1973 Legislative Session: 3rd 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)

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 1973

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 109 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

An Act to Amend the Veterinary Medical Act (Bill 3).

Hon. Mr. Stupich

Introduction and first reading — 109

An Act to Amend the Agricultural Land Development Act (Bill

5). Hon. Mr. Stupich

Introduction and first reading — 109

An Act to Amend the Milk Industry Act (Bill 7). Hon. Mr. Stupich

Introduction

and first reading — 109

An Act to Amend the Oleomargarine Act (Bill 8). Hon. Mr. Stupich

Introduction

and first reading — 109

Guaranteed Minimum Income Plan (Bill 17). Mr. Richter

Introduction and first

reading — 109

An Act to Amend the Income Tax Act (Bill 19). Mr. Richter

Introduction and

first reading — 109

Oral Questions

Labour shortage for Okanagan apple harvest. Mr. Curtis — 110

Hiring of women in liquor stores. Mr. McClelland — 110

Copper smelter. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 111

Proposed cut-back on natural gas. Mr. Wallace — 111

Proposed formulation of a

new immigration law for Canada. Mr. Phillips — 111

Proposed new stumpage rates.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 112

Cruise ships and trans-oceanic liners for British

Columbia. Mr. McClelland — 112

Problem of Highway 97. Mrs. Jordan — 113

Throne Speech debate

Hon. Mr. Hartley — 113

Mr. Fraser — 117

Ms. Brown — 124

Mr. McClelland — 129

Hon. Mr. Levi — 137

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): I'd like to take the

opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to welcome the students and their two

teachers, Mr. Frank Simpson and Eric Schieman from the

Britannia Secondary School in Vancouver.

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, today is a

very historic day in the history of British Columbia. During

these current three days in the capital city we have with us a

large number of B.C. Association of Non Status Indians who

today presented a brief to the cabinet. It's a history-making

day, a precedent-setting day, and I want the House to welcome

to the capital city, to the legislative precincts and the

gallery representatives of the B.C. Association of Non Status

Indians.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, we have in

the galleries today two visitors from the City of Revelstoke,

Mr. and Mrs. Earl Young of that city. I would ask the House to

join me in extending a warm welcome to them.

Introduction of bills.

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE VETERINARY MEDICAL ACT

Hon. Mr. Stupich moves introduction and first reading of

Bill 3 intituled

An Act to Amend the Veterinary Medical

Act.

Motion approved.

Bill 3 read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders

of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House

after today.

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE AGRICULTURAL LAND

DEVELOPMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Stupich moves introduction and first reading of

Bill 5 intituled

An Act to Amend the Agricultural Land

Development Act.

Motion approved.

Bill 5 read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders

of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House

after today.

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE MILK INDUSTRY ACT

Hon. Mr. Stupich moves introduction and first reading of

Bill 7 intituled

An Act to Amend the Milk Industry Act.

Motion approved.

Bill 7 read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders

of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House

after today.

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE OLEOMARGARINE ACT

Hon. Mr. Stupich moves introduction and first reading of

Bill 8 intituled

An Act to Amend the Oleomargarine Act.

Motion approved.

Bill 8 read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders

of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House

after today.

GUARANTEED MINIMUM INCOME PLAN

Mr. Richter moves introduction and first reading of Bill 17

intituled Guaranteed Minimum Income Plan.

Motion approved.

Bill 17 read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders

of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House

after today.

GUARANTEED INCOME ACT

Mr. Richter moves introduction and first reading of Bill 18

intituled Guaranteed Income Act.

Motion approved.

Bill 18 read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders

of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House

after today.

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE INCOME TAX ACT

Mr. Richter moves introduction and first reading of Bill 19

intituled

An Act to Amend the Income Tax Act.

Motion approved.

[ Page 110 ]

Bill 19 read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders

of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House

after today.

Oral questions.

LABOUR SHORTAGE

FOR OKANAGAN APPLE HARVEST

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, to

the Minister of Agriculture, the Canada Manpower Farm Labour

Bulletin for the Okanagan-Kootenay Area , dated September 18,

indicates:

"The MacIntosh apple harvest is fully underway in the Okanagan Valley. There is a shortage of pickers at

present in Kelowna, Rutland, Winfield, Oyama, and Vernon.

Shortages are expected to continue and become more serious over

the next two weeks."

By telephone this morning I learned that the shortage of

harvesters or pickers is fairly extensive; more serious than in

recent years, was the information I received.

