1973 Legislative Session: 2nd 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 6, 1973

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 259 ]

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Labour.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I beg

leave of the House to make a statement regarding the school

janitors' strike in the Victoria area.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. KING: Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, I reported that the

parties had arrived at a proposal for settlement with the

assistance of Mr. Clark Gilmour, the provincial mediator.

Unfortunately, the proposal that was put before the parties to

the dispute was turned down by the union membership.

I would like to report, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of

Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) and myself have met all morning

with the parties involved in the dispute: namely the board of

school trustees and their negotiating committee, as well as the

full negotiating committee for the Canadian Union of Public

Employees. On the basis of discussions held during the morning,

a meeting is being called this afternoon — or as soon as

physically possible — by the union to consider and place before

their membership a new proposal for settlement. So I would

expect that we should hear early this evening whether or not

this settlement has been acted on and accepted by the union

people.

I just wanted to make the House aware of the efforts that

the Minister of Education and I have put forward in trying to

mediate this dispute, and also the situation as it exists at

the moment. Hopefully it will result in a settlement, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: In view of the fact that I've given the Hon.

Minister of Labour the opportunity of making a statement with

your leave, is leave granted for other Members representing

other parties in the House to make short statements on the

question?

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the Member has already retracted his

"no", so would the Hon. Member for Chilliwack on behalf of his

party wish to make a short statement?

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): I would like to commend the Minister

of Labour and the Minister of Education for any effort that they are putting

forth to bring a soon conclusion to this labour dispute.

We find it rather repulsive that a little more than 260

disputers should be able to put out of operation and out of

commission an entire educational function in the City of

Victoria. Now that this has continued into the fourth week, Mr.

Speaker, we welcome the announcement of this intervention by

the two Ministers. We'd like to commend them for it, and hope

for a speedy recovery.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. leader of the Liberal Party.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, we wish to join

with the Hon. Member who just spoke (Mr. Schroeder) on

congratulating the Government on taking an interest in this

area.

There is one question, though, on which I'm not clear and

perhaps the Hon. Minister (Hon. Mr. King) will clear it up. I

gathered that the board has already accepted the new proposals,

and it was only a question of whether or not the union this

afternoon will accept it. If the Minister will shake his head

one way or the other, perhaps we'll know what the situation is

on this.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, in any event that question remains.

I trust that the Minister, whether he shakes his head or

speaks, will answer it in due course.

We feel, however, that the seriousness of this has not been

adequately brought home to the Government because it is, after

all, the fourth week of this strike continuing. We in this

party — and I know the other Members for the greater Victoria

area — are going to be watching with great interest the events

that take place this afternoon. We trust that if,

unfortunately, it happens that there is no settlement this

afternoon, the Government will be contemplating action before

the end of this week to make sure that on Monday next the

school children of the greater Victoria area can be returned to

school, and can continue their education with the interruption

of not more than four weeks.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. House Leader for the Progressive

Conservative Party.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I also

would say how grateful we are in this party that the two

Ministers concerned have taken action today. I have to say,

however, Mr. Speaker, that I think it is regrettable that such

a length of time has been allowed to go by before the Ministers

have taken this action.

I don't say this with any personal animosity to the

[ Page 260 ]

Ministers concerned. I think it's a principle that they were

obviously afraid of being accused of interference. I really

don't think that this would have been the

interpretation placed

on their earlier intervention; in the sense of an harmonious

talk around the table without necessarily threatening any

legislative powers but simply an attempt to bring the parties

together sooner.

But at any rate I am very pleased that they have intervened.

I would add to the Liberal leader's comments (Mr. D.A.

Anderson) that the situation is indeed serious. I spent the

whole morning visiting seven of the different schools in Oak

Bay. While they're getting by, I think that is the highest

statement one could make. I'd like to put it on the record:

there is no health hazard as has been suggested.

I also would like to say that the parties have negotiated in

excess of 100 hours at this point in time. It is our feeling in

this party that if, by tonight, there is no solution…

MR. SPEAKER: Well now, just a minute, Hon. Members.

Statements made by Ministers and comments by various party

leaders are restricted, really, to the question of the facts

that they wish to present only, and not argument or debate. I

would ask the Members to please observe it.

MR. WALLACE: In that case, I would like to ask the Minister,

in making further comment, to consider or tell the House in

what light he views the urgency of the situation, and whether

some Government action will be forthcoming should tonight's

meeting fail to reach a conclusion.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Labour.

HON. MR. KING: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think it would be the

height of folly to get into a debate in this House on the

sensitive issues involved in the dispute at this time. I have

no intention of responding to the leader of the Liberal Party

(Mr. D.A. Anderson), not through any desire to be

objectionable, but rather through my concern of jeopardizing

the situation that exists now.

I think it should suffice to say that they are prepared to

consider a proposal. I have made that information available to

the House. Quite frankly, I hope they settle on it. I think

there is some room for optimism, and it would be conjecture — and possibly damaging conjecture — to start dealing in the

hypothetical question of whether or not they accept the

proposal.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr. Minister. The Hon. Member for

Comox.

MS. K. SANFORD (Comox): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask

leave of the House to extend a special welcome this afternoon

to Mr. Carl Spiers the president of branch 52 of the old age

pensioners of Campbell River, plus 25 members from that group.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Point

Grey.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, I'm

delighted to draw to the attention of the House this afternoon

that we have two classes of grade 10 students from the Convent

of the Sacred Heart in Vancouver in company with Sister

Connelly. Their motto, Mr. Speaker, is "Dare to be true," and I've a particularly warm spot in my heart for these

students because my wife was a former student of the school.

You notice, Mr. Speaker and Hon. Members, I did not use the

term "old girl." (Laughter). Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Columbia River.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to

also welcome to the Speaker's gallery this afternoon Mr. Ernie

LeCours, a man who sat in this House from 1963 until 1972, a

man who fought very hard for the little men and little women of

the Province of British Columbia. (Laughter). I'd like the

Members to join me in welcoming him to the galleries today.

Introduction of bills.

AN ACT TO PROVIDE FOR FAIR PRACTICES

IN THE SALE OF MOTOR VEHICLE FUEL

Mr. McGeer moves introduction and first reading of Bill No.

38 intituled

An Act to Provide for Fair Practices in the

Sale of Motor Vehicle Fuel .

Motion approved.

Bill No. 38 read a first time and ordered to be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after

today.

CREDIT INFORMATION PROTECTION ACT

Mr. McGeer moves introduction and first reading of Bill No.

39 intituled Credit Information Protection Act .

Motion approved.

Bill No. 39 read a first time and ordered to be

[ Page 261 ]

placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next

sitting after today.

Orders of the day.

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

(Continued)

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Kootenay.

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): Mr. Speaker,

Hon. Members, this isn't the first time I've spoken in the debate on the Speech

from the Throne and I don't think it will be the last time. But it's the first

time that I've spoken from this side of the House. I want to welcome all the

so-called rookie Members, but I think they're not rookies any more, that have

come to the House. I think we've got a very fine group of Members in the House.

And according to the way the Opposition has been carrying on the last few days,

we've got a very active Opposition. I'm not limiting that to the official Opposition.

I'm saying that for the whole Opposition.

With the number of bills that have

been tabled in the House here the last few days, I hope that they fare better

than the bills that we used to table when we were on that side of the House.

I'm not making any promises, but after 20 years you will probably weaken if

we carry on the same policy as the previous Government did. You will probably

weaken in placing those bills on the order paper and almost throw up your hands.

I'd like to say to the new Members that this is a very

exclusive club and that many come and many go. I hope that many

of you are here for a long time One thing I'd like to say to

you as a senior Member here is that you might get into some

very bitter arguments in this House. But when you go out of the

door to this chamber, forget about the bitterness and treat

everybody as a friend.

We had an election last August 30. Prior to that election there was an election

three years before. I had rather a squeak-in, they said. I used to listen to

taunts and catcalls across the chamber about ballpoint pens. I'd like to advise

the official Opposition now that they really worked the last time, because there

was no question about arguing about the results. I was very amused the other

day when we had a motion on the order paper stating that we would have evening

sittings until 11 o'clock, and the official Opposition cried bitter tears about

not limiting it completely to 11 o'clock and leaving it up to the unanimous

opinion of the House if we continue. If brought my mind back to what happened

last year when, time and time again when that motion was brought before the

House, I even wanted to place just "11 o'clock" in there. The now official Opposition

voted to a man and a woman against stopping at 11 o'clock.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's when we had a one-man Government.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I don't forget the time at 3:30 in the

morning in this House when they booted me out. The Hon. Member

for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot), the most gallant individual

the other day in trying to protect the rest of the Members from

late-night sittings, was one of those that was the most vicious…

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member…

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Well, I won't say "vicious" but he was

very…

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): He just looks it.

(Laughter).

HON. MR, NIMSICK: He was inconsiderate with his taunts

because he called me a Communist and a Bolshevik and everything

else because I wanted to quit at 3:30 in the morning. Then they

booted me out of the House and he didn't get up at any time to

protect me. I say to you, Mr. Member for Columbia River, that

if the same situation ever happens to you, I'll get up and

protect you. And any other Member of this House, if ever we're

foolish enough to go to that kind of a time. That was the day

that your Government started on the slide, and they slid right

down into August 30 and out from this side of the House over

there.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right out the door.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): They're starting

already.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I'd like to thank the people of my area.

They are a very intelligent group of people. They weathered the

storm of Social Credit — the whole reign of Social Credit — and

elected and re-elected me through that whole time.

This is the first time that the people of British Columbia

have had an opportunity to have a government in power that

really speaks on behalf of the people. In all history,

governments in the past have been dedicated to the vested

interests in the province. They were the real governors of the

province. This is the first time that the people of British

Columbia have a government that's going to look from the

standpoint of people rather than of the vested interests.

It's easy for somebody like myself or any of the other

cabinet Ministers. Getting into the House, we

[ Page 262 ]

get into the position of a cabinet Minister. It's quite

easy, when you get into the ivory tower, to forget where you

came from — to forget your people back home. Maybe that's what

happened to some of the Ministers in the previous Government.

But I don't intend that that should happen in my case.

First, I'd like to say that we have got some unfinished

business that I'm going to speak on from my area. You know,

being a cabinet Minister, we don't even see each other as

cabinet Ministers as often as we used to when we were sitting

in the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. NIMSICK: We're sitting in our office busy with our

works and sometimes you lack the real communication. And here,

in the House…

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): You proved that

already.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Here in the House, I realize that I can

speak to cabinet Ministers and I've got them where you can

communicate with them without having them able to say anything

back to me until I get through.

One of the questions that was left over by the previous

government, and I think it was one of the shambles that this

government created, originated out of the Columbia River

Treaty.

I was rather amazed when I listened to the Hon. First Member

for Point Grey (Mr. McGeer), when he spoke about the Columbia

River Treaty and what a fiasco it was. I remember the day that

I stood on that side of the House and warned the then

Government what was going to happen in regards to the Columbia

River Treaty. The Liberals were dancing from one foot to the

other in regards to the Columbia River Treaty at that time

because they didn't want to look as though they were going to

take a stand against the federal government. But today, I am

very pleased that the Hon. First Member for Point Grey has come

to the conclusion and has exonerated the Members who were in

the Opposition at that time who were called by the then

Government obstructionists and stating that they didn't know

what they were talking about.

