have to increase.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order please.

MR. SMITH: Okay, Mr. Speaker, is it allright if I talk about bus rates in New York City?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member knows full well that he cannot do indirectly what he is not allowed to do directly.

MR. SMITH: I would just like to point out that in the City of

New York, in the same

article of the same newspaper, there is a little

clipping….

[ Page 339 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just one moment. I asked the member to take a certain position in this House and I expect him to do so.

MR. SMITH: I'll recognize your ruling, Mr. Speaker, and all

I'd suggest to the members is that they look at the little clipping

that came out in the same newspaper.

MR. P.L. McGEER (1st-Vancouver–Point Grey): Point of order.

May I draw your attention to pages 10, 11 and 12 of the Budget.

These were presented to the members of the House last Friday. They

contain extensive discussion of the capital financing of hydro-electric

projects around the Province. It was drawn to the attention of the

Speaker before the beginning of that Session that this matter had been

ruled out and that, in his opinion, he thought the Minister of Finance

should be given adequate opportunity to report on the rate structure

and the capital financing of Hydro during his Budget Address.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just one moment.

MR. McGEER: It was brought up before….

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just one moment.

MR. McGEER: The Minister of Finance at the time you ruled it

out, he made no objection at all to your ruling it out, and then when

he gave his Budget Address he covered it extensively, and I think all

the members should be treated equally in this House, and I think in

view of that, Mr. Speaker, you must permit discussion of capital

financing and hydro electric rates. If you let this ruling stand, Mr.

Speaker, it would be quite possible, in fairness to all members of the

House, for people to put Resolutions on that Order Paper at the

commencement of each Session which would completely limit the Minister

of Finance in presenting his Budget. I would ask you to withdraw that

ruling in view of what's on pages 10, 11 and 12 of the Budget and

permit full discussion of all financial matters during this Budget

Address by all members of the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just one moment. The question has been raised

on a point of order. I do recall being in the House when the honourable

member from Burnaby-Edmonds raised the point. I do not recall the

Speaker making any judgment or ruling at that time. I have had no

advice that my ruling was incorrect, and until I have I must leave the

ruling where it is.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, with due respect to you, sir,

although the Speaker made no declaration, he gave tacit approval to the

point made by the member from Burnaby Edmonds because he did not call

the Minister of Finance to order when he discussed those very points.

And the Minister of Finance himself has never objected to other people

being ruled out of order, but when he presents his Address he violates

the rules.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member made his statement and, in due respect, I've made mine. Will the member for North Peace please proceed.

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. McGEER: I challenge your ruling on this matter.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, am I to be allowed to be heard in this House?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just one moment. Will the member be seated.

Will the member be seated! The Speaker's ruling has been challenged.

All those in favour of the….

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (1st-Vancouver East): Just what was your

ruling? Now, Mr. Speaker, I suggest your ruling was that the House

could not discuss the contents of Resolution No. 3. Now, with respect,

I think you were wrong in that decision.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, the Speaker's ruling has been challenged.

MR. MACDONALD: But Resolution No. 3 says that a special

committee of the House be formed. It has nothing to do with other than

forming or not forming a special committee. That's the way you put it

at the time, Mr. Speaker. We can't discuss the advisability of

referring this matter to a committee. That's all that's in that

Resolution.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Speaker's ruling has been challenged. All those….

MR. G.S. DOWDING (Burnaby-Edmonds): On another point — before they decide….

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just one moment. Order please. Just be seated a moment. Please be seated!

All those….

MR. DOWDING: Now, Mr. Speaker, on a point of order:

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I do not believe that it is possible, under

the rules of the House, when a challenge of the Speaker's ruling is

made, that must be immediately put — it is not a debatable question.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): If the member would withdraw his challenge, it might do the House good to have a five minute recess, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, no.

MR. McGEER: I would be very happy to withdraw my challenge if

we could have a recess to discuss the subject, Mr. Speaker, for

clarification of the point he made and you made because, with due

respect, there's been a….

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just one moment. Just one moment. There are

no conditions to either challenging the Speaker or a withdrawal. There

is no such thing. Either the member's challenge stands or he withdraws

it. And it's just that simple.

MR. DOWDING: Well, Mr. Speaker….

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order please! There's no debate.

MR. DOWDING: I have a point of order.

[ Page 340 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just one moment.

MR. DOWDING: You are liable to be charged with bi-partisanship for allowing the Premier….

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will the member please be seated. Will the member be seated. Will the member be seated!

MR. DOWDING: ….That is the issue.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have no alternative but to name Gordon Dowding. Please leave the House. Please leave the House.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is partisanship.

AN HON. MEMBER: If that isn't partisanship….

