1974 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 1974

Night Sitting

[ Page

117 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Throne speech debate

Hon. Mr. Radford — 117

Mrs. Webster — 120

Division on address to the Lieutenant-Governor — 125

The House met at 8:30 p.m.

Orders of the day.

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

(continued debate)

HON. J. RADFORD (Minister of Recreation and Conservation):

Mr. Speaker, I would first of all like to thank the mover and the

seconder of the throne speech. It's also a privilege, and I appreciate

this particular debate because it allows the Members a great deal of

leeway to bring up almost any subject that they may possibly have on

their minds.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. RADFORD: Mr. Speaker, I do not have too many remarks

on yesterday's lacklustre performance of the opposition in this House.

All I can say is, what a way to start out the first day!

I was hoping for more constructive opposition, especially from the

official opposition. I thought that after a year and a half in the

opposition they would be improving; however, such is not the case. I

suppose we are headed again toward the same experience of last year.

Again, let me take you back to last year, and it was in the third

session last fall that the NDP put through 68 bills. Only 10 of them

were opposed in votes. The Socreds voted against six, the Liberals

against eight and the Tories against seven.

Overall, I suppose, in the last three sessions the government has passed 191 bills. Only 34 were voted against.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where is the opposition?

HON. MR. RADFORD: The Socreds voted against six, the Liberals eight

and the Tories seven.

Interjections.

HON. MR. RADFORD: No, that's right. Mr. Speaker, that

opposition over there reminds me of someone without teeth trying to

bite into a big, hard, red, Okanagan apple. (Laughter.)

MR. R.T. CUMMINGS (Vancouver-Little Mountain): Toothless opposition.

HON. MR. RADFORD: Yes, I guess you could call them a toothless opposition.

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): What was wrong with the bills that they voted for?

HON. MR. RADFORD: Mr. Speaker, since my appointment as Minister of Recreation

and Conservation some nine months ago many facets of the department are coming

... to delivery, right! — no, to my being more aware, really, of what the department

is all about.

Firstly, this is a growth department, the budget having grown over

five times in the last three years. This is in keeping with the

nation-wide growth in the leisure industry and the changing public

emphasis from economic to social benefits. Leisure time spending is

already at least $4 billion in this country, although the statistics

department in Ottawa have never seen fit to do too much of a study on

this. I take these figures in relationship to what studies have been

done in the USA.

The budget and funding of this department last year was $45 million,

which includes all the funds for which we were responsible. The voted

budget of $13.8 million was and is misleading in this respect. It is

not a routinized expenditure as are many of the other departments with

larger budgets.

Our continuously employed staff, year-round, is about 600 persons,

increasing in the summer months close to 3,000 employees. We are a

multi-discipline department with a great variety of responsibilities,

involving many skills in direct and continuous relationships with other

resource departments of federal, provincial, regional and local

governments.

We are involved in most major resource decisions in this province

through representation on the Pollution Control Board, Environment and

Land Use Committee, regional district technical planning committees,

regional inter-sector committees, and so on.

Mainly through commercial fisheries and parks, but also through

other branches, we have many continuing interrelationships with

national and international departments.

The department consists of four distinctly different but related

branches, leading to a complexity in a variety of day-to-day problems

matched by few in any other departments. This department is one of the

largest and, I feel, the most complex departments of government — a

growth department which relates more intimately to the daily lives of

the citizens of this province than probably many other departments.

Not only do we require a high degree of technical expertise in many

fields, but we also have a special knowledge and sensitivity to

people's needs throughout the province. Our economic impact, although

not as direct and visible as many as the extractive resources, is

nevertheless very, very great.

The Department of Recreation and Conservation reflects more clearly

than most other departments the changed policies of this government

towards the management of resources in the Province of British

[ Page 118 ]

Columbia — policies which place the social needs of

open space, recreation and the concern of our historic, scientific and

scenic resources ahead of purely economic considerations.

Beyond the always important bread-and-butter considerations of jobs,

housing, cost of living, we must more and more emphasize the quality of

living and the quality of our environment.

We may profit in British Columbia from the lessons of those in other

parts of the world who have learned too late the immense importance of

an intact environment and the opportunities this offers for recreation,

security and the development of an understanding of living systems. In

this we may be one of the few areas (and I hope we are) to recognize

those values in time to secure them for the future generation.