I asked at that time for a clause, an escalating clause, to

be placed in the treaty which would have looked after the

increasing costs as they went along, and the increasing values

of the electricity. They turned me down flat. The Hon. Premier

at that time (Hon. Mr. Bennett), said, "we didn't need it."

Now, we know that we needed it. Now we're going to go turning

back the clock and do that job.

Because of this bad agreement we had the Libby situation.

And in 1951 I believe it was, or 1950, a Senator came up from

the States and talked to the farmers up in our area — and told

them at that time what a grand deal they were going to make in regards to

buying out the farmers. I forget the name of the Senator, but…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: No, I don't think it was. But anyway, this

was given to the people that there was going to be no limits to

the deals. But after the treaty was signed then we found out

that the Provincial Government had to foot the bill through the

Columbia River Treaty, to clear the pondage area, on the

Canadian side. According to the treaty, Mr. Speaker, we're the

ones who had to do it.

Because they made such a bad deal they had to shaft the

farmers in many ways in that area. They had to cut them down

and pare them down, give them as little as they possibly

could.

They not only did that, they divided the problem to buy out

those farmers — divided it up between three or four different

departments. If they had given it to one agency to handle the

whole job we wouldn't have the mess that we're in today.

Undoubtedly there are a lot of farmers that have been settled

with. But there is a number left. And because of the bad

dealings that have been made, and the promises that are claimed

to have been made — one department makes a deal to buy the farm

then the other department has to make a deal whether they can

hold their grazing permits, and the other department has to

make a deal whether they can get land in place of what they are

taking away from them.

These are the problems that we've got today. And you don't

know who is who. To go back and correct all those mistakes — it's impossible. It's impossible to go back and solve all the

problems that this previous government caused in that area.

We're working on it now. But let me tell you if we'd have been

the Government at that time, there'd have been a different

story. And we wouldn't have been afraid to pay those people who

were deprived of their home sites, where they have lived for

years. If you'd have paid them a little extra money it would

have been far better than to try and cut them down to the very,

very minimum.

In that area you've got two factions. You took 6,000 acres

of land out of the winter range for the game. And nothing was

provided for the game, because the game couldn't come back and

argue with you — with the previous Government. So there was

nothing provided for them at all. Now we've got the problem

that the people are taken off the land, and the game is without

winter range. It's just a mish-mash created by the previous

Government. But I'm sure the Hon. Minister of Highways (Hon.

Mr. Strachan), has things pretty well in hand right now and

we're going to solve those problems.

Natal is another area where this Government created a problem.

[ Page 263 ]

That question hasn't been settled yet. In

1964 they told those people that it wasn't going to cost them a

cent to be moved. Finally they got a lot of them moved through

one way or another. And for four years those people have been

under the threat of eviction by the previous government.

Eviction after eviction, they never carried them through. But

nevertheless how would you people like to live under those type

of conditions? I think that the previous government should have

been ashamed of themselves the way they treated those people.

Today, there's no danger of those people being evicted, and we

hope to go in there following this session and settle the thing

once and for all.

I'd like to say in regard to Fort Steele that it was very

successful last year. They had a show in there and it was well

thought of and well attended. And I hope that that show

continues. In addition to that — I'm sorry the Attorney General

(Hon. Mr. Macdonald) isn't here today — I'd like to suggest to

him that we have a place in Fort Steele where a person, after

they walk around in the heat, can have a nice cool glass of

beer. And it should be either by way of a beer garden, or some

place where they can drink a glass of beer — because there's

nothing nicer when there are tourists around to be able to have

that.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: That's right. A replica of an old-style

pub — make it historical, just like the place is — that's the

way it should be.

AN HON. MEMBER: How are the horses back there?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: The horses are fine and they're looking

very good.

I'd like to say to the Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests and

Water Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams) — he's doing a good job in

regards to parks. We've got a lot more parkland today than we

had this time last year. I know that.

Automobile insurance is another question that many people

will be talking about before the end of this session. Some of

them will by crying about it, and others will be pleased. But

the way the automobile insurance people are active in this

province I don't think that anyone in this House representing

the people will shed any tears for them.

When you look at a letter such as this — I've got a letter here from Ta Ta

Creek — in regards to the writer's son Fred, 17 years old, no accidents and

a 1968 Mercury half ton truck. It's in the father's name, valued at $1,600

— and for six months insurance had had to pay $340. The next year it had gone

up to a total for the year of $707; without any accidents. I think that

is bad, when they try and punish the young people — to charge an insurance half

the price of the truck for him to go back and forth to work once a week.

I've got an interesting clipping here. It states — this is

from the Nelson News .

"This is an interesting situation for me because I bought a

1966 Lincoln Continental in Nelson, B.C. and had it insured in

British Columbia for $1,000 deductible. And speed restrictions

are 40 miles per hour, due to being a paraplegic, and only the

minimum public liability as required by all the provinces. This

cost me $285, and I had to pay for my license plates besides

this. I moved to Saskatchewan where they do not discriminate

against paraplegics. No speed restrictions, $50 deductible,

$200,000 public liability, and all accident benefits. And my

license plates. And all this cost me was $127. I've had the

occasion to have two claims adjusted in Saskatchewan."

Now this is the difference between public auto insurance and

private insurance. I don't think — as I say — anybody will be

crying for the insurance people when the automobile insurance

bill comes in.

I'm rather amused at the insurance people, that they should

be crying at all. Because whenever you talk to them they always

tell you that there's no money in automobile insurance.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): What about the

agents and adjusters that lose?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Another question that I am going to touch

on, and I'd like to throw it out to the rest of you….

AN HON. MEMBER: How about a lawyer?

HON. MR, NIMSICK: I couldn't stand in this House without

saying a few words in regard to Workmen's Compensation.

I know the Hon. Minister is thinking heavily about changes

in the Workmen's Compensation, but I've been here over 20

years. I've covered compensation many times.

MR. D.M. BROUSSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): That's

right!

HON. MR. NIMSICK: There's one problem that I'm going to deal

with today, and that is the problem of widows, whose husbands

have been totally disabled over the years and they've died.

I've got a number of those widows who, because their husbands

died of something else besides the accident, receive no

compensation.

I'd like to say that I came upon this just the other night

in thinking it over. Now I'm not a lawyer. I've

[ Page 264 ]

taken it up with some lawyers and there are lawyers over

there that might think about the

interpretation that I am

placing on the Workmen's Compensation Act at this time,

in this regard. I used to attack the morality of it — a person

who had silicosis for 20 or 25 years, and just because he died

from a heart attack, or cancer of the heart, or cancer of the

lungs, the family wasn't entitled to any compensation. I've

attacked it from the moral point. Now I am going to attack it

from the legal point, and I hope the Members on this side of

the House as well as over there will take this in.

The Workmen's Compensation Act states that if a

person is injured fatally in an industrial accident, industry

through the Workmen's Compensation Board is responsible for his

dependants by providing a pension for his widow for life, or

until she remarries, and an allowance for each child until a

certain age. The responsibility of the family in this case is

in lieu of depriving them of their breadwinner, and is a

recognition that the family is a unit. When a person is totally

disabled, due to an industrial accident or industrial disease,

industry through the Workmen's Compensation Board accepts

responsibility for him and his family by a pension based on his

past earnings. This pension is paid in lieu of depriving him of

the ability to provide for himself and his family.

According to the present

interpretation of the Act, this

responsibility continues after death, only if death results

from the injury or the disease. But if death results from some

other cause, this responsibility to the family ceases.

I maintain that this

interpretation is legally in error, and

the liability to the family should continue to the same extent

that it would have had the breadwinner died from the result of

the accident. The compensation was given for the loss of his

ability to provide for himself and his family, and whether

death occurred at the time of total disability or later had no

different bearing on the needs of the family, than if he had

died at the time of the injuries.

Just because the person dies from some other ailment does not relieve the Board

of responsibility to the family, because as far as his ability as a breadwinner

goes, this had been substituted by the board at the time that he became totally

disabled. His death was only incidental. Therefore I maintain that the

interpretation

of the Workmen's Compensation Act be changed to read that "where an injury or

industrial disease results in total disability, and death results at a later

date from any cause those sections of the Act dealing with dependants shall

apply." This is what I want. I've given this out to find out your opinions,

and I'd like the opinions of the lawyers on that side as well as the opinions

of any lawyers on this side, because this is the first time that I really came

up with this. I've talked to some lawyers who never looked at it in this fashion.

I hope that the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) when he's considering it

might get some input from around the House. Dependants of these people that

are totally disabled — just because the disabled dies from something else, they

throw them out onto the lawn and they've got to go to Social Welfare right away.

And I don't think it's right.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I'd interpret the Act right now that it

should be done.

Now I'll come to my own department. Mr. Speaker, I listened

to somebody a little while ago, as Minister of Mines and

Petroleum Resources, and somebody criticized me and said, "Why

there is a Minister that doesn't defend the industry." I'd like

to say to the official Opposition and to the Liberals that I

wasn't elected by the mining industry. I was elected by the

people of British Columbia, a Minister of Mines and Petroleum

Resources on behalf of the people, and I don't intend to be a

servant to the industry.

My role, I think, as Minister of Mines and Petroleum

Resources is to administer the resource in a businesslike way.

I've got to deal with this resource and see when I'm dealing

with the resource and with the mining industry that the people

of British Columbia are thought of all the time.

Mineral resources are quite similar to other resources. We

know full well that wildlife resource has to be managed. And

the forest resource. As far back as 1939, I remember Chief

Justice Sloan when he had his first — I think it was he — had

his first Royal Commission. He stated at that time that if they

continued to ravage the forests as they were doing, we wouldn't

have any forests for very long. We set about to manage those

forests. We recognized this fact.

The land is another great resource that we've been very lax

about for years now, back as far as 1950. I remember that after

the flood in 1948, I advocated that there shouldn't be any

subdivisions any more on the flood plains that were flooded at

that time, because the people of British Columbia had to bail

them out.

Nothing was done. I listened year after year about people

crying about a gradual whittling away of our agricultural land

in the Province of British Columbia, and how we were going to

pay for it in later years. I've heard Members of the previous

Government and I've heard our Members. At some stage somebody

has got to take the bull by the horns and do something. And

just because this Government had the courage to take the bull

by the horns and do something, now they are under a lot of

criticism from those very people that were advocating that

something should be done, and never had the courage to do

it.

[ Page 265 ]

Sure, somebody gets hurt in these deals. Nobody cries about

the miner that built a $40,000 home at Bluebell or Riondel when

the mine closed down and he had to leave it empty, and he lost

practically all his life savings there. Nobody cries about him,

and this is done because of interests. On behalf of the future

of the people in British Columbia, as to actions that are taken

in regards to land, something had to be done and I'm very

pleased that the Government had the courage to take action at

this time.