AN HON. MEMBER: You're playing politics. You haven't the right. You have to call the Speaker. That's the rule.

AN HON. MEMBER: You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I asked the member to be seated and I was standing, and the member refused to take his seat.

MR. DOWDING: I couldn't hear you, I had things to tell you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just one moment. Mr. Clerk.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I suggest a five minute recess to calm the House.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT (Premier): Now the House has calmed down,

I have no intention of moving a motion that Gordon Dowding leave the

House, and would ask that we carry on.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, we prefer to have your ruling

rather than the Premier's so that we can conduct the business of the

House in an impartial way. That's why I suggested the recess, and I'd

appreciate your ruling, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: There was a point raised as to whether or not

I have the authority. According to the rules of the House, I have the

full authority of the Speaker, and I exercise that prerogative. Now, to

perhaps calm things a little, I'll declare a five minute recess and ask

the members to hold their seats.

(Five Minute Recess)

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, several alternatives are

open to the Chair in dealing with the member who defied the authority

of the Chair. In this instance I adopted the naming procedure, but in

the absence of action being taken by the House I will, on this

occasion, allow the matter to rest. I have ruled that discussion of

hydro rates offends the anticipation rule because of Motion No. 3 on

the Order Paper, in the name of the first member for Vancouver–Point

Grey. That member may, of course, at a later time, at an appropriate

time, ask leave of the House to withdraw his Motion and thus allow

debate of the issue, and place the Motion on the Order Paper again at a

later time. However, the question now before the House is whether or

not the member wishes to a continue with his challenge of the Chair.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, if the member doesn't wish to.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair has been challenged. All those who uphold the ruling of the Chair.

HON. D.R.J. CAMPBELL: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, which challenge are we now looking at? (Laughter.)

DEPUTY SPEAKER: There has been no indication that they wish

to withdraw the challenge of the Chair. The challenge of the Chair is

on the ruling that it defends the rules of the House on the matter of

anticipation to debate hydro rates and the fiscal structure of Hydro

because of Motion No. 3 on the Order Paper. All those who sustain the

ruling of the Chair please stand. I'm sorry, it should have been a

voice vote. All those in favour indicate by saying Aye. Contrary minded

No. I think the Ayes have it.

The ruling of the Deputy Speaker was sustained on the following division:-

YEAS — 35

Messieurs

Wallace

Tisdalle

Smith

Ney

McCarthy, Mrs.

McDiarmid

Merilees

Jordan, Mrs.

Capozzi

Marshall

Dawson, Mrs.

Skillings

Wenman

Kiernan

Chant

Kripps, Mrs.

Williston

Loffmark

Mussallem

Bennett

Gaglardi

Price

Peterson

Campbell, D.R.J.

Vogel

Black

Brothers

Chabot

Fraser

Shelford

Little

Campbell, B.

Richter

Jefcoat

Wolfe

NAYS — 18

Messieurs

Brousson

Williams, R. A.

Strachan

Gardom

Calder

Dowding

Cocke

Clark

Nimsick

Hartley

McGeer

Barrett

Lorimer

Williams, L. A.

Dailly, Mrs.

Hall

Macdonald

LeCours

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I declare the motion defeated. The Chair sustained. So Ordered.

The honourable member for North Peace River.

MR. D. E. SMITH: As I was about to say before I was so rudely interrupted,

[ Page 341 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: What the member's trying to say is that he was rudely interrupted by the Chair.

MR. SMITH: I was not inferring, Mr. Speaker, that I was interrupted by the Chair.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, the interruption of the member's speech was by the Chair. Proceed.

MR. SMITH: It's just a figure of speech, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I think that I would like to spend a few minutes

talking about northern development. In the introductory remarks in the

Budget, on page 7, two-thirds of the way down the page, you will see a

statement of policy. "The Government's first policy in this new decade

is for people — to provide continuing improvement in Government

services to increase social and economic benefits. To make sure

increased funds are available for services to people in education,

health, hospital and medical care, social services, and urban growth,

we must have continued economic growth, particularly in the northern

resource areas of the Province." And then it goes on to talk about the

P.G.E. Railway and other resource areas.

I would like to spend a few minutes, if I might, talking about

northern development, not only because of the fact that I come from the

northern part of the Province, but because of the fact that I think

this is truly an exciting area. It's an area which, in my opinion, in

the next ten years — the decade of the 70's — will see growth which

will be equal to or greater than all the growth that has taken place

since the century started. There is tremendous future up there and I

think it was pointed out quite ably the other day when he turned to the

map on page 15 and said, "This tells the story of the development of

British Columbia." Certainly there is everything there in the way of

natural resources that we need for developing British Columbia.