Each of the four branches in this department are intimately involved

in the management and protection of our environmental, recreational,

historical and wildlife resources. The needs of wildlife, for example,

are based upon a need for quality living and habitat. This requirement

has many positive implications for not only wildlife, but also

recreation and general environmental security.

We long have recognized the value of wildlife in its natural

environment as a measure of the quality of our own life, and a basic

requirement for most forms of outdoor recreation. Mr. Speaker,

environment for wildlife is environment for people. The role played for

so long by this department, that of protecting quality wildlife

habitat, has taken on a much greater significance with a developing

public concern for the quality of our environment. The most basic

requirements of both wildlife and people are our common ones. And those

people working to sustain our wildlife are at the same time securing

the future of all British Columbians.

Input into the shaping of land-use policies is the basis of an

integrated approach to better land use — use that incorporates the less

tangible values of aesthetics, recreation and education. The security

of the natural environment is the basis of our management programmes.

And we are working with other government agencies to ensure that this

type of use is incorporated into land-use planning.

In addition, we are listening with keen interest to the

knowledgeable professionals of our departments, and also to the

thousands of conservationists who belong to fish and wildlife clubs,

SPEC groups, naturalist clubs and many other organizations. I believe

that this kind of communications did not take place with the last

government.

Mr. Speaker, I'd now like at this time to talk about our provincial

parks. One of the best methods available to us to secure an area for

its natural values is the status conferred by a provincial park. But

even here the pressures of an expanding population create problems to

be solved only by innovative management. Our provincial parks face not

only increasing demands for their use, but also an increasing variety

in the types of demands made upon them.

For some users the transition from an insulated urban existence to

an outdoor experience is a difficult one. The growing pressures of

modern living demand a total escape to the peace and security of a

wilderness experience. These needs also must be accommodated. The

situation calls for both a vast increase in the amount and variety of

park facilities and the development of new and flexible approaches to

park planning.

At the year end, park attendance in B.C. was 9.7 million compared to

8.36 million in 1972. This, Mr. Speaker, is relatively close to Ontario

which has a much higher population than B.C.; but because we have the

natural environment here in British Columbia I suppose this is why we

are always on an increasing incline when we come to discuss the park

situation.

For the information of some of the newer Members in the House, and

probably even for some of the opposition, I might explain some of our

park classifications which are often misunderstood.

We have a classification called Nature Conservancy Areas which are

wilderness tracts within provincial parks. They contain outstanding

examples of scenic and natural history uninfluenced by the activities

of man and dedicated to the preservation of undisturbed natural

environments.

Class A parks are intended to preserve outstanding natural, scenic

and historic features of the province for public recreation. They have

a high degree of legislative protection against exploitation and

annihilation.

Class B parks are also primarily for the protection of natural

attractions but other resource use is permitted provided it does not

unduly impair recreation values.

Class C parks are provincial parks intended primarily for the use of

local residents and are generally managed by local parks boards.

In the past year, we have increased our Class A parks from 220 to

238 parks, an increase of 18 parks over the year which brings us to

about 1.5 parks per month in Class A standards.

Also, in discussing Class B, Class C parks and recreation areas,

which we have also increased from 8 to 13, including Skagit Valley and

Kitsumkalurn in Terrace, we have now brought the total park acreage to

9,102, 963 acres — a far cry from three or four years ago of 6.8

million acres under the previous administration.

[ Page

119 ]

There are many problems in the parks. We are caught up in some of the trends

of mobility; the era of the camper tourist is obvious. In my opinion, the provision

of campsites is not and should not be the dominant factor in park policy. On

a comparative basis for 1973, the Parks Branch provided about 15 per cent of

all the campsites in British Columbia; the national parks provided 6 per cent;

municipal parks, 4 per cent; and the private sector about 75 per cent.

Our provincial parks face pressure to accommodate an ever-growing

influx of tourists, complicated further by a shift from the use of

tents to the predominant use of motorized camper units and a growth in

participation in outdoor activities so rapid that even yesterday's

statistics are obsolete.