Then there are water resources. In the same way, we thought

for years that we could dump all the refuse into our waterways

and there were no limits, that the waterways could absorb them.

Now we get worried about the waterways because we find out that

they can't absorb it all, and they've got to be managed. We've

got to have pollution control, ecological control.

Our mineral resources are one resource that's not

replenishable. Once they're gone, they're gone forever. But you

wrap up all these resources and what have you got? You've got

beautiful British Columbia. Beautiful British Columbia and

that's the reason that each and every one of those resources

has got to be managed. I find that the resource in regards to

mining has been, to a great extent, managed by the private

sector. Not by the Department of Mines. The Department of Mines

has been a servant to the private sector, and the information

that they got was mostly from the private sector.

As Minister of Mines, I hope that we will be able to develop

the department in such a way that we will manage the resource

and we will tell the private sector whether or not we're

satisfied that the way they're depleting this resource is in

the best interests of the people or not.

There is an inventory now being taken of minerals in the

province. It's an ongoing inventory and we hope to have it up

to date in the not too distant future. It's been started, but I

intend to speed it up so that we'll get it finished.

Right now you can't get the information that you should be

getting — we need a better recording system of the work done on

claims. Everybody that does any work on claims should have to

record it with the department, so that when somebody stakes a

claim and wants to know what has been done on that claim over

the past years, they can get that information right away.

We hope to put better geologist service throughout the

province. I hope to have resident geologists in different areas

in the province to assist the inspectors in their work and to

give better service to the industry.

We're going to have a better inspection service — and this is where some of

these jobs that you're talking about are coming in that were in the Speech from

the Throne. Safety will be one of the big factors in the mining industry.

I will say that safety has been practised, but I think

sometimes we have been a little bit reluctant to recognize the

role that the miner plays in the Province of British Columbia.

A miner has got to go down in that mine and take his life in

his hands, and I don't think he's been given the recognition

that he deserves. It is my intention to see that he has that

recognition and that he takes full

part in safety regulations — to see that they're carried out. Because there's nobody more

interested in the safety regulations than the miners

themselves.

Employment is another area. Years ago it took so much ore to

give a man a job. You had to deplete so much of the resource.

Today we've got to deplete a lot more to give one man a job.

And we've got to come to the point eventually where we're going

to process and fabricate some of this resource in our own

province.

In bringing about the changes in the department, I haven't

done it on my own. I called the industry in and I've had

discussions with industry and discussions with the miners in

the province, to discuss with them the problems that they've

got. I've advised the mining industry that we need to process

these minerals and I'm rather surprised, Mr. Speaker, that the

mining industry has failed so far to really come up with a

plan.

I think this is probably due to the fact that there are

innovations on the horizon in smelting such as copper. They're

working on a hydro metallurgical scheme which would be more or

less pollution free. I think that this is one of the areas

where they've been probably a little slow to act. But it is my

hope that it will not be long before we will have a smelter in

the Province of British Columbia.

We as a government are willing to participate in such a

processing plant. Not on the basis of donating the taxpayers'

money and having no equity, but we will participate on the

basis of being a partner in the processing of these

minerals.

There are other changes — and don't forget you've got

obstacles too in making some changes. I am sure that this has

been noted before.

You know, the legal fraternity back very many years ago did

the job very well for the vested interests. The vested

interests got the wealth and then the legal fraternity of that

day built up laws around the holding of that wealth so that

nobody else could get at it. And whenever you suggest making a

change for the benefit of the people today, somebody dusts off

an old book in a law library and they come up with a decision

that some judge made 100 years ago, and they say, "No, you

can't do that. That's unconstitutional."

I think that this is one of the stumbling blocks to handling

these resources. I'm not criticizing the people of the earlier

days completely, because there

[ Page 266 ]

was so much area, so few people, that nobody ever thought at

that time that we needed to be particular about the depletion

of the resource. We thought there was no limit to it — exactly

as they thought about the forests when they first moved across

this country.

I think that those obstacles will be overcome.

Now, I'd like to tell you more, but I'm sure if I went on

too much further that the Hon. Speaker would call me to order

and say, "You're anticipating legislation." And I wouldn't want

the Speaker to have to call me to order. I've never had that

done before to me and I don't hope to have it done now.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, order. (Laughter).

HON. MR. NIMSICK: But, Mr. Speaker, in due time, when you

can't accuse me of anticipating legislation, I will tell the

Members of the House the balance. For now, thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. First Member for Victoria.

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, it is an honour

and a great pleasure for me to rise on this occasion to

participate in this debate on the throne speech, and to stand

in this House as a representative of the beautiful City of

Victoria.

I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate you,

Mr. Speaker, on your present position. And I would like to

extend my congratulations to the mover and the seconder of the

motion that is now under debate — the Hon. Member for

Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) and the Hon. Member for

Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown), both of whom made excellent

addresses before the assembly.

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of items on which I'd like

to comment. First, let me express, as others have before me, my

disappointment in the flimsiness of the Speech from the Throne — and I'm not talking about the shortage of words here but

rather the thinness of meaningful legislation.

I am surprised at the lack of leadership shown in the throne

speech. Because I really did expect more from a political party

known in the past for its vociferous criticism of government

policy. I suppose it's just the difference between being a

critic and being a doer that shows through.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we have been informed in no uncertain

terms — not so much in the throne speech but before and after

at the Press conferences, a method of communication our shy and

retiring Premier appears to prefer — that British Columbia, in

the not too distant future, will have government sponsored

automobile insurance.

Let me state quite clearly, Mr. Speaker, at the risk of being accused of being

under the influence of eastern money manipulators, that I'm strongly opposed

to the creation in British Columbia of any business monopoly. I would take that

stand whether the monopoly was created by government or whether the situation

was created in the world of private enterprise.

For a number of years I held an insurance agent's licence to

sell automobile insurance. I was in the automobile business for

20 years, and I think I experienced most of the problems facing

us today — both as an agent, as the owner of my own car and as a

large fleet owner. I believe I gained sufficient knowledge to

view the problem from both sides.

During the election campaign, Mr. Speaker, the Members of

the New Democratic Party now forming the Government of this

province, promised the people government auto insurance. They

also promised, on many occasions, that the cost of such

insurance would be 25 per cent less than automobile owners are

paying today.

AN HON. MEMBER: $25 a year.

MR. MORRISON: If the government can fulfill that promise and

provide all the coverage today's driver requires, then I wish

them well. But frankly, Mr. Speaker, I don't think the

Government can do that if it assumes a total monopoly

position.

I believe very strongly in the free enterprise system, and I

believe that every car driver in this province has the right to

shop for his insurance, to demand what type of insurance he

wants and to obtain the lowest rates possible.

I believe that this Legislature should lay down very

positive guidelines on automobile insurance. I do not believe

that the Government should enter the field of supplying the

product.

The Government has taken the position that it has a mandate

from the people to supply auto insurance. I do not subscribe to

that belief. But if the Government has any mandate at all, then

that mandate is to protect the people of this province from the

very position the Government now advocates — the position which

sees all automobile owners forced into a no-choice situation.

Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that such an attitude reflects

the best principles of democracy.

Noting the vast difference between what is now being

proposed and what was proposed from the hustings last year, I

can only remind the Government to recall the full-page

newspaper advertisements run last August…

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Highways): How do you know

what we propose?

MR. MORRISON: …and to urge them to modify their present

stand to conform with their election platform.

[ Page 267 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, order.

MR. MORRISON: If we must have government auto insurance — and unfortunately, I suppose, we must because on a vote in this

House we know that your backbenchers, although discontented in

some ways, will toe the party lines — then I submit that the

following requirements must be met.

Number one, no part of the promotional advertising costs,

administration and operating costs or claim liabilities charged

against the government car insurance plan will be charged to

consolidated revenue of the province, but shall come solely

from the premiums paid by policy holders.

Two, no part of the promotional advertising costs,

administration and operating costs or claim liabilities charged

against the government car insurance plan will be supported by

revenues derived specifically from motor fuel taxes, vehicle

licence fees or driver's licence fees.

Three, no part of the promotional advertising costs,

administration and operating costs or claim liabilities charged

against the government car insurance plan will be derived

through borrowing accounts in the name of the government car

insurance plan or of the province.

Four, compulsory government insurance requiring premiums for

general insurance coverage carried by (

a) school boards (

b) hospital boards (

c) university boards (

d) Crown corporations

and (

e) community college councils shall not be used to offset

any of the above-mentioned costs for the operation of the car

insurance plan itself.

Number five, the accounts of the car insurance plan shall be

presented to the Legislature annually and shall be subject to

the scrutiny of the select standing committee of this House on

public accounts and printing.

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): Open

government.

MR. MORRISON: The job of Government with respect to

automobile insurance is surely to regulate, not to eliminate,

the private enterprise automobile insurance industry. If the

Government were to enter the automobile insurance field and

eject the private enterprise industry, it would find itself

regulating and policing its own operations and their effect on

the consuming public.

If Government is itself providing the sole source of

automobile insurance, the legitimate question arises as to

whether or not this would hamper its role as protector of the

public. Even if Government should choose to create an

automobile insurance operation in competition with private

enterprise, the temptations of Government as an automobile

insurer and as the source of the capital and other

expenditure necessary to meet public demands in this respect, might well

run counter to its role of champion of the public, i.e. the

consumer.

In short, in this view the public is best served by a

Government which provides a private automobile insurance

industry without conflict of interest — which would undoubtedly

arise. Government is the instrument of the people but, while it

must measure the desires of the people, it should not

over-react to the desires of a vocal minority. The industry may

propose but it's up to the Government to dispose. It is again

surely not in the public interest that the entity with the

power to dispose should also be the one providing the service

with respect to which the public has, or thinks it has, cause

for complaint.

The consequences of a Government take-over on the job market

are self-evident. Company personnel and personnel involved in

the agency and adjusting fields will find that the careers in

which they have invested a lifetime have been disrupted and

many will be exposed to serious financial loss.

Mr. Speaker, when I said at the outset that the throne

speech was thin, I was not being facetious. I think most

Members of this House will agree that the fact that the throne

speech made no reference at all to the possibility of

late-night or all-night ferries, which was a matter of great

concern to all Vancouver Island and lower mainland candidates

during the election campaign, is most regrettable. We have

since heard from the Minister of Highways that, while the idea

of a late-night ferry might be good, we cannot find the crews

to man them.

While the absence of any reference in the throne speech to

this vital communications link between the capital city and the

rest of the province is amazing, the excuse put forward by the

Minister is incredible. But then, maybe he's been too busy

checking out new jet aircraft during the past few weeks to

fully realize that there are still many bright, intelligent men

and women in this province who are still out of work and who

could be trained.

Although the Social Credit commitment to Vancouver Island

during the August election campaign was all-night ferries, Mr.

Speaker, we did not expect that this new socialist

administration would be able to implement the programme

overnight. Neither did we expect existing crews to work around

the clock just to make it easier for people to travel between

here and the mainland. But surely, Mr. Speaker, when British

Columbia's unemployment figure stands, a little while ago, at

8.3 and apparently today now at 9.9 …

MR. CHABOT: 9.9!