While this is a federal Manpower report, could the Minister

inform the House, Mr. Speaker, if any steps are being taken to

assist in the harvest?

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): I appreciate

volunteers from the other side of the House, Mr. Speaker. There

have been discussions between my department and people in the

Interior about this problem. It was anticipated to some extent

in that the crop this year has generally been a little earlier

and larger than usual. So at the moment all I can report is

that we are in constant touch with them and doing what we can

to improve the situation, but beyond that, nothing to

report.

HIRING OF WOMEN IN

LIQUOR STORES

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Speaker, my question is

addressed to the Attorney General and I'd like to ask him if

the Liquor Control Board has a policy which prohibits the

hiring of women in its retail liquor stores?

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, there's

no policy in the retail liquor stores that prohibits the hiring

of females. However…(Laughter)…in the retail liquor

stores, the staff are very interchangeable as to the work they

do; somebody who would be doing the cashier's work one day is

unloading trucks another day. In the past that has meant that

it has not been particularly suitable work because heavy work

has been involved.

Since I have been Minister, I have taken care to look into the matter and I

would ask the House to note that in the administrative offices of the Liquor

Control Board the proportion of women who are hired there and doing very useful

work has increased quite dramatically. It almost amounts to a preference in

that end of the business. But in terms of lifting of heavy weights, I haven't

come to the conclusion that that is proper work for the girls of the province.

MR. McCLELLAND: Could you tell us if you have any women

employed in the retail stores in the Liquor Control Board, and

do you plan to employ any?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: You'd have to put that on the order

paper. I can't answer….

MR. McCLELLAND: I'm sure you know right now.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No, not of all the stores in the

province.

MR. McCLELLAND: Are there any?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I can't answer that right now. Put it on

the order paper.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Speaker, a

supplementary question on the same thing. I'd like to ask the

Attorney General if there are any plans by the Liquor Control

Board to cut down the size of the cases so that women will have

less weight to lift?

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask a supplementary

question. Does the Liquor Control Board have any plans to hire

women in its retail liquor outlets? Because I've had a number

of requests from women who have been turned down flatly in

their request for jobs with the Liquor Control Board. I'd like

to know whether the board has any plans to hire women, not in

its administrative offices but in the retail outlets.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I wish, Mr. Speaker, that the Hon.

Member would draw those cases to my attention. I'll be glad to

look into them.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I trust that the

most distinguished tennis player in the Legislature will be

sitting this afternoon watching television so he can see Bobby

Riggs defeat Billie Jean King.

AN HON. MEMBER: What time?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: At 6:30. We're going to

[ Page

111 ]

adjourn before that. In any event he will then see that

women are quite capable I'm sure of at least playing tennis, if

not lifting heavy weights.

COPPER SMELTER

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Can I ask Mr. Speaker, the Minister of

Mines whether or not the statement by the chief executive

officer of Cominco that the prospects of getting a copper

smelter in the province are receding, because of delays caused

by both levels of government, has led him to revise in any way

his statements regarding government intentions in this

regard?

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum

Resources): In regard to that question, Cominco never got in

touch with me before they made that statement. And the

statement hasn't changed our opinion with regard to the bounty,

which is not in force today. And so if Cominco doesn't want to

have any participation on an equity basis, well then they'll

have to get their money someplace else.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I'm confused by this because the chief

executive officer of Cominco declared it was caused by the

delay in the discussions they had had. But the question comes

to mind, is it necessary for the head man of Cominco to ask

permission of the Minister before making statements, or making

a speech to his service club?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Well I think he made an incomplete

statement, but his statement was really aimed at the federal

government, because it's the federal government that has been

dilly-dallying with this question over a long period of

time.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, Mr. Speaker I quite realize the

Minister's belief in the incompetence of NDP opposition MP's in

Ottawa; I share it. But we happen to be here in the province

discussing also the provincial subsidy.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member not engage

in debate. If you have a question, please ask it.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well if the reference is being made to

the federal government's subsidy, I'd like to talk about the

provincial government's subsidy. This happens to be, Mr.

Speaker, the provincial Legislature. Is there any change in the

subsidy programme for proper smelters in the province or in

your plans?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: No, not at this stage at all.

We wiped out the bounty Act last time and there is no

provision for subsidy. We asked for participation.