The origin of campground users changed little from 1972. British

Columbia still represents the largest percentage of users: 58 per cent

in 1973, down slightly from 58.6 in 1972. Canadians from other

provinces increased from 19.1 per cent to 21 per cent. Residents of the

United States declined from 22.3 per cent to 21.2 per cent.

A trend away from tents as a form of accommodation continued in

1973: 35 per cent of campground users utilized tents as compared with

37.5 in 1972. Camper vehicles increased from 29.3 per cent to 31 per

cent, and trailers from 16.3 to 18 per cent.

These figures relatively show that there is a changing need for our approach to the whole outdoor-and-camping situation.

Incidentally, we are not yet able to accurately predict the effects

of the petroleum shortage, particularly in the United States, on camper

traffic in and out of British Columbia in the ensuing months.

I'd like now to move to the Fish and Wildlife Branch. Many of the

problems that we face in the Fish and Wildlife Branch management

develop from a lack of understanding of the processes and problems that

face the wildlife and environmental manager.

To this end, we have placed a great deal of emphasis on education.

Education of specific user groups is ensured through special

programmes, but broad public education is essential for an

understanding of the requirements of the resource. Education through

public involvement, programmes in schools, publications and television

is presently in operation to achieve these objectives. The appointment

of six new wildlife information officers to regions throughout the

province offers local stimulation for these and more general wildlife

and environmental education.

Getting on to some of the predominant problems concerning the humane-trapping

problem, the Province of B.C. last year contributed $5,000 for humane-trapping

research in Guelph and McMaster Universities in the east. The Fish and Wildlife

Branch attended a federal-provincial conference to solve this problem of inhumane

trapping and to talk about new innovative traps that are about to be invented.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Hear, hear!

HON. MR. RADFORD: Also, last November, the sum of $4,000 was

given and made available to the Association for the Protection of

Fur-bearing Animals to assist persons in B.C. who are close to

perfecting humane traps and are in need of assistance. We have some

trappers who are barely maintaining an existence and have come close to

perfecting a humane trap. So this province donated $4,000 to be

administered through the Association for the Protection of Fur-bearing

Animals to administer this fund through the Fish and Wildlife Branch.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): How many trappers are involved?

HON. MR. RADFORD: Last year, the economics of trapping in

B.C. reached close to $1 million. Over half of our trappers are native

Indians who derive a meagre living from trapping. We also intend to

bring into existence a coordinator for the trapping industry who will

educate and talk about new ways and discuss with the people new methods

of trapping. No matter how humane a trap is, if it's set wrongly it can

be the cruelest thing going.

Also, extensive holdings of vital bighorn sheep ranges in Chilcotin

and formerly part of the Gang Ranch were traded for lands less critical

for the survival of these valuable species in the Chilcotin area.

These are only some of the things that I mention, Mr. Speaker. There

are many other items within the Fish and Wildlife Branch that I could

discuss such as the upgrading of our inventory and research. We'll be

making an announcement about our licence structure changes within the

next week, and also other areas of enforcement.

I think I'll probably leave these to the budget for further

discussion. As you know, there is a by-election on tonight and there

are not too many people in the House so...

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): I'm listening, I'm listening! (Laughter.)

HON. MR. RADFORD: ...I'm saving some of the better things for the ensuing speakers.

HON. MR. BARRETT: How many trappers in North Vancouver–Capilano?

HON. MR. RADFORD: Oh, I don't know. They spring a lot of traps but they never seem to catch anything.

[ Page 120 ]

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to move now to the Provincial Museum.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's right. Put the Socreds in there. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. RADFORD: The Provincial Museum has a difficult task

of documenting the history of the province, especially the history of

the past 20 years.

It is not only a tedious job tracking down the records and objects

of cultural value but it is also difficult because we face stiff

competition from American and European museums. Last year a fund of

$250,000 was created to stop the drain of our historical artifacts

leaving B.C. Our provincial museum under this government has been

provided with a substantially increased budget to get on with the

important business of expanding their people-oriented programmes of

acquiring British Columbia artifacts.

The history galleries which opened last year received acclaim from

both experts and the general public. More than 1.25 million people

visited the museum last year, pointing to the need to accelerate

development of the other three-quarters of uncompleted floor space. The

anthropology galleries will open this December, followed by a natural

history gallery of coast and sea probably a year later.