Interjections by some Hon, Members.

MR. MORRISON: …surely there are men and

[ Page 268 ]

women available and this Government could come up with an

on-the-job training proposal in order that the ferries we now

have could be used for longer periods of the day.

Speaking of highways, and I consider the ferry service to be

part of the highway system, Mr. Speaker, we have an intolerable

situation in the state of the highway from the city of Victoria

to Sooke, where the road is far worse than the old Cowichan

Lake road ever was.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. MORRISON: He got the point.

MR. CHABOT: You'd better believe it.

MR. MORRISON: But I'm most pessimistic, Mr. Speaker, for the

throne speech was completely silent on any highway proposals. I

can only assume that the reason for that is because this

Government and the Minister have no programmes worthy of

note.

I think, Mr. Speaker, that Members of this honourable House

have been forced to debate the throne speech not on the basis

of what was in the speech, but what was missing from it. There

was, as you are aware, no reference at all to the critical

matter of public rapid transit systems. Certainly that matter

has been talked about outside this House, but so far

theoretically. I would like, before this session is over, to

hear just what the Government has planned for the already

jammed urban areas of this province. I'm referring specifically

to the greater Victoria and greater Vancouver areas. Surely the

Government now sitting in power can come through with a better

solution than ordering more buses without tender.

Both these cities, Victoria and Vancouver, have been

wrestling with traffic problems for many years. I think it is

time the senior Government showed some leadership in this

matter, just as I think it's time that this Government showed

some leadership in attempting to solve what has become known as

the Blanshard Street Extension Folly. I'm not interested, Mr.

Speaker, in how that problem came to be created. What's done is

done. I am interested in hearing what this Government can come

up with by way of a solution.

The extension of Blanshard Street would help relieve

rush-hour traffic in the city. But it would not provide all the

relief required. It may be said that the traffic problem

belongs to the city of Victoria and that its city council must

find a solution. But I don't buy that philosophy.

One of the greatest traffic problems in this city is created by this Legislature

and the army of workers we need to administer the policies we establish. Mr.

Speaker, has this Government ever explored the possibilities of parking depots

away from the legislative precinct — places where workers could park their cars

and be transported to and from their place or work by shuttle buses? It may

not be the complete solution but it would again provide a measure of relief.

I have one other suggestion, Mr. Speaker, which, if

implemented, could provide yet another relief valve for the

congested traffic.

Years ago, the city of Victoria suggested that an extension

of Belleville Street, which runs right in front of these

buildings, through the grounds of St. Anne's Academy and onto

the Fairfield area, would provide an outlet for James Bay

traffic and thus break the bottleneck now existing on

Government and Douglas Streets during rush-hours. That scheme

was halted — and I think unwisely — when a rather bitter

hospital debate flared up. Maybe the Minister would contact the

City of Victoria officials to see if their original scheme is

still desirable and workable.

And before I leave automobiles and roads and parking, Mr.

Speaker, I wonder if I could ask, as others have before me, if

we can't do something about the clutter of cars parked in the

driveway of this historic and beautiful building. It seems to

me that this should be a minor problem. The driveways of the

Legislature surely deserve a better fate than that of a parking

lot.

About the only favourable thing I can say about the

continuing eyesore — and I am sure many other Members have

noticed this — is the really remarkable upgrading of the

quality of the automobiles now parked in the driveways as

compared to the quality of the cars parked there during the

emergency session last year. As a former automobile dealer, I

can only express delight that socialism, with its new found

wealth and power, has benefited free enterprise to such an

extent. (Laughter).

Mr. Speaker, of all the major omissions in the throne

speech, surely the greatest was the lack of any reference at

all to the most serious conundrum of inflation. I did not

expect — and neither would any reasonable man — this Government

to come up with an instant solution. But I did expect — and I

believe with justification — that it would at least make some

suggestions as to how we could start to combat inflation.

I fully appreciate that with its close ties with labour, the

Government would not be intemperate enough to propose wage and

price controls. But I really think they could have come up with

at least one proposal. Instead, in the throne speech we had a

complete silence on this most pressing matter.

I would remind this House, Mr. Speaker, that a high

percentage of the population in my constituency are well over

the age of 65. They not only helped to build this great

province but also, prudent as they were, planned their

retirements on what were then comfortable incomes. But the

comfortable income of

[ Page 269 ]

10, 15 and 20 years ago is a mere pittance now. As a result,

many of our pioneers whom we praise from time to time during

celebrations for their courage and leadership, now find

themselves in very serious circumstances financially.

It is with regret, Mr. Speaker, that I have to say that

unless this Government changes its ways, that problem of

inflation can only grow worse.

The previous administration to the one now sitting in power

had one principle it stood for firmly throughout its many years

in office: it believed in and adhered to the principle of

paying as you go.

When I was a young man I was taught to endeavour at all

times to spend less than I earned and to avoid the situation

which saw me spending more than I earned. Because the latter

way is the way to frustration and a treadmill existence.

When this Government took office, because of the prudent

exercise of power by the former Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr.

Bennett) it inherited a healthy surplus in the provincial

treasury. That surplus isn't as great today as it was and I'm

fearful that as the months go by it will be even further

depleted until it no longer exists.

This Government has, I feel, already committed itself to a

policy of deficit financing. Before very long we shall, as the

legislators of this province, be in a position where we are

taxing more and more instead of spending less than we earn. Not

only will that be tragic for those of us alive today, but it

will be a continuing tragedy for those who come after us.

I do not believe, Mr. Speaker, that we have any right at all

to make plans which in the final analysis see us passing over

the financial responsibility for those plans to generations yet

unborn, I do not want to settle my children with my debts, nor

my immediate family, nor this House. The responsibility to

leave this province in good shape for those who follow us

belongs to us today, The goal for social democracy — admirable though it may

sound on paper or in speeches — really comes down to a

scientific feeding of the people. We are encouraged to view the

ultimate goal of socialism as a state in which all men live at

peace, we are well fed, well clothed, well housed and well

cared for by a "Big Brother," who in his all-embracing

way, removes from our lives every challenge and every care.

Such a state we are told will leave all men free to pursue

their own artistic or creative ambitions Comfort and security

without challenge — these are targets that do not appeal to me.

They are targets and principles which convince me more than

ever that social democracy, with its strong yearning for boring

complacency, will never be able to generate, motivate or drive

towards a better and more vibrant life.

Mr. Speaker, it has often been said that the municipalities of any province

are the "children" of the provincial government. If that is so, and the municipal

governments are our "children," why do we treat them so badly? Confined

as they are to raising revenues from land and improvements, only the municipalities

must of necessity turn to their parent body for assistance to meet the pressing

problems of the urban crisis.

This government must not fall into the trap other

governments — not only here but across the country — have

fallen into, It must find ways and means of providing the

municipalities with finances, in order that they can provide

their citizens with the basic requirements of a modern

society.

It is true that each year this provincial government hands

out to the villages, towns and cities per capita grants. That

isn't enough, Mr. Speaker. We must, as responsible legislators,

find a way of getting more money to grassroot governments, in

order that they can build sewage treatment plants, purchase

land for parks, build hospitals and schools and improve their

immediate surroundings.

We can no longer expect every municipality to continue that

unacceptable role of the enforcer when it comes to annual

budget time. Property taxes are high enough unless we

eventually want to compel all of our people to live in

state-owned housing.

I appreciate the fact that this is more than a British

Columbia issue. But I admit, Mr. Speaker, that we can at least

make a start here and loosen the purse strings to enable the

people we represent to at least meet the issues of the day.

And again, Mr. Speaker, I must say it was a matter of regret

that no mention was made in the throne speech of the serious

problems facing every property owner in British Columbia.

This second session of the 30th Parliament of British

Columbia is still young. It may well be that I have been

unwisely critical of what will surely go down in history as the

"empty throne speech." But it may well be that this Government,

playing coy on opening day, really has great things in store

for us. I hope so.

I hope, Mr. Speaker, that some of the $85 million in profits

from liquor this year will be siphoned off — if those are the

right words — and used for the benefit of all the people.

I can suggest a few areas within a stone's throw of this

chamber where a start could be made. This Government could and

should be pressing the City of Victoria to upgrade the entrance

to the capital city from the ocean and offering to the city all

the expertise it can — plus some of the money needed to prime

the pot.

I'm sure that such a move would be welcomed, not only by the

people of Victoria, but by the many, many thousands of British

Columbians who visit their capital each year.

This old lady is still very beautiful — but not so beautiful

that a bit of face lifting here and there

[ Page 270 ]

wouldn't hurt.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot let this opportunity pass without

commenting on the unfortunate experience our school children

have been subjected to in the past three weeks. What an

unsatisfactory way for them to learn firsthand of the

impossible ways of settling what should really be a minor

dispute, Mr. Speaker, I have at this point a number of other items

which I wish to discuss concerning the school strike. But in

view of the fact that our Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King)

has made a statement in the House, I'm going to skip them at

this point. But I would like to suggest one alternative which,

if nothing happens today to settle the strike, might be a

suggestion for those parents who are quite concerned — the

parents of those 31,000 pupils whose education is at stake.

There is another way; it's a last resort. I suggest that

tomorrow all those students affected demand their rights to an

education and apply for correspondence courses.

Last week I met with some residents from Gabriola Island,

Mr. Speaker, These same residents were told last summer by the

NDP candidate for Nanaimo that there will never be a bridge to

connect Gabriola to Vancouver Island unless 80 per cent of the

islanders want it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh.

MR. MORRISON: Mr. Speaker, there is a saying that "never is

a very long time."

Webster's dictionary interprets "never" as being "not in the

least; not under any condition; not ever; not at any time; at

no time;"

I find the Minister of Highway's (Hon. Mr. Strachan) actions

in regard to the total ferry service absolutely appalling. His

high-handed announcement of, last week must raise some pretty

searching questions in the minds of all those Gulf Islanders,

ecologists, environmentalists, all British Columbians who agree

that the Social Credit commitment to keep the Gulf Islands as

prime recreation land was just good ecological sense.

This high-handed use of power by the Minister of Highways,

these decisions without consultation with the communities that

ill be affected, is another demonstration of the socialist NDP hypocrisy. On the one

hand they tell us that there will be open government. And with

their left hand they arbitrarily fly in the face of all the

commitments made even by their own Members. Some Government,

Mr. Speaker, some open Government.

Mr. Speaker, may I thank you and the Members of this House

for your patience and consideration. I have by no means run out

of the topics on which to speak. But I shall save those for

other times and other days. For I am sure that if the throne

speech is any indication, we, the Members in the Opposition,

are going to be required to compel this assembly to face the

issues the Government appears reluctant to face. Thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I recognize the Hon. Member for Mackenzie.

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I

rise to speak on behalf of the people of the Mackenzie

constituency. And it is my privilege to extend to His Honour

the Lieutenant-Governor our congratulations on his most

gracious and encouraging remarks from the Speech from the

Throne.