PROPOSED CUT-BACK ON

NATURAL GAS

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, might I ask the

Attorney General whether or not in the last two days he's had

any further communication with Ottawa regarding his approach to

Ottawa on the proposed 10 per cent cut-back on West Coast

Transmission natural gas?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the Hon.

Member, I received a telegram this morning from the Hon. Donald

Macdonald, the Minister for Energy, Mines and Resources, in

which he said he had received our own telegram, the

representations of the Province of British Columbia, that he

was referring the matter at once for urgent consideration to

the National Energy Board, and that he would speak to me about

the matter within a day or two.

MR. WALLACE: Could I ask a supplementary question? Is the

Attorney General or the cabinet considering delegating anyone

from the cabinet to specifically remain in close liaison, or to

go to Ottawa on behalf of the province?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I think that question has

been heard by the Premier. If it becomes advisable and a very

important matter to send somebody to Ottawa for discussions

there, I'm sure the Premier will issue that kind of

direction.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: To the same Minister, Mr. Speaker. What

is the reason for the delay in releasing to the Members of this

House the B.C. Energy Board Report, which the Premier referred

to earlier this week and which, I understand, has been in the

government's hands for approximately a week?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, a little less than a week, Mr.

Speaker, considerably less than a week I think. I'm a little

bit out of touch with the actual days. But we want copies for

all Members of the Legislature, and for the media. It will be

released tomorrow morning.

PROPOSED FORMULATION OF A NEW

IMMIGRATION LAW FOR CANADA

MR. PHILLIPS: I'd like to direct, Mr. Speaker, a question to

the Premier. In response to the Minister of Manpower and

Immigration's (Hon. Mr. Andras) request that the provinces

participate in formulating a new immigration law for Canada,

does he intend to

[ Page

112 ]

set up a special committee of the House? If so will Members

of the opposition parties have the opportunity to participate

on this committee? How does he plan to participate in….

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I have acknowledged

receipt of such a request from the federal minister. However

there is no government policy as to proceed. I would be fearful

of allowing the opposition the right to define immigration as

it might drastically reduce the membership of the government

side of the House. But, if we do it on an impartial basis,

perhaps it would affect the opposition just as well. We have

not formulated any policy; we have received a request and

acknowledged the request.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, will the Premier give

consideration to having an impartial committee — if he forms a

committee? Would it be an impartial committee of the House so

as to have some input? I think it's very important, British

Columbia being the province that it is with a lot of

immigration, that certainly the Province of British Columbia

have a great deal of input into this new law that's going to be

formulated by the federal government.

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out to the Hon. Members that any

matter of question period must deal with the parliamentary

responsibility of this government and not another government.

If there is some action on the part of this government it's a

different matter. But if there isn't, the question is really

not appropriate.

PROPOSED NEW STUMPAGE RATES

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to pose a question

to the Minister of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources. Could

he inform us whether or not new stumpage arrangements have been

agreed to, and whether these were discussed with the council of

Forest Industries. Finally, and most important, when will

Members of this House, and the public be aware of the

discussions that took place and the new thoughts in stumpage

rates and stumpage arrangements?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources):

I'm pleased to say, Mr. Speaker, that we have carried on discussions with the

industry since mid-summer, with respect to improving what was in fact a fairly

irrational system — I think that's conceded by both sides, both government

and industry. There have been some modifications as a result of the discussions.

I think it's been an excellent learning process for some of those involved.

And once all modifications are completed by our professional people, they'll

be made available to the Members of this House and others.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the

Minister. Is there no way for Members of this Legislature to be

at least as aware as members of the Council of Forest

Industries as to what is taking place, prior to the final

package being placed in this Legislature?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The matter is still being dealt with

internally by our professional staff and the Minister's office.

As soon as resolution is achieved the House will be the first

to be informed.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): A question Mr. Speaker,

on the same matter of stumpage rates. The indication that we

have received from the forest industry is that, if the plan

goes ahead as was proposed, the average increase in stumpage

rates will in many cases be better than 50 per cent over what

they had previously paid, taking everything in consideration.

Have you done any research into the matter with regard to the

type of impact this would have if you proceed with the proposed

new rate of stumpage?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I'm sure that any system that this

government brings in will benefit the people of British

Columbia.

MR. SMITH: Oh, what an answer!

CRUISE SHIPS AND TRANS-OCEANIC

LINERS FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA

MR. McCLELLAND: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to direct

my question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Could the

Minister advise the House what specific plans his department

and this government have to go into the cruise ship and

trans-oceanic liner business in British Columbia?