I would now like to discuss the Commercial Fisheries Branch. Once a

small part of the department, it is now an expanding and very

productive unit playing an increasingly important role in the

management and protection of the province's recreational and commercial

marine resources. The staffing and funding of this branch has doubled

in the last two years and we expect this emphasis to continue.

A nucleus of fishery scientists and technicians are now providing a

strong and competent provincial voice in a resource field which,

although dominated by federal jurisdiction, has important ramifications

which affect the lives and well-being of thousands of British

Columbians who make their living from the sea or who look to the sea

and its resources for recreation and relaxation.

The professional people of the branch, of course, relate very

closely to their contemporaries in the Fish and Wildlife Branch,

especially in the matter related to the anadromous fish (the steelhead

fish) which require both fresh- and sea-water habitat to complete their

life cycles.

The Commercial Fisheries Branch also relates to resource managers of

other agencies, particularly the Pollution Control Branch, due to the

significance of water quality, fresh and ocean, and to the importance

of pollution-free water in the management of marine resources.

The branch also serves as a provincial voice in the complicated

international negotiations on multinational and bi-national fishing

agreements and conventions, the results of which so greatly affect the

lives and welfare of our fishermen and associated occupations.

Through good federal-provincial co-operative activities in this

field, and some good luck in nature's response to such efforts,

fishermen's incomes have doubled since 1968. With continued management

success, fisheries production will double by 1980. This will depend to

a large degree on the success of integrated resource management since

further enhancement of our salmon species in particular is dependent

largely on our ability to not only prevent degradation of spawning

areas, which was so common in the earlier days through sloppy logging

practices and pollution form industry, but it will also mean some hard

decisions on resource allocation and costly works to improve on nature

and to compensate for man's inevitable, continuing impact on the rivers

and streams and the ocean.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that the Recreation and

Conservation department will have a high degree of priority with this

government. Thank you.

MRS. D. WEBSTER (Vancouver South): I'm very honoured to take

part in this debate. This seems to be Vancouver South's turn in the

House tonight, although it seems to be North Capilano's turn on the

hustings.

I would like to congratulate both the mover and the seconder of the

Speech from the Throne, and I would also like to observe how pleased I

am that the throne speech placed emphasis on programmes planned in the

areas where people's lives are personally affected. To name a few: the

amendments to the Landlord and Tenant Act , the amendments to the Workmen's Compensation Act ,

changes in consumer marketing and, probably the most important of all

at this particular time, planned provision for housing and expansion of

the land banking programme which was started following the

establishment of the Department of Housing. I think this should have a

great deal of significance within the next few years.

It is also a great relief, Mr. Speaker, to the municipalities and to

the cities, that the provincial government is assuming the

responsibility for the system of welfare services and for the courts.

These two programmes alone will relieve them of heavy financial

responsibility. I know they have both been applauded in the City of

Vancouver.

During the first year that our government was in office, the main

emphasis has been on improving the lot of the elderly and of the

handicapped. I believe that of all the legislation introduced in this

time, the most welcome has been the Mincome programme

[ Page 121 ]

which has provided a guaranteed minimum income for

people over the age of 65 and for the handicapped where it was needed.

In the fall session last year that was extended to include people from

the ages of 60 to 64.

For those who are 65 years and over and receiving Mincome, they also

receive a medical card so that they have no worries as far as their

medical expenses are concerned. As of January this year, Pharmacare has

been included for those over 65. Let me say that the elderly are very

happy with these benefits. After Pharmacare was introduced, elderly

people would stop me on the street, shake my hand and say, "Thank you."

This is one of the most important things that has been legislated,

Mr. Speaker. When people reach the age of 65 or 70, health problems

occur and their bills for prescription drugs go up so high. If they are

relieved of that then one of their greatest worries is taken care of.

This is the first year within my memory that elderly people can live

without fear in regard to economic and medical needs.

Also, with the introduction of a variety of home health-care

programmes, fear of hospitalization for the elderly has also been

greatly reduced.

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that it is the right time for the

government to give assistance to young people with families. We are in

what is probably the most serious inflationary period in our history,

not only in British Columbia but in Canada — in fact, in the whole

western world. This phenomenon has all the appearances of an economic

collapse. It involves dangerously high prices for fuels due to the

shortages and boycotts that are presently being felt. It involves the

rapidly accelerating prices of food caused by world shortages of feed

grain for animals. It involves exorbitant housing costs because we are

becoming more and more an urban society. People are flocking in from

the country into the city. That stream has not stopped; it has reached

such a crest now that it is difficult to keep up with the housing costs

as a result of it.