Let me comment first on some of the measures he has asked us

to consider. I am particularly pleased to see top priority

being given to a provision of a British Columbia bill of

rights. In this time when the world is moving from a period of

industrialization into super-industrialization, in a time when

new ways of living and thinking are being ever more rapidly

thrust upon us, the future is often with us before we have had

time, Mr. Speaker, to adjust to it. Great pressures are being

generated for changes and governments at all levels are

reacting with a sense of urgency to provide new laws for an

increasingly new future.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor has stated that "….administrative and legislative programmes will be carefully

designed and will be based on the clear necessity to plan our

future so that we may live in harmony with our special

environment and at peace with our fellow men, and to depart

from the acquisitive North American values that has seen …

waste on all sides."

This is an admirable and bold statement of principle which I

support. Clearly, we must legislate to protect our environment

and our natural resources to provide for the orderly

development of trade and industries; to provide better services

to our people. It is imperative, however, that we, in our

earnest desires to provide the best possible future for the

majority of the people of our province, do not neglect our

minorities and do not fail to protect the rights of the

individual who finds himself at odds with the system. Even if

it is our system.

Therefore, let us make the provision of a British Columbia

bill of rights one of our first commitments and with it, let us

provide for an ombudsman. Let us consider most carefully the

rights of our minority groups whether they be senior citizens

and pensioners whose standard of living is constantly

threatened by inflation and a developing society; or whether

they be the native Indian people whose way of life has been

altered most radically and who are therefore most urgently in

need of those kinds of assistance which will ensure their full

participation in the promising future of this province; or

whether they be groups whose problems and requirements have not

yet been fully identified and understood.

[ Page 271 ]

In the Speech from the Throne it is stated that we will be

asked to consider, among other things, amendments to the

Land Act , amendments to the Park Act , and

amendments to the Constitution Act ; and to reflect new

thrusts and priorities of this Government.

These are some of the areas of major concern in the

constituency which I have the honour to represent. Those who

are not familiar with the area known as the Mackenzie

constituency might find it difficult to believe how great a

potential lies in these hundreds of miles of beautiful rugged

coast — much of it still unspoiled by the heavy hand of human

development.

This area has a vast potential for recreation which is just

beginning to be realized but which will unavoidably become one

day one of the top-ranking tourist attractions of the world.

Those who are familiar, as most are, with the beauties of the

Sunshine Coast need only visualize this area multiplied one

hundred fold and reaching for many miles up the fjords among

the almost uncountable islands between Vancouver and Bella

Coola to realize something of this vast potential, To date, only a tiny fraction of this beautiful heritage is

being used by the people of B.C. Many hundreds of foreign

speculators are discovering its attractions and these foreign

investors, realizing the riches that must some day result in

its exploitation, are moving in and have already bought great

sections of our coastal property. Now is when we must move

swiftly to protect the interests of our citizens and preserve

for our children what is rightfully theirs, Mr. Speaker. With

all the best intentions in the world, if we are too slow or too

timid in our legislation, control of our heritage can slip

away.

I would like to suggest that careful studies be made to

determine the best use of each front of coastline, each mile of

inlet, each island and lake; and that legislation be prepared

to guarantee that the best use be made out of the coastal

property. Land which is obviously best suited for home

habitation should be zoned residentially; and in cases where

prime residential areas are being held by speculators, a tax

structure should be developed which would make it uneconomical

for long-term speculation or for sleazy development, rip-off

schemes.

We must preserve our precious and limited agricultural

areas. Potential farmland must not be covered with concrete or

given up to urban development.

We must carefully preserve those wild habitats which are

essential to the existence of our endangered wild species. Let

us now set aside more acres, more hundreds of acres, of

wildlife parks in such places as Texada Island and the Bella

Coola Valley. If we find that we have overdone it, some of

these areas can be released in the future. But we can never get

back a species of bird or animal once it has become

extinct.

There are not many areas of this beautiful province so favoured by nature as

is the Sunshine Coast. In recent years, the communities of Gibson, Sechelt,

Pender Harbour and Powell River have experienced enormous growth. I am certain

that this growth will continue and accelerate in the future. We must therefore

plan and in our planning, we must involve those who are now living and working

in these communities.

In the years that I have worked with the people of the

Sunshine Coast, it has become clear to me that there are local

organizations, city councils, regional boards, ratepayers'

associations, community associations that are exceedingly

well-informed with regard to their own areas. Their proposals

for development of their communities make good sense. We must

keep our lines of communication open.

I must congratulate the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke)

on his plans for improvements to health care and ambulance

service. These have been matters of great concern to residents

of my constituency. I would like to thank those Ministers,

particularly Mr. Strachan, for the effective manner in which

they have handled these problems that I have brought to their

attention.

However, I look forward to much improvement to the road and

ferry service in Mackenzie for the future. Transportation is

one of the greatest problems and greatest challenges in an area

such as this where land and water intermingle so freely. Yet

transportation through the waterways of our coast may some day

be one of our most envied assets. Just as in the islands of

Greece today, travelers the world over are attracted to the

Mediterranean coast — so will B.C. be justly famous.

A long-range plan for the development of coastal

transportation must now be formulated. Steps should be taken

immediately to upgrade the existing ferry services.

Transportation should not be merely a means of getting from one

place to another. Transportation on the B.C. coast should be a

memorable and rewarding experience.

Ferry terminals where people will necessarily spend

considerable periods of time should contain all possible

amenities, so that instead of this pause in the day of driving

being a nuisance and unpleasant, it could be a time of

recreation. Supervised playgrounds, park-like surroundings,

good food and even entertainment should replace the dreary

surroundings on today's typical ferry landings. The ferries

themselves should be as comfortable as possible and should

serve good food at a fair price.

With transportation we must face the problem of pollution.

Endless streams of oversized, nearly-empty automobiles must be

discouraged. Instead, let us encourage the use of public

transportation by whatever possible means. Let us encourage

those who travel in private cars to carry passengers. Here is

an example of what could be done in this respect.

[ Page 272 ]

If a $2 fare, for instance, were to be charged for car and

driver with a 50 or 25 cent reduction for each passenger

carried we would have fewer near-empty cars on the roads, or on

our ferries.

I believe that we should consider much higher vehicle

license fees for cars with big polluting engines. It is time we

took a lesson from those areas like Los Angeles and move to

restrict air pollution while we can still breathe.

We are moving in B.C. into a form of decentralized

government by regional districts. Our party approved the

concept of regional boards from the onset, and I believe the

concept is a good one. However, I find it disturbing that in

some cases citizens are not aware of the growing importance of

this form of government, or the extent to which their lives are

being increasingly affected by it.

In some cases there have been very little advertising and

virtually no campaigning for regional board elections. We must

see that people are made more aware of their democratic rights

and duties with respect to these elections. It must be

mandatory that every election be widely advertised. There

should be a government campaign to educate people with respect

to regional government.

It should be realized that there is a problem with regard to

the balance of power between city people and country people in

most regions, and we must guard carefully the rights of the

minority groups. The rural man chooses to live in the country

because he is not a city man. Decisions made by city man are

not necessarily the right decisions for him.

At present there are many cases of conflict between the

interests of people who live in a relatively urban area and

interests of those living in the adjacent countryside. In most

cases cities have their own governments and make their own

regulations. But we must guard against the unjust extension of

their right to pass regulatory by-laws which determine the way

of life or seek to regulate the lives of their rural

neighbours.

I would suggest that the opt-in provision, promised

originally when regional boards were first being set up, should

be restored. Consent of the government should be an important

criterion with regulatory by-laws as much as with money

by-laws. After all, we must surely consider the human rights to

be more important than money.

I have been greatly encouraged to hear the stated views of

the Hon. Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) and I feel

certain that she, working with educators and local governments,

will be able to do much to upgrade the education system in

British Columbia.

I do not attempt to be an expert in the field of education,

Mr. Speaker. However, as everyone else does, I would like to

take this opportunity to advance some ideas with regard to the

upgrading process. I feel, as do many people with whom I have talked, that there

is a great deal of waste in the present system of education

facilities. At the same time we are faced in many places with a

serious problem of overcrowding which results in substandard

education situations, and often prevents the setting up of

experimental projects.

Obviously schools cost money and a lot of the new schools

cost more money than we want to spend. Should we not then be

looking very carefully at the possibility of modifying our

present prescriptions with regard to the length of the school

day, the number of days schools must be in session, and the two

months summer recess?

This complex question of changes must be thought out very

carefully before being undertaken. Let us not be endlessly or

needlessly bound by tradition. I believe we should question

whether it is necessarily true that children should come to

school for five hours a day and five days a week for ten months

of the year. Present regulations prescribe 192 five hour days

per year for a total of 960 school hours for each child.

Clearly there are alternate possibilities which would provide

the same amount of instructional time and would release school

buildings for various purposes for a period of each school

week.

It is even possible to come up with a

schedule which would

allow double use of our existing facilities. Why should we not,

in some selected districts, try out some of these alternatives?

A school district where children attend school for 3 1/2 days a

week over a 12 month period, with suitable holiday periods,

could I believe provide perfectly adequate education and double

the potential use of the school building.

This could mean that building programmes for these areas

could be devoted to the provision of alternate facilities such

as community and recreation centres, libraries and this type of

thing. On the subject of education I would like to see this

Government do everything in its power to encourage and assist

those young people who are travelling abroad and to encourage

schools to institute travel programs for their students. I

believe we should consider strongly the establishment of a new

kind of B.C. House in countries like Britain — establish

establishments which would assist the travelling young Canadian

in a variety of ways.

B.C. House and Canada House in London are fine examples of

this type of assistance, but they do not go far enough. There

should be B.C.-operated hostels where young people can go for

accommodation, advice and help. These hostels could also serve

as organization points for school groups travelling abroad. As

one who has participated in the supervision of a large group of

students travelling across Canada, I feel that this is a type

of educational experience which is worth supporting.

[ Page 273 ]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted with the Speech from the Throne.

It is not a blueprint to be followed slavishly. It is a broad

statement of aims, the details to be worked out by us, the

Members who are directly responsible to the people of this

province.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor has directed that we must

plan so that we may live in harmony with our special

environment. He has not said that we should have provincial

recycling depots in every regional district, but I say it. He

did not say that we should have auto-body crushers serving the

regional districts and assisting to clean up our cluttered

environment. He has left it to us to prescribe these specifics.

It is up to us to say "no" to the use of defoliants by B.C.

Hydro as we have already said "no" to their use in forestry and

I commend the Minister of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources

(Hon. Mr. Williams) in this regard.

We are directed by the throne speech to see that appropriate

amendments must be made to the Medical Act and the

Mental Health Act . The details are left to us. It is up

to us to see that the retarded children schools and training

centres should not have to beg from the public to achieve their

programmes. It is up to us to see that follow-up programmes for

released mental patients are instituted to help with their

rehabilitation and to prevent tragedies deriving from

undetected deterioration.

One more topic before I close, Mr. Speaker. There are a

great many salmon spawning streams in my constituency, and our

Government has made a start in preserving some of these

streams. However, I feel that we should be considering a

provincial department of fisheries.