HON. J.G. LORIMER (Minister of Municipal Affairs): I'm

pleased you've asked the question, The plans are not finalized

yet, but…. (Laughter.)

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, the Minister treats this question as a

joke, but his employee, the director of transit in his department, is quoted

in a letter to the City Council of Vancouver that this government has plans

for long distance passenger, rail and bus traffic, fast bus services to suburban

communities, and trans-oceanic and cruise ships. Now, all we want to know is

what type of cruise ship business this government plans to get into. Will the

committees now be travelling on some of these cruise ships?

[ Page

113 ]

Does the provincial government intend to use provincial

money for harbour facilities which are traditionally financed

by the federal government? What are their plans? Obviously your

director of transit feels that you're going into this business?

We have a right to know what those plans are.

MR. SPEAKER: One question at a time, please.

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, I'm just trying to speed things up in

the House, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. LORIMER: I think the Member should realize that

they haven't got the whole control of the Titanic at the

moment.

PROBLEM OF HIGHWAY 97

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): I hate to detract from

the thought of ocean cruises for the cabinet, but I would like

to address a constituency question to the Hon. Minister of

Highways and ask if, in his meeting with officials of the City

of Kelowna and other interested officials in the last week, he

came to a conclusion and commitment for the problem of Highway

97 in the north part of the Okanagan Valley; and if, in so

doing, he is prepared to meet the commitment made by the Social

Credit government that no decision would be made until there

had been a public hearing — particularly in the area of

Winfield, Oyama, Okanagan Centre — to present the alternates

that are viable and realistic, and to have some input from the

people in that area?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. You've put your question.

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): Well, there have been

no plans finalized for any expansion or widening of Highway 97

through the Okanagan Valley. I did meet yesterday with the

mayors of Vernon, Kelowna and Penticton. I went there to listen

to them and to see what they had to offer in the way of ideas.

The one area that became obvious is that there hasn't been a

great many things done there which should have been done in the

past, so we're trying to rectify that problem by working with

them.

MRS. JORDAN: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker….

MR. SPEAKER: Sorry, it's too late.

MRS. JORDAN: I appreciate that….

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member be seated, please?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member send him a

note?

Orders of the day.

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

(continued)

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): Mr. Speaker, I

would like to start by welcoming all Members of all parties to

the refurbished chamber. I would particularly like to welcome

the newly-elected Member for South Okanagan (Mr. Bennett). He

enters at rather an onerous time — I guess this puts one more

contestant into the leadership race for the Social Credit Party

of this province.

Interjections.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: We're working on that too. As far as

opening the windows — unfortunately, while the workmen in

charge of refurbishing did complete the assembly as we see it,

the air circulation is not complete and they tell me

that….

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Hot air.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: There has been up until now, Scotty. But

we hope before too long that that will be complete. The sooner

they can turn these Klieg lights off, I guess the sooner the

assembly will cool down.

I would like to start, Mr. Speaker, by giving credit to the

members of the staff of the Department of Public Works, those

mechanics, tradesmen and carpenters who actually worked on the

restoration of the chamber, who actually worked on the

restoration of the first three suites on the third floor.

Sometimes we hear it said that you can't hire a good workman in

Canada. Now, a good deal of the work that has been done to

date, because of the time element, because the fact that we

didn't have time to let tenders, was done by in-House people

and it is my pleasure to be able to tell you that I find we

have some first-class cabinet finishers, first-class and

competent tradesmen of all types.

I'd also like to state this: apart from the tradesmen, or

along with the tradesmen, I was very fortunate to inherit a

very conscientious and competent department; this goes right

from my secretary, Mrs. Boyd, to her staff, to the planning and

design people and to the maintenance people.

This summer I had the opportunity to travel and visit with

some of our northern communities. There I met our northern

superintendent and his foreman. I found these people were very

interested in the work they were doing and they were concerned

in doing a very proper job. Knowing this and finding this, I

can

[ Page 114 ]

appreciate the frustration of the workmen, working men and

women, who have had to look after the maintenance of this

building and the buildings in this precinct area over the

years. I can appreciate the frustrations they must have had. To

know that this building needed repairs, and the people who

control the purse strings would not loosen those strings and

release moneys to do work as it should be done, and they had to

patch here and patch there, I'm sure it would be very, very

frustrating.