Is it any wonder, Mr. Speaker, that under these conditions teachers

and tradesmen, civil servants and hospital workers are seeking higher

and higher pay increases just to keep running, to stay in line with the

cost of living? The housing situation is desperate. Mr. Speaker, it is

more than desperate, it has become next to impossible.

Homes have become a luxury item. In the East End of Vancouver some

homes which five years ago were valued at between $6,800 and $10,000

are now on the market for $34,000. That means a 400 per cent increase

within five years,

I find it very difficult to believe the low-cost housing provided in Champlain

Villa which is in my constituency of Vancouver South, which originally was $16,200

per unit, is now up to $21,500. These homes, Mr. Speaker, were intended for

people with incomes of $6,500 and less. A few years ago that was the average

income, but with our present inflationary trend that income is fast losing its

value.

This rapid rise in housing costs, Mr. Speaker, is not new. This

inflationary spiral in housing started somewhere in the 1960s. In 1966

the price of houses took a huge jump. It became impossible then for

people earning incomes anywhere in the range of $7,000 to get a

mortgage. As time went on that basic floor level for mortgages slowly

increased so that it is very difficult for people with much higher

incomes than that $7,000 to get a mortgage today, unless they get some

assistance.

Under this new housing Ministry I hope we can look forward to an

easing in the housing shortage in the near future. For the first time

since cost-sharing funds were made available, all federal housing funds

allocated to this province have been committed. I think that is a

wonderful first step.

During the 1960s, provinces like Ontario ran way ahead of us in the

building of low-cost housing because the B.C. government of that day

failed to pick up its matching federal grants. The degree of

co-operation that now exists between the provincial Department of

Housing and the federal Department of Urban Affairs is indeed

encouraging. I have every confidence that our Minister will do

everything possible to ease this housing situation.

I am also pleased to see that second mortgage loans are now easier

for old homes. It is also important to note that if the loan has been

fully paid off, the mortgagee will be eligible for re-issuance of the

loan on another residence.

Also, Mr. Speaker, last year the government amended the Strata

Titles Act to prevent conversion of apartments to condominiums without

sufficient notice to tenants. This has been an insidious trend over the

last four or five years, and it meant that very often only one month's

notice would be given before an apartment was converted. It meant a

great deal of suffering to people who could not afford a down payment

on a condominium.

Mr. Speaker, people are desperate when more than half of their

monthly income goes into housing. They are more than desperate when the

house they are renting is sold over their heads for redevelopment. The

situation becomes impossible for them when they are told that their

income is insufficient to afford the price of the rental accommodation.

This is exactly what is happening. Where are the low income and medium

income people to go for accommodation?

I am pleased to say that the Neighbourhood Improvement Plan project

is very encouraging. It has been enthusiastically greeted in Vancouver

by the aldermen, with promises of the programme going into

[ Page 122 ]

effect quickly in such areas as Kitsilano,

Kensington, Mount Pleasant, Cedar Cottage and Grandview. This alone is

not enough to ease the housing shortage.

The only place that I know of in Vancouver where housing costs have

remained level and remained at a low rate is in the co-op

section of

Champlain Heights, which is the Amor de Cosmos co-op village. This

co-operative housing is built on government-leased land, on a 50-year

lease. With an equity in the co-op of $1,600, a member can rent a

two-bedroom house for as low as $152 a month. This has not changed

since the beginning. Pardon me, Mr. Speaker, it has changed; June of

last year the project was so successful that they lowered the rent by

$5 a month.

A second co-op project is now under way in the Champlain Heights

area. It has been so much in demand that before building of the housing

project was started, the entire project was over-subscribed. I

understand that these units will be approximately $15 higher than in

the de Cosmos Village, but what is that, compared to the rise in prices

of houses and of living accommodation everywhere else?

I hope the Minister plans to expand this type of housing which is still within the reach of people on low incomes.