I think that every other maritime province in Canada has

such a department, and for good reason. Several thousand people

in British Columbia make their living in the fishing industry

and I feel that not only should their interests be preserved,

but improved. People in this province, Mr. Speaker, are looking

to our Government for leadership and direction and we intend,

Mr. Speaker, to provide just that. Thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I recognize the Hon. Member for Shuswap.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is

indeed an honour for me to be representing the riding of

Shuswap in this debate. I would like to take the opportunity of

inviting the people of the House and all other MLA's to come to

the beautiful area of Shuswap and see for themselves what a

wonderful place it is.

I am finding being an MLA in the heart of Socred country

quite a challenge. You know, the former Member for Kamloops had

everyone convinced in that area that if the Social Credit Party

was defeated the Thompson River would dry up. But I would like to assure

everybody here that this is far from the truth — that we have

an MLA in the Hon. Member from Kamloops (Mr. G.H. Anderson)

there now who will be doing an excellent job, and both planning

and seeing that the river is protected. There are also a lot of

people in the South Okanagan that were amazed that their fruit

still ripened in the fall when their Social Credit Government

went down to defeat.

Well, I would like to assure them too that their fruit will

still continue to ripen, and the Government will be taking

steps to help the farmers realize a realistic price for their

products.

Yes, the South Okanagan will continue to prosper, even

without their MLA sitting in the House where he should be.

You know, while writing my speech I got to comparing our

past Premier and our present one, I'm told that our past

Premier was an intelligent, creative man, who was exceptionally

sharp with figures. Now, I was never completely convinced of

this, but I am completely convinced that our present Premier is

an intelligent man, he's creative, and he's sharp with

figures.

I have a few worries, because I'm quite convinced he's not

plugged into God, and I saw proof of this the other day when I

saw him walking through a water puddle. I would like to say

that now that we have a Premier and a Government that are

down-to-earth and who realize that they must get on with

man-made problems, that we are not going to get help from

above, we are going to get some progress in this province.

We have a cabinet in this House and there's been lots of

rumours that there's been conflict. Well, there's been no

conflict as far as I'm concerned.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. LEWIS: No. I'd like everybody to know that we have a

chance in caucus to view our points. And if we all agreed, we'd

be a bunch of dunces. I think that it's necessary that we have

dialogue in the caucus.

I'd also like the House to know that there are many areas of

concern within my riding — and I'd like to point some of these

out to our cabinet Ministers. I'm not laying any blame on them,

but I'm letting them know that I expect some action in these

areas.

The first Minister I'd like to deal with is not in the House

at the present time — the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams). His department is of great

concern to me due to the fact that we have one of the most

beautiful lakes in the province — a lake that I want to see

retained.

I'm asking the Minister to take a very constructive look at

retaining the balance of the Crown land around that lake and

creating parks and picnic areas

[ Page 274 ]

that all people in B.C. can use.

AN HON. MEMBER: What is that — Maples?

MR. LEWIS: No, Shuswap.

I would also like to bring to the Minister's attention a

problem that we have with the flooding of a river in my riding.

It's called Ross Creek, and in the winter time it lives up to

its name. But when summer time comes this creek becomes a

raging torrent. It paralyzes the community often and many

people spend sleepless nights.

There have been many, many attempts in the past to get this

problem solved, with representation made to one department — that department says, "Take it to the Water Rights." Water

Rights says, "Take it to Highways," and the list goes on

and on.

Last summer during the flood, while the bulldozer operator

was fighting the flood situation, he was drowned. I say this is

a terrible price to pay due to bureaucracy. And I'm asking the

Minister to take a look at this situation and see that it is

corrected this year.

I would also like to deal with other areas. We have problems

with our friends Crown Zellerbach in my riding. I know that

they're a reliable and a good company, but I think that some of

the methods that they've been using to make a profit aren't to

the liking of myself and my constituents.

They shut down sawmills in the Monty Lake, in the Falkland

and the Enderby areas, regardless of what it did to the

communities that the sawmills ran. I am asking the Minister to

take a really good look at the cutting rights of this

company.

I for one feel that as the resources are within my riding

some of the processing also should be within that riding.

Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, I would also like to

bring the House up to date with the proposed diversion of the

waters from the Shuswap Lake into the Okanagan water system. I

for one for the last five years have fought this, and I'll

continue to fight it regardless if I'm fighting against my own

Government or not. I absolutely refuse to go along with this

aspect; I think it will be disastrous to Shuswap Lake.

At this time I would like to turn my attentions to the

Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly). I'd like to point out

that I'm most pleased to see that we have a lady cabinet

Minister in this Government and I for one am proud. And she

didn't get there through the women's liberation movement,

either. She got there with her qualifications.

I say for one that women in most cases have every right to

proceed along with everybody else in this society. If

legislation is passed that they are treated equally as far as

wages and other conditions like this are concerned, I for one

would have to oppose a Ministry for women. If we have a Ministry for women then we

must also move on to a Ministry for men.

In regard to the Minister of Education, I would like to

bring to her attention the Okanagan College situation, and I

would like to familiarize the House with the troubles that have

plagued this college since its inception.

This college was brought in with what I would call an

underhanded method with a vote that deceived the people in

regard to how it was going to be paid for. It got a conflict

going in the Okanagan that's still rife.

Penticton refused to go along with this at all. Salmon Arm,

Revelstoke and Vernon said that they would go along with the

college concept as long as it was removed to a community

college concept with divisions in each community.

In my opinion this has worked well and the people in my

riding are most happy with it. But I'm asking the Minister of

Education to take a really close look at this situation to see

that community colleges are retained in my riding.

I know that it's a whole can of worms and it's something

that's going to be rather clouded when we get digging into the

situation.

The college council in the last few months has taken the

stand that they're going to phase out these local facilities

and centralize them in Kelowna. Well, Hon. Minister, I for one

am opposed to this. I have found from living in the Okanagan

that throughout the past years everything has been centralized

in the Kelowna area. And with this new Government I'm hoping

that there's going to be a new attitude.

I have a few points that I would like to direct at the Hon.

Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan), and it's unfortunate

that he's not in attendance at this time because I would have

liked him to have heard them.

I for one am not too happy with the structure of the

Department of Highways. I'm very concerned that it's set up in

a bureaucratic manner that is often to the detriment of the

people who reside in my constituency.

There have been many actions that have been taken in the

past by the Department of Highways that verge very close to

blackmail. Government rights-of-way are gazetted and set aside

as the government right-of-way for years, and when somebody

wants to build along that right-of-way — such as a case I had

happen in my own riding where two young fellows bought seven

acres of land and wanted to split it in half and then had the

road built in there by the Department of Highways — the

Department of Highways tells them, "Before we'll give you a

deed to that property you must slash all the brush off the

right-of-way and build the roadbed up to the standard for

gravel."

These young men proceeded and built the road up

[ Page 275 ]

to their standards. And when they went back in, they said,

"Oh, we didn't understand it was going to be a subdivision. You

split that property in half and now you're in a position where

you must gravel that road, too."

I say this is blackmail. We've got a Department of Highways,

and they had better live up to their responsibilities. If they

want to be a bunch of office boys in Victoria, that's fine. Let

them classify themselves as that.

I'm very disturbed about the reduction in the number of

employees in the Highways department in my riding that's taken

place February 1. We had a reduction of eight employees, and

this was a staff that was already depleted to the state that it

could hardly function. It's very disturbing for me as the MLA

who stood up and said that we're going to upgrade the systems

within my riding — to find that we're going the other way and

that the highways department hasn't even got enough crew to

snow plow the roads.

I would now like to move on to the Department of Agriculture

and the controversy that has been building up around the land

freeze that's put on at the present time. I would like to say

that I congratulate the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr.

Stupich) for having the foresight and the intestinal fortitude

to take this problem on.

I would also like to say that I don't agree with the manner

in which it was done. I never have been in favour of orders by

order-in-council — not on a major decision like this. Something

that is ordinary, everyday work that has to go through, I

certainly would support it. But not an order-in-council on

something that the people of the province should have a say

in.

I agree that farmland has to be retained and I think that we

would all have to hang our heads in shame if we didn't take

some steps to see that it was done. I'll be doing everything I

can to see that this legislation is brought into the House in a

fair manner. And I promise that I will do everything I can to

work without using the farmer as a political football.

I think the farmer is

In one instance that I remember the research director in the

office where I was employed decided to work at home, and he

dictated a large brief into a recording machine. The typist

worked for two weeks trying to decipher what he was saying. She

finally threw the partially finished manuscript at him with the

tape and a strongly worded suggestion that he transcribe it

himself. It was then that we discovered that this erudite,

highly educated young man had been dictating the brief, full of

esoteric economic jargon, while eating an apple, watching the

washing machine cycle and supervising his two small children at

play. These are the hazards of our profession.

I might add, Mr. Speaker, that if the Hon. Members look good

in Hansard , they can thank the transcribers downstairs

who take out all of your "ahs", your repetitions, polish up

your sentence structure and resuscitate the verbal victims of

an unprotected citizen within our

country. I don't blame anybody else other than the farmer

because he's had a role of independency that nobody should

have, as far as I'm concerned. In our society you have to

organize. I'm asking the farmers today — not in just B.C. but

in Canada — to become organized, to get into the same bracket

as everybody else in our society. If you want to survive,

that's the only way you are going to do it.

If you are depending on protection from legislation, I would

like to remind you of how many farmers are in this House. The

way the proceedings go is according to your interest, and I

think this is quite evident in the past. So, I'm urging them to

get on with their job and get organized so that they speak with

a solid voice — not a voice that is fragmented from one end of

the province to the other.

I would like to point out that in the past we have had laws

that have protected society against cheap imported labour being

brought in from across the border to undermine the labour

movement — and I support this whole-heartedly. But we have no

laws whatsoever to protect against the cheap food products that

are brought into this province and undermine the farmers'

position. I for one say that this has been supported by

business and the labour movement alike because it is a real

good move to have cheap food in the province, regardless of

where it comes from. Now, I don't agree with this concept — I

say that the farmer has a right to survive, and the only way

that he is going to survive is if he receives realistic prices

for his product.

I also know that a lot of these problems don't lie with the

consumer or the farmer — that they lie with the wholesaler and

our supermarkets. I don't know how many of you know the type of

tactics that went on just last spring in regard to lettuce when

the crop of lettuce in the Fraser Valley here was ready for

market. Supermarkets gave the order to their chain stores to

bring in the product from California because it was in

abundance down there. Well, I say this type of thing can't go

on. If the people in this province want to have a fresh product

that's on the market at a realistic price, they have to support

the farmer. I also say that they have to work in conjunction

with the farmer — that the farmer isn't going to do it on his

own. He's too weak at the present time.

I have every confidence in the present Minister of

Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) and I'm sure that he's going to

be working towards goals that will see the farmer have a decent

return, or I certainly wouldn't be supporting this legislation

in this House. I have misgivings about the legislation and I'm

sure it's going to be worked out. But I for one will have to

say that if it isn't worked out, and a further burden is put on

the farmers' shoulders, I'll be one of the first ones that will

be standing up in this House and screaming my head off against

it.