Certainly there is the gas and the petroleum and the mining potential

and forest resources upon which the economy of this Province will be

built.

Mr. Speaker, it disturbs me somewhat, when I picked up a paper

Wednesday, February 11th, a copy of the Victoria Day Times, and on the

front page I see a picture of a new division of Canada. This particular

regional development as espoused by Mr. Jim Smith, the Commissioner for

the Yukon, would cut and divide Alberta and British Columbia, and join

the northern half of British Columbia and Alberta to the Yukon and the

Northwest Territories. Now, I agree with this gentleman that if that

were to be done this would indeed be the richest block of real estate

in North America. I think that's true. But, I would also like to point

out to the Commissioner that we are having our problems in selling the

rest of Canada on the fact that the development that must take place

must be from south to north. If we're going to do that and build roads

and railways and develop the country as it should be, and the Province

as it should be, then we are going to have to have this development

flow out from this heavily populated area along the southern boundary

of Canada, and out into the north. That is why it disturbs me to see a

man who is so concerned about returning the personality — if you would

like to call it that — of the Yukon, that he is prepared to sacrifice

many of the other things which he, as a Commissioner knows will be to

the benefit of all the people, not only of British Columbia and Alberta

but of the Yukon Territories and the Northwest Territories.

Certainly the development that is taking place in the north is the

type that will continue to produce millions upon millions of dollars

for the coffers of the Province, and this is the type of development

that will provide the services to people that we are talking about in

this Budget.

I would just like to say one other thing on northern development,

Mr. Speaker, and that is that when you talk about northern development

and developing the resources of the north, you also create at the same

time a number of social and economic problems that did not exist

before. We don't have a great problem with pollution in the north yet,

we don't have a great problem about land acquisition or overcrowding,

but as the northern part of British Columbia develops, and as mines

open up and as pulp mills are built, we will have these problems, Mr.

Speaker. We'll have them probably in such abundance that we will look

back some day and say, "Oh, for the good days when we didn't have quite

as much in the way of people up here, or as many people, and we didn't

have quite as many problems."

That is why, Mr. Speaker, I would like to suggest at this time that

the development must take place and go hand in hand with a department,

or at least a sub-department, here in Victoria that specializes in

helping people of the north settle these problems of people. We've got

small communities growing up and expanding, and all of a sudden they

grow from 200 to 300 to 3,000 and 4,000 and bring with them all kinds

of the social problems that we have in much heavier populated areas.

That is why, I think, that if we are going to get the true concept of

northern development, that we must have the communication channels,

that we must open up the mines and the mineral resources, but at the

same time we must have a Department of Northern Development here in

Victoria. A department that would probably be responsible to the

Industrial Development, Trade, and Commerce portfolio, and could

specialize in bringing together all the Resource Ministers and their

technical knowledge and the knowledge of their departments to centre on

some of these problems that are going to come about, whether we like it

or not. We like it, because it's part of the development, but they must

be looked after and they must be looked after now.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak for a few moments upon the use of

snowmobiles, and I might comment that I was interested in the

Minister's comments this afternoon, the Minister of Commercial

Transport, in relation to the use of snowmobiles. This is a fun vehicle

for everyone. The family fun vehicle. It's also a known fact, Mr.

Speaker, that the sales of snowmobiles, which really only go back for a

period of four years, amounted to between 7,500 and 8,000 units in the

Province of British Columbia. But, the thing that is really interesting

is that half of all the snowmobiles that have been sold were sold in

this past year, and if that pace and that trend continues and I think

it will, we will have snowmobiles by the thousands owned by people in

British Columbia to bring wintertime enjoyment to themselves and their

families, and I don't see anything wrong with that.

But I just happened to clip an

article the other day from one of the

local papers and I see now that snowmobiles can be turned into kit

carts. A conversion kit which costs approximately $400, they say here,

will transfer the snowmobile which we use and recognize today into what

I would term a three-wheeled motorcycle. It's true. They're available,

and they will be on the market and the people who have snowmobiles

today will certainly buy those conversions and if the sales materialize

the way I think they are going to materialize, then we must have some

control and some

[ Page 342 ]

regulations as to the use of these machines. It is possible now to

buy a snowmobile that will travel in excess of 90 miles an hour. It

means that that type of machine is not for everyone. I would think the

family machine is one that is under 24 horsepower, and doesn't travel

quite as fast, but we are going to run into a problem with many

accidents and with people getting killed. As a matter of fact, a

youngster was killed not too long ago, just a few miles from Fort St.

John, where he came roaring across the road on a snowmobile into a car

and the driver had absolutely no chance at all. He never saw that

machine come out in front of him until after he had hit it, and this is

what happens. You get young people managing the machine, this is their

first attempt at driving, and they don't realize the number of horses

they have in the front end of that machine and what will happen when

you crack the throttle wide open.