Mr. Speaker, people are arriving in Vancouver daily. They probably

are here in Victoria too, and the same is happening in all our major

cities across Canada. The west coast is a very pleasant place in which

to live and to work, but where do people go for housing, when the

vacancy rate is practically zero, and housing starts are unable to keep

up with the demand?

There are several parcels of land that are undeveloped around

Vancouver; this includes the undeveloped portion of Champlain Heights,

of course. Recently the City of Vancouver purchased the remainder of

Langara golf course — 65 acres. The objective is to preserve about 35

or 45 acres of that for a golf course or park, and the remaining 20

acres would be used for housing.

Jericho has some 38 acres of land available, and plans are near

completion for the south side of False Creek. Along with this, of

course, there are the University Endowment Lands. But each time anyone

has ever mentioned University Endowment Lands, there is an uproar

started by "ecologists of convenience." Let me say, Mr. Speaker, there

must be a balance between people and housing. And if there is to be a

choice because of need, I would opt for people first.

Let us assume, I say assume, that a park the size of Stanley Park,

1,000 acres, were to be preserved in the Endowment Lands. That would

mean that 700 acres could be turned over into housing, or a complete

neighbourhood. I know that this would once more send these ecologists

screaming, but, Mr. Speaker, it is easy to be an ecologist or an

environmentalist if you have a roof over your head, if you have a warm,

insulated home or apartment in which to live, and are able to keep up

your payments. It is a different thing when you do not have this, when

you are in desperation as to where to go because you are being pushed

out of the home you have.

I agree with the conservationists that care must be taken to

preserve that area of the Endowment Lands which are the habitat and the

feeding and breeding area of the great blue heron. But this does not

necessarily include the entire 1,700 acres. I believe the Minister will

have a most difficult and complicated task on his hands, but I would

like to express confidence that with his plans, which include land

banking, an early start can be made on housing not only in Vancouver

and Victoria but also in Prince Rupert, on Vancouver Island, in the

Okanagan and Kootenays or wherever housing is needed to give young

people decent homes in which to bring up their young families.

Mr. Speaker, I am very much in favour of parks — I've always been

interested in recreation and parks. I believe that Vancouver and

Victoria, as a matter of fact, most places in British Columbia, have

done an excellent job of preserving parkland both within city

territories and out in the province itself. Tonight I was very pleased

when I heard the First Member for Vancouver South (Hon. Mr. Radford)

speak about the preservation of parks and the extension of parklands

within the province.

Over the years the waterfront property in Vancouver has been

except for a very small portion, and around the other side on the

Fraser River as far as Angus Drive. But there's an area from Angus

Drive right to Boundary Road in which there's a great deal of

industrial and commercial development. However, there are street-ends

that go down toward the river which cannot be used for anything else. I

would suggest that these should be preserved in some way — in the form

of mini-parks for public access. They could also be used for boat

launching, or they could be used, for instance, for fishing platforms.

As a matter of fact, someone suggested that a fisherman's wharf could

be built out there. I think that would be a wonderful way to leave some

access in that area since most people like to feel that they can get

towards the water along our coastlines where water areas are available.

I would urge the Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr.

Radford) to give consideration to this matter in relation to the

formation of a joint strategy with the City of Vancouver and the North

Fraser Harbour Commission so that these areas could be developed for

public access.

Constantly we have many new people coming into British Columbia — from south of the border, from

[ Page 123 ]

the Caribbean, from Europe, from Asia and from

Africa. In fact, British Columbia is assuming a very, very cosmopolitan

type of atmosphere. In 1967, Dr. John Norris of UBC wrote a book for

our centennial pageant called Strangers Entertained .

At that time in his book he identified about 45 different ethnic and

racial groups. I would think today with the influx of new people from

all these various countries that the number of ethnic groups and racial

groups might go far beyond the 45 that Dr. Norris identified at that

time.

Do you realize, Mr. Speaker, that in our provincial civil service

the MLAs sitting here in this House, there are in all probability about

12 to 15 different cultural or ethnic societies represented.

During the past century many national groups have immigrated to B.C.

and from time to time there's been a feeling of rivalry between the

settled population and the immigrants. Much of this has been muted

because of necessity due to common survival and need for helping each

other. But, Mr. Speaker, we have not, in British Columbia as in some of

the countries, become a melting pot, nor have we become a mosaic in all

reality. We haven't produced a homogeneous society.