I would like to say a few words on the past 20 years that we

have had with regard to agriculture in this province. I think

that the Government should hang its head in shame. That

Government lost two very good farmers from this House in the

last summer — one by the name of Mr. Don Marshall who saw fit

to have to cross the floor to the Conservatives, due to the

lack of a farming policy from that Government.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's a newspaper publisher now.

MR. LEWIS: I would also like to say that I realize the

position that Mr. Shelford was in — that he was trying to do a

good job for the farming community — but had no support from the

cabinet or his Government either. Consequently he went down to

defeat

[ Page 276 ]

and I'm not unhappy about it. We have a very good man in the

Member from that area, and actually I'm rejoicing.

I'd like to say a few words to the Hon. Member for North

Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) that quoted me so aptly in the House the

other day. It's not exactly the words that I used but it more

or less has the same intent. I would like to ask her what she

was doing during the last 20 years.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Fighting for the

farmer.

MR. LEWIS: You know, during the Hon. Members' campaign last

summer she had an ad in the newspaper that said, "I work for

the farmer." Underneath this ad it showed the Hon. Member

sitting on a tractor, pulling a manure spreader. I submit to

this House that it appears to me that she had the right piece

of equipment. (Laughter).

MRS. JORDAN: I know how to work it too.

MR. LEWIS: Well, I'm not ashamed of pulling a manure

spreader. I've put in more manure than you have ever seen.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): You're getting into some right

now.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You know manure when you see it.

MR. LEWIS: I would like to just fill the people in on some

of the abuses that have been taking the farmland in the past.

I'd like to use my own parents as an example. They worked many

years in the Fraser Valley building up a farm, doing it by hand

and with horses. Do you know what that farm is being used for

today? It's a race track covered with black top. My father

would turn over in his grave if he had known that he had put

all those years of work into that type of thing.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to thank you for

bearing with me. I ask that this House, in its deliberations,

be fair with the farmer.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon. First Member for Vancouver South.

MR. J. RADFORD (Vancouver South): It is indeed a great

pleasure for me to take my place in the legislative assembly to

represent the people of Vancouver South. I want to first

congratulate the mover and the seconder of the Speech from the

Throne. I would also like to thank the Member for Columbia

River (Mr. Chabot) who brought it to the attention of the

Sneaker that there was a stranger in the gallery yesterday. The Hon. Member has put me in my

place many times in the past and I thought that was over when

we became elected as Government. But apparently it wasn't.

During the last spring session we heard from the Opposition

the hue and cry that there was going to be a great exodus from

the province of B.C. — that the stock market was on the decline — that thousands of people were losing money. I go back to the

Hansard and it was October 18, I think, where the Hon.

Member for Columbia River said that, "It's already been said

today that millions of dollars have been lost by investors and

there are small investors as well. There have been millions of

dollars lost by these statements of takeovers."

The Hon. Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Brousson)

said that we're sacking the economy. Well, I'm not one to watch

the stock market, but I became a little interested after those

remarks. It appears that today the market is higher than ever.

Some of the wood industry, some of the stocks — the B.C. Forest

Products — have reached a high that have never been reached in

the last few years. I hate to use that as a barometer because

many people have been frozen out before. I don't think we

should measure our economy by the stock market.

However, there has been very little said during this session

about the removal of the mediation commission, the Labour

Minister's power to inspect — these were the big items in the

last session — the hours of work, this was a long debate — collective bargaining for civil servants, and yes, even the car

insurance which was mentioned in the throne speech. It wasn't

until earlier this afternoon that I heard too much from the

Opposition on the intent of our car insurance coming in. I was

beginning to wonder whether the Opposition was in favour of our

implementation of car insurance.

AN HON. MEMBER: We're waiting for the bill.

MR. WALLACE: It depends what it is.

MR. RADFORD: My colleague, the very capable Second Member

for Vancouver South (Mrs. Webster) has mentioned many of the

things that are going on in Vancouver South. I don't want to

dwell on those things too long. I want to mention a couple,

though.

I want to mention our East Indian population in Vancouver

South. We have approximately 3,000 to 4,000 new immigrants in

Vancouver South. The history of the East Indian people goes

back a long way in B.C. They've always been known to be hard

workers and they are an asset to any constituency or any part

of B.C. They've had their problems with immigration.

Unfortunately, the federal government has been kind of

wishy-washy in its way of handling the immigration policy of

these people. Consequently,

[ Page 277 ]

they are living in wonderment in many cases.

They also make the statement that very few are on welfare. I

think it's an asset to have these people in the community. I'm

only too proud to represent them. However, there are some

problems. They do have problems, unfortunately, with

discrimination. I've dealt with quite a few of the problems on

the work level and problems of the community. The Hon. Minister

of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) mentioned yesterday that he was

thinking of having a store-front human rights situation in

Vancouver East. I was hoping that I might change his mind and

swing it down towards Vancouver South. However, that remains to

be seen.

I'd also like to bring a message to the Hon. Minister of

Rehabilitation and Social Improvement (Hon. Mr. Levi) from the

patients at Pearson Hospital. It appears that the patients at

Pearson Hospital in the previous Government received a comfort

allowance, it was called, of $10 a month. A very small

pittance. This was used for any sundries — cigarettes or

anything that they had. I'm pleased to announce that that has

been raised, almost doubled. They also now receive a clothing

allowance. That may seem like a small thing to us here in the

assembly but to those people it's a really important thing. I

could go on and mention about the increase in the fire

prevention. There was quite a bit of money spent since our

Government came in on that area.

I'd like now to move on to the private hospitals and nursing

homes. We have approximately 12 to 14 private hospitals and

nursing homes in Vancouver South. We should all know the

situation in the past as far as private hospitals go. When an

elderly person or anyone who is classed as terminal is left to

be in a general hospital, after 30 days in many cases they are

classed as chronically ill. They are then tunneled off into

private hospitals in many cases because many of the families

cannot look after them. Many of these people are forced to pay

$400 to $500 a month.

I know of cases where some elderly people have been in

private hospitals up to 15 or 20 years. If they have any

assets, the assets have to go to pay for their stay in the

private hospital. They are allowed to have $250 remaining in

their possession and then they can go on welfare after they get

down to the $250. Consequently, thousands and thousands of

dollars have been spent by these people. Really, what incentive

is there for elderly people to save for their old age under

this situation? Also, under the private hospitals, Mr. Speaker,

during the last election day, I took it upon myself to be a

scrutineer for the private hospitals. I always had suspicions

of what went on in that area so I thought I would find out for

myself. I was appalled at the way some of these senior citizens

were treated.

I was witness to situations where many of these people didn't even know if

it was a municipal election, a federal election or what it was, yet some of

them were coached into voting. Many of them were denied a vote, although they

were on the voters list. I didn't say too much as this went on because I didn't

want to expose too much at the outset. But I did tell the returning officer

about this and we did lay a complaint. I do hope that our Provincial Secretary

(Hon. Mr. Hall) will look into this matter under the Elections Act and do something

about it, because I don't want to be party to anything like that under our Government.

We get on to the private hospitals. Ontario's Medicare plan

provides free hospital and medical service to all persons over

age 65. Also, an important development in care this year in the

Ontario hospital insurance plan will pay for that portion of

the hospital bed services in a nursing home which exceeds $3.50

a day. I see the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) smiling. I'm

not putting a plug in for that government but I do say that

anything that Ontario can do, we should be able to do a little

better.

MR. WALLACE: Good Tory government up there.

MR. RADFORD: I will say, Mr. Speaker, I'm happy to find out

that our Government and the Minister of Health Services and

Hospital Insurance (Hon. Mr. Cocke) will be moving in that

direction.

I'd like also to talk at this time about the senior

citizens. Despite Mincome, they are still having their problems

in the constituency of Vancouver South and, I guess, the same

problems throughout Canada. These people are on a fixed income

and really have trouble making ends meet. In the past, I think,

these people were the forgotten people in our society. People

before me have mentioned that these are the people who have

really brought us to the affluence that we have today. These

people, though, in the past 20 years have been caught and

trapped in the web of that so-called dynamic society at that

time, I hope that we can remedy that situation.

The senior citizens really were organized in B.C. as far

back as 1930. The senior citizens number about 9.3 per cent of

the population of our province. There are something like

205,000 over 65 years of age. There's a real problem, as I've

said. They have a problem in the food area. Have you ever seen

an old age pensioner going into a store and shopping? They have

problems finding a small enough amount to buy. They have

problems in shelter. They have problems of keeping their homes

up. They also suffer from loneliness in many cases, where they

have to vacate their homes. For many, and especially those on

low incomes, the aged must sometimes put up with housing which

is both costly in maintenance and of poor quality. For many of

them, shabby housing coupled with infirmity leads to a dismal

existence.

I'm going to say one thing under Mincome. It isn't

[ Page

278 ]

so bad for those people that are married. They get the

minimum of $400 a month coming in. But for that widow or

widower, they still have to exist on $200 a month and

that's not too much to live on and to support a household. It's

for these reasons, Mr. Speaker, that I'm asking the Hon.

Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) or it could be

the Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement (Hon. Mr.

Levi) to investigate the feasibility of bringing in legislation

for a house repair assistance programme for senior citizens

owning their own homes in B.C.

Now the trend, I think, with people that are working with

elderly citizens of this province is that we should be keeping

the elderly people in their own environment as long as we can.

We should be doing that because their friends are around them,

they're used to those surroundings, they may have a garden or

whatever. They're used to that situation. I think it's wrong to

move these people out and put them in a home of any kind. It's

well know that many of these people really deteriorate very

fast when they leave their own surroundings.

So that's why I'm urging our Government to really look into

the feasibility of the homeowner's repair assistance

programme.

It really won't be that costly because people, if they're

not going to remain in their own environment, will have to go

into another place and that involves money — it involves

housing at another area.

Manitoba already has this legislation, Mr. Speaker. And I'd

like at this time to relate to you a little bit about their

legislation. The new extended home repair programme provides: a

basic grant of up to $150 towards cost of home repairs for

those receiving old age security only; a sliding grant of from

$200 to $400 for those in various levels of partial guaranteed

income supplement; a grant of up to $500 for those on full

guaranteed income supplement; a grant of up to $1,000 — and

half this cost is borne I think federally — for those in

receipt of the provincial social allowance.

This programme is designed to help increase their winter

works programme. We could also train those on welfare to be

involved in that kind of programme.

Mr. Speaker, after 20 years of ineptness and gobbledygook

from the previous Government, there are many challenges facing

the new Government — our Government. And one of the most serious

challenges, I think, is the challenge of unemployment.

Statistics Canada came out today with a report that one person in 10 is unemployed

in B.C. Although I don't go along with some of the headlines that were in today's

paper, I think that when you really look at it and analyze it you'll find that

it says that Statistics Canada has calculated that the unemployment rate adjusted

to reflect severe unemployment trends stood at 8 per cent in January. That is

really the true figure.

There are many types of unemployment. Seasonal unemployment

and what I think the economists call structural unemployment — and that is defined as "unemployment that cannot be cured by

expansion of overall monetary demand but is attributable to the

lack of power skills." In other words, there is unemployment

because we do not have trained people to take over certain jobs

that are open.