A year ago, before we took office, I heard rumours that

there were truckloads of paper being hauled out of the

Minister's office and hauled away from these buildings, and

that the paper shredders were going night and day. Of course,

until you have some evidence of this, you have to just treat

that sort of a story as rumour. But when we started to look

into some of the problems in restoring and renovating this

building, I found, not in my office because there were no

papers in my office — my predecessor had considered those

papers as his personal papers and had them removed — but I did

find in staff reports a report with regard to this building. A

report that states that this building was in a very, very

serious state of disrepair.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: The Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound

(Mr. Williams) asks the date of the report. Well, I can tell

you, the report is over seven years old.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: The first Member for Vancouver–Point Grey

(Mr. McGeer) asks what was done. I'll just give you a brief

run-down on this. As I said at the outset, this document had

been removed from my office — the original — but I did find I

was given a copy. It states on page 2 that the remaining items

recorded are self-explanatory; it goes into great detail on

work that should be done. But the magnitude of the work

required, in my opinion….

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member withdraw

that statement?

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): What statement?

MR. SPEAKER: The statement you made, sir. You know your

statement. Will you withdraw it?

MR. CHABOT: I withdraw the words "Mr. Magoo."

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you. Would you proceed? If you're going

to start indulging in insults in this House, and you intended

it as an insult, then you'll have to realize the House will

have to censure Members who do.

MR. CHABOT: That's fine, but you stop insulting the Members

too, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I don't insult the Members.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Mr. Speaker, on page 2 of the report it

states, "The magnitude of the work is such that it is not

capable of being implemented over a reasonable period of time

by using the limited funds currently available for us for the

maintenance of this building." It goes on to page 3, and I'm

just quoting in part, but I will table this document for anyone

who wishes to see. The final paragraph on page 3, "There is

little doubt that unless major work is immediately implemented,

each year that passes will make the task of restoration and

preservation of the character of this structure more difficult

to achieve and will add great cost to the work."

The first page is a covering letter from the then Deputy

Minister to the then Minister, and it states in the first

paragraph, "In

summary, these reports indicate that close to $1

million will be needed to be expended to restore the whole

exterior to a good standard."

Now that was over seven years ago, Mr. Speaker. Since that

time, the building has further deteriorated, costs have gone

up; so I would dare say that if we can do it for twice that

amount today, we are doing well — and this is merely on the

exterior of the building.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Was that report

before the centennial celebrations?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: This was in 1966, yes, before the

centennial celebrations.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): What's the date of the

letter?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: The letter is dated September 19, 1966,

seven years ago yesterday. The report was made prior to this,

so it's a good, clear…better than seven years ago.

Now I have noted in the media many comments made by

different people that the building has been maintained over the

years, that it has been maintained in first-class shape. I

notice in the press that the former Minister also chose to

become involved.

I have brought with me several samples of the dry-rot and

the state of deterioration of the roof, on outside and inside,

and I will table this too with the

[ Page 115 ]

Speaker. One Member asked that we table evidence; we are

always willing to table evidence.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: I don't know; I have no way of

knowing.

I believe many of you, at least some of you, will recall

going back prior to 1972, that the Members of the opposition

groups at that time — I believe there were just the two, the

New Democratic Party and the Liberal Party…but I know there

were 17 Members in the New Democratic Party caucus room, and we

had one room and one table, and two telephones for 17

Members.

When the Second Member for Vancouver East (Hon. Mr.

Williams) was elected and came in and saw this mess, he said

there was no way that he would get involved with that. He got

himself a table and he sat out in the hall. This was one of the

first protests that I recall.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands) : Did he mean the room or the

party? (Laughter.)

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Good point. I notice he is still with the

party but he has left that room. (Laughter.)

He is also one of the leading voices in demanding that a

proper restoration job be done not just in this chamber and in

this building but in the entire precinct area. The Second

Member for Vancouver East (Hon. Mr. Williams), the Minister of

Lands, Forests and Water Resources, is a planner by profession.

I think we are very, very fortunate to have a man of that

capacity sitting with us on the government side of the

House.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): He sits

occasionally.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: One of the pictures that I have — and I

will pass this book about for all to see — shows the way the

previous administration allowed offices to be built out into

the halls. Of course, you could crowd more people in, but in

crowding in more people, in case of fire, they had just that

much less of a chance to get out; so we were creating real

hazards.

In further checking I found that the fire marshal said that

all persons on the third floor of this building were up against

a real hazard. Because of that we are building two stone and

concrete staircases from the third floor down so these people

can have proper exits.

Speaking of fire escapes