It's interesting to note that no second or third generation Chinese

remains as strictly Chinese in culture any more. He takes on a sort of

Canadian-Chinese identity which is different from the pattern of his

native land. Yet he remains identified with his own group in a closely

knit community. This is very, very true of the Chinese; it's very true

of many of our other ethnic groups. It's true of the Norwegians, of the

Swedes, of the Italians, of the Greeks or most others that you care to

mention.

Last spring, for instance, the Finnish people held their grand

annual festival here in Vancouver and I had the honour to be able to

attend it. Most of the ceremonial was carried out in Finnish. But later

on, when I spoke to some of the young people who had participated in

the gymnastics and the dancing, and asked them about their

understanding of the Finnish Culture, they related very closely to the

cultural pattern of the Finnish people, but when it came to language,

they could understand Finnish, but many of them said that they were not

able to speak it any more.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Members to be a little quieter, please.

MRS. WEBSTER: As these ethnic groups live side by side, they

tend to try to preserve their own culture and their own values. At the

same time there's a constant changing or cross-fertilization because of

what they pick up from people of other cultures whom they come in

contact with. In this way, they not only enrich their own culture but

they enrich the entire Canadian society. Part of this clinging together

and enriching each other and forming one unique Canadian society has

been because of the fear ... but most others of being taken over by the

United States.

On the other hand, while most cultural groups have persisted in

trying to retain their own language, due to needs of everyday pressure

of business and industry in this western world it has become essential

courses are flourishing for just that purpose.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The House is in session. I would ask the Hon. Members to be quiet.

MRS. WEBSTER: I believe that one of the hazards in settling

down in a community of one identifiable ethnic group is that usually

but the mother, who's left at home, is inclined to remain with her own

language, and she falls behind her family.

Another factor that we have to be aware of is that some cultural

groups integrate into Canadian society much more rapidly than others

do. For instance, the Dutch and the Germans integrate very rapidly, and

one reason is because rather than settling down in communities, except

for some instances, they are more inclined to settle down individually.

native country to come to Canada. That makes it a lot easier for them.

On the other hand, the Italians, the Greeks, the Chinese and the East

Indians do tend to cling within their own community and try to avoid

assimilation.

I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we must be constantly aware of

the fact that this slow cultural integration, along with the fact that

there is a steady stream of people from all these countries coming in

each year, has created an exciting, vigorous and identifiable

Canadianism that is uniquely different from any other nation in the

world.

Whereas each ethnic group has its own cultural features, they

all tend to blend together to give this country a cultural richness.

Recently there was a large influx of immigrants of East Indian

origin from Uganda into British Columbia. Many of them have settled in

the south-east

section of Vancouver, where the East Indian community

is, right around the area of the Sikh Temple on Marine Drive.

You may be surprised to know that there are over 5,000 East Indian

Canadians in British Columbia, and over half of them live in the

greater Vancouver area. Many of them are highly-skilled workers. They

are very good citizens. Some of them are professional people. They are

doctors, nurses, teachers, lawyers,

[ Page 124 ]

engineers and architects.

They are proud to be Canadians and proud to share this wonderful

land with us. They openly welcome all who wish to worship with them in

their beautiful temple and they have applied for and received a

recreational grant towards the erection of a community centre to which

they invite people regardless of race, colour or creed.

During the past few months some of the newcomers in the community,

suffered harassment which may be interpreted as racial discrimination.

I think this is really deplorable. It has been looked into and I must

say that I have to express my appreciation to the Vancouver City

Council, and the Vancouver police for taking quick action to see that

no racial discrimination exists.

We also have a Human Rights Committee to whom they can go, and every

case that comes up must be heard. We, as legislators, must see that no

stone is left unturned as long as any case is left to be investigated.

I would like to commend the Vancouver School Board, and I would like

to also commend the Minister of Education for the programme of language

courses that are being put on in Vancouver to assist these people of

Board has introduced a three-year experimental programme in bilingual

say is working out as a happy and very successful project.

The school board members have also suggested that they are going to

the city where they feel it is appropriate.

to Canada, in order that they and their children can learn the language

before the children start school. This programme is available at 10

elementary schools and community centres. While the mothers learn

mothers.

involve, at present, about 1,600 people just in the City of Vancouver

alone, and I am sure these programmes are going on in other parts of

British Columbia too.