Location and attitudes amongst youth. You know, is it any

wonder that our youth is really uptight when they can't get a

job, when they've had plenty of education? There's 23 to 25 per

cent of our youth under 25 that are unemployed today.

There's also under this structural unemployment — which

covers most of the types — there's the aged, the illiterate,

minorities, the residents of depressed areas and the

technologically displaced. These all come under the different

types of unemployment.

Now there are many causes, many causes. And really anyone

with a smattering of knowledge about economics in the area of

unemployment would know that the real responsibility lies in

the area of the fiscal and monetary policies of the federal

government. Sure, there's some responsibility to the provincial

government — and I'll mention some of those later on. But the

federal fiscal and monetary policies are the main inputs that

can change our whole economy.

What really should disturb us is that our current

unemployment problem has been artificially created. It is not

the result of natural business recessionary conditions. It is

the direct result of the coldly calculated policies of the

federal government, whose sole objective was to induce

unemployment in order to combat inflation. The federal

government's anti-inflationary programme, based for a long time

on very tight fiscal and monetary policies, has been primarily

responsible for the fact that we have hundreds of thousands of

unemployed Canadians.

The Liberal Government's strict adherence to conventional

economic wisdom in attempting to deal with the inflation

situation — which was largely external in its origins — is

perhaps the most incredible phenomenon we have yet seen on the

economic front in Canada. Never before, Mr. Speaker, never

before in the history of this country did a Prime Minister

state before a national audience that it was his government's

intent to allow unemployment to rise if necessary to 6 per cent

to combat inflation. Never before did a federal government

knowingly, consciously, with all cool, detached deliberation,

sentence hundreds of thousands of Canadians, and their

families, to hardships of unemployment.

What are some of the things that we as a government in B.C.

can do to take that burden off those who are unemployed? Well,

Mr. Speaker, as was mentioned earlier for a start, our Premier

will not

[ Page 279 ]

leave an empty chair in Ottawa. Our Premier will be there

trying to solve the problem.

It was mentioned earlier that research and development was

an important aspect to the economy of Canada — the economists

called it R and D. It's a proven fact, I think, that at present

very little is spent on R and D — research and development in

Canada. And it's not spent because really we are a branch plant

economy in Canada and the new innovations that are brought in

are brought in by the parent companies which are not only in

the States or not only in Japan or any of these other

countries, but we are the last to receive any new

innovations.

Many times the workers here are blamed for low productivity.

You know, they are looked upon as different human beings than

those elsewhere, but really the cause of some of our lack of

increase in productivity is because management and the federal

government are reluctant to spend money on research and

development.

I'd like to read to you a report — or a comment — by Science

Minister Alastair Gillespie, and also the Senator Maurice

Lamontagne, who is on the Senate Committee for Science in

Ottawa. They go on to say — and this is their finding, and this

is their report of last January 18 — that

"Canada has a lower proportion of research and development done in industry than any other country. 37 per

cent in 1969. Compared with 60 per cent in Japan and 70 per

cent in the United States. Research and development are

fundamental to the growth and future well-being of our primary

and secondary industries — which we have very few of — and the

service industries. These are fundamental things."

He goes on to say that "the policies for government spending

on research and development are essential elements of

industrial strategy." These are his very words.

I think this is what the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King)

was talking about a little bit on the provincial level earlier

today.

In research and d

In one instance that I remember the research director in the

office where I was employed decided to work at home, and he

dictated a large brief into a recording machine. The typist

worked for two weeks trying to decipher what he was saying. She

finally threw the partially finished manuscript at him with the

tape and a strongly worded suggestion that he transcribe it

himself. It was then that we discovered that this erudite,

highly educated young man had been dictating the brief, full of

esoteric economic jargon, while eating an apple, watching the

washing machine cycle and supervising his two small children at

play. These are the hazards of our profession.

I might add, Mr. Speaker, that if the Hon. Members look good

in Hansard , they can thank the transcribers downstairs

who take out all of your "ahs", your repetitions, polish up

your sentence structure and resuscitate the verbal victims of

evelopment in the United States, I think

their budget almost equals the amount they spend on education.

But in Canada, as proven by the federal Liberals' own

committee, hardly anything is spent on research and

development.

In B.C. we have primarily a branch plant economy. New

innovations concerning technological changes are last to appear

in branch plants. I know. I worked in a branch plant for about

17 years.

Branch plants in most cases are first to close when a large multi-national

corporation is having economic troubles in its own country. I'm not against

foreign capital coming into B.C. We need foreign capital. We need it. But what

we do need is more control of that money on the loans that come into the province.

We should have more say, more control on our own economy.

There is no excuse to give away resources like we have in

the past, no excuse at all. It is very easy to become

hysterical about domination whether it is Japanese or American

or any other country. Usually it is the United States we have

become hysterical about. But sometimes we become hysterical to

the point where nothing Japanese or nothing American is any

good, and, Mr. Speaker, I reject the saying that many of us

make, that B.C. has been raped. As many of the lawyers here

know, there cannot be rape when there is invitation and

consent.

Mr. Speaker, I would also suggest that to curb some of the

unemployment the Hon. Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King)

consider curtailing permits where excess overtime is being

worked in this province.

In the past, permits for working overtime were issued

blanketly. They were blanket issues. Many of them went on for a

year or two years. Companies got blanket permission to work

excessive hours of overtime. I am going to read to you, Mr.

Speaker, the Act as it reads.

On limiting hours of work.

section 3(

l) of the Hours of

Work Act says:

"Subject to the exceptions provided under this Act the

working hours of an employee in any industrial undertaking

shall not exceed 8 in the day and 44 in the week, and subject

to the said exceptions, no employer shall cause or require any

employee to work, nor shall any employee work, longer than 8

hours in one day and 44 hours in one week, "

Now,

section 3(3) says:

"Notwithstanding anything hereinafter contained in this Act,

where the Board is satisfied that extra working hours are

necessary to overcome emergent conditions that may arise from

time to time and that such extra working hours are not inimical

to the interests of the employee, it may by permission in

writing allow the working hours of an employee in industrial

undertaking to exceed the limit prescribed in the section."

That is the

section where the companies and the employer can

get exemptions from emergent conditions of overtime. However,

many, many companies are working excess overtime. Many of them

are working their employees overtime. Now we have a situation

in the north where there are many people that go up there to

work overtime, many of them. They like it, they want to make a

stake. But it is quite ironic that there are some unions that

have written letters to the Department of Labour asking that

the Government reconsider handing out blanket approval for

overtime.

I have one such letter here from the United Pulp and Paper

Makers and they say in this letter: "As you are aware the pulp

and paper industry has for many

[ Page 280 ]

years enjoyed an exemption from

section 3(

l) of the Hours

of Work Act. We have made several written submissions

requesting that this exemption be eliminated but what in fact

has occurred is that the industry now appears to have this

exemption in perpetuity." They go on to ask for this to be

brought in. So it appears that there are many pulp mills that

have really been abusing this overtime privilege.

I got some information today, Mr. Speaker, from Prince

George from Northwood Pulp. In that pulp mill the 21 man

department of millwrights in 1972 worked a total of 7,824

hours.

MR. D.T. KELLY (Omineca): Shame.

MR. RADFORD: Or I guess it works out to about 372 hours per

man per year. Some employees in that operation worked 112 hours

a week. Some companies are working overtime while people are

being laid off in that same company and I submit, Mr. Speaker,

that this is one area where we could help the unemployment

situation in B.C. It seems highly unfair to me that people

should be working hundreds of hours overtime while we have so

many unemployed in this province.

I would like to make it clear though that there are many

situations where companies have to ask their employees to work

overtime, these are emergency cases. As it says in the Act,

under emergency conditions these requests should be granted but

I would again ask the Minister of Labour to really consider

this in light of the unemployment situation in B.C. as it is

today.

In another area, Mr. Speaker, I would like to read an

article out of the Daily Colonist of February 3, and this is a

quote by Mr. Bennett, the absent Opposition leader. It says,

"The farm industry should be encouraged to stay in the farming

business through the use of incentive bills such as the B.C.

Development Corporation Act and the guarantee of loans to the

beef industry." Well, Mr. Speaker, it is pretty evident that

the Leader of the Opposition and also the Opposition is not

aware of the situation of the beef industry in B.C.

Only two years ago the packing house industry in B.C. laid

off from 800 to 1000 people. They shut down their killing

floors in Swift Canadian, Burns and Canada Packers. It was

cheaper for them to ship the cattle to Alberta and do the

killing in Alberta. This was due to the cost of the shipping of

wheat out here and probably the high cost of land in the Fraser

Valley for feeder lots. The Government at that time didn't see

fit to help the farmers out to bring in feed lots. They didn't

do it. Consequently 800 to 1000 people were laid off, many of

these constituents of Vancouver South itself.

So this is what the previous Government didn't do, Mr. Speaker. They didn't

help the unemployment situation; they created it in certain areas. Finally,

Mr. Speaker, it was mentioned earlier by the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King)

that what we need to do is really prepare ourselves for secondary industry.

We need to turn people out of schools that are trained for jobs, for technical

skills, and I suppose you know we are on that track. This is why we are spending

so much money in our educational system, because education is the real basis

of how an economy moves.

And economy cannot move with people that do not have skills.

It was only two or three years ago that we had to bring people

in from Europe — technicians and these people — 20 or 30

people. I forget the name of the company, but we had to bring

them in because we didn't even have trained people to do

certain jobs here in Canada. It is no secret, I think, that we

are going to have to retrain people four or five times in the

near future for jobs, because jobs are going to become

obsolete.

This is what is happening really now under the structural

unemployment that I was talking about. Many jobs are being lost

due to automation. There is nothing wrong with automation. But

it should be brought in to help people. And when it is brought

in, it should lower the prices, which has never happened. It is

no secret that in many industries the unit per man hour into a

product has really declined, and it has been cheaper and less

costly for many products to come on the markets, but instead of

products dropping in price they've gone up.

I want at this time, Mr. Speaker, to congratulate the Hon.

Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources and Recreation

and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Williams). I'd like to congratulate

him for his enlightened programme in increasing the park

acreage. It was announced earlier either by the Premier or the

Hon. Minister that the park acreage in B.C. would be increased

from 6 million acres to 8 million acres. We need more parks in

B.C. We need more parks all over Canada, I guess, because

leisure time is going to be a problem. We're going to have more

leisure time. We're going to have less hours per day and more

vacations so it is in this area of recreation that we really

need to spend some thought and, I suppose, money. It's

gratifying to see that this Government, since it has come into

power, has created parks in the area of Harrison, in the area

of Porpoise Bay — quite a few other parks, marine parks.

We need more parks close to the Vancouver area. I know I do

a lot of camping with my family and when we go to Cultus Lake,

you've got to be there on a Friday to be able to get a spot.

There's just no room. It's not everyone that can get away on a

Friday or a Thursday night or whatever, to get there on time.

Many people have to work right up to late Friday night and

consequently they lose out on the privi