I would hope that the Minister of Commercial Transport will take a

hard look at the rules and regulations that govern the use of

snowmobiles, because they are going to have to come in and I am sure

that after talking to the association, the Snowmobile Owners

Association in British Columbia, that they would be quite prepared and

want to help the Minister in drafting rules and regulations for the use

of these machines.

Mr. Speaker, because of the tremendous importance of agriculture to

the Peace River country, I would like to spend a few minutes speaking

on agriculture. You know, the farmers have, in my opinion, a justified

complaint concerning the taxation of farm land, and perhaps one of

their points of view can best be expressed by the Federation of

Agriculture president's message and he says, "Farm lands cannot be

considered as a measure of wealth nor does it reflect the ability to

pay. Consider what would happen should farm land taxes continue to

rise. Farmers are being forced off the land. Many people are dislodged

and valuable production land will be lost forever. A survey undertaken

by the Federation in 1969 showed property taxes to be from five to 45

per cent on net profit before deductions for those property taxes."

I would think that if we are going to be fair to the people who are

truly hard-pressed in agriculture today, that We would look at the home

and the home-site as a basis for taxing them for school purposes. Now I

also recognize that in that there is an inherent danger that this

provides a big advantage to people who would like to accumulate land

under the guise of calling it a farm and eventually realize a pretty

substantial capital gain for themselves. But I would suggest this, Mr.

Speaker, that there would be nothing wrong with a system in which we

deferred the taxation on farm land while it was being held for farm

land and farmed as such, and if by some change — and we are living in

changing times and changing conditions — the total bulk of that farm

was sold and a tremendous capital gain was realized, that the Crown

would have first claim against the taxes that they had deferred in

prior years.

I think perhaps this would be a system that would be acceptable to

farmers and farm organizations and it would still get them out of a

corner and believe me, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Finance, those

farmers are in a bad corner in our part of the country right now. They

have had some pretty bad crops for two years and the type of taxes that

they have to pay is really beginning to hurt.

I would also like to say that the Province of British Columbia could

probably provide a forward look for grain marketing, not only for

British Columbia, but for all of Canada. Certainly we have had not too

much in the way of leadership shown by the Canadian Wheat Board, and

if, in the Province of British Columbia, we could set up within our own

boundaries a grain marketing board to market the products of out

Province, to market the grain of our Province, I think that perhaps we

could use ideas and techniques that are not generally being used now

and that will help the farmers of the future. You know, perhaps if we

look at a letter I received just a couple of days ago from a farmer

living adjacent to Fort St. John, out in what is called the Bear Canyon

country, we might have a solution to that problem of marketing of

grain. Because he has written me to say that he has spent three years

developing a building material from wheat and that he has perfected,

according to his letter, a building material that is very similar to

the hardboard that we market today, with apologies to the Minister of

Lands and Forests. The material is constructed out of wheat and,

according to him, it can be nailed, sawed and sanded and has a good

tensile strength. Now if he is correct in these assumptions and this

does prove to be a good building material, we just might find a sale

for that tremendous glut of wheat we have throughout all of Western

Canada. At least here is a man, Mr. Speaker, who is trying to come up

with a solution to the wheat problem, and it is people like this who

will probably provide the solution that the Wheat Board and everyone

else has been looking for, for years.

Mr. Speaker, before I leave the matter of agriculture, I would like

to comment just briefly on one other matter, and that is that the

Minister has told me there will be a showing of a film at 9 o'clock

tomorrow morning. This film was provided by the Department of

Agriculture for Ontario and the film is on pesticides. It is about a

30-minute film and on behalf of the Minister and the Agricultural

Committee, I would certainly like to invite everyone, the members of

this House and the Press Gallery, to attend the showing of that film.

It is only a 30-minute film and it will be shown in the Museum Theatre

tomorrow morning at 9 o'clock.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment further for a few minutes about

the highway problems in my own area. Certainly in a rapidly growing

country, we do have highway problems, and I would like at this point to

compliment the Minister of Highways because I think that he has been

doing a good job and that we have had an equitable distribution of the

funds that have been available to his department. I would like to

comment on that, and I would like to thank him for his cooperation,

because we have road problems in the north like nobody would believe,

and we have the type of problems that are hard to correct because of

the soil conditions that we have. They are tough to correct and they

are costly to correct, but we do have a tremendous need for increased

allocations of funds when the area is rapidly expanding. All I would

like to say to the Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, is don't stop

now, we sure need the help, and I appreciate the help that we have

received in the last few years on our highway problems in