The vigour of this new Canadianism that's being expressed is also

being expressed in the arts as never before. For instance, the

Vancouver Chinese community celebrated its New Year last week, and its

celebration that was the jumping-off point for plans for building a

cultural centre which will include a Chinese museum, a banquet hall and

an auditorium.

Carlings-O'Keefe of Toronto just announced in Vancouver a couple of weeks

ago that they are granting $1 million towards folk arts throughout Canada for

ethnic groups of non-Canadian origin, as well as for our Indian and Eskimo aboriginal

people.

In Vancouver East an old church has been bought and converted into a

cultural centre for the development of the arts in that

section of the

city. A school for music with its beginnings in the old model school

was started a few years ago by Mrs. Walter Koerner, and is now making a

public appeal for expansion.

Equally striking are the things that are happening in Victoria. As

you all probably know, Craigdarroch Castle is now a school for music

and the arts, and it is really flourishing. I understand, too, that a

new musical group has taken on the training of post-secondary students

here in Victoria who received their original experience in school

bands, so that they can continue with their band music.

This same thing is happening in Trail, where we have always had very

successful, flourishing musical societies, and Little theatre is

developing too, and expanding into all the small towns throughout

British Columbia.

It is a great pride to know that in B.C. we have a growing colony of

artists gaining international reputation. We have many fine authors,

poets, painters, playwrights, actors. In Vancouver the Arts Club has

done a tremendous job during the first 10 years of its existence in

producing the works of young, new playwrights. In the field of writing

we have new publishers who are developing Canadian books and promoting

them, promoting Indian books, I think it is just a wonderful way of

being able to expand and enrich the culture of this country.

One of the best, and now world-famous, architects lives right here in British Columbia.

In this climate of cultural awareness, Mr. Speaker, I would urge

that the government increase its grant towards the development of the

arts. I would also hope that the government....

Interruption.

MRS. WEBSTER: Mr. Speaker, I salute that fifth chair. I hope

that the Liberal, the Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr.

Gardom) is correct in placing it there (Laughter).

AN HON. MEMBER: Put the chair back, you may fall off it (Laughter).

Interjections.

MRS. WEBSTER: Mr. Speaker, I would like to conclude by saying

that I hope the government will find some way of assisting the City of

Vancouver to save the Orpheum Theatre.

[ Page 125 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

MRS. WEBSTER: It is acclaimed to be acoustically perfect, it

seats about 2,500 people, and it is an outstandingly beautiful and

spacious building. We wouldn't be able to replace it for double the

price or maybe three times the price it would cost to refurbish it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Question, question.

MR. SPEAKER: The question has been called. Is there any further debate on the main motion?

The question is that the following address be presented to His

Honour, the Lieutenant-Governor: We, Her Majesty's most dutiful and

loyal subjects, the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia, in

session assembled, beg leave to thank Your Honour for the gracious

speech which Your Honour has addressed to us at the opening of the

present session.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 35

Hall

Macdonald

Barrett

Dailly

Strachan

Nimsick

Stupich

Hartley

Nunweiler

Brown

Calder

D'Arcy

Cummings

Sanford

Levi

Lorimer

Dent

Cocke

King

Williams, R.A.

Young

Radford

Lea

Nicolson

Skelly

Lauk

Gorst

Rolston

Lockstead

Barnes

Steves

Anderson, G.H.

Webster

Lewis

Kelly

NAYS — 12

Chabot

Smith

Jordan

Fraser

Phillips

Richter

McClelland

Morrison

Schroeder

Williams, L.A.

Gardom

Curtis

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I move that this House will at

its next sitting resolve itself into a committee to consider the supply

to be granted to Her Majesty, and that this order have precedence over

all other business, except introduction of bills. Seconded by the Hon.

Member for Burnaby North (Hon. Mrs. Dailly).

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I move that this House will at

its next sitting resolve itself into a committee to consider the ways

and means for raising the supply to be granted to Her Majesty.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I move that this House to do Her Majesty's business do stand adjourned until 3 p.m. Monday next.

Interjections.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, because of the opposition's inability to speak, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 9:50 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright 1974, 2001, 2013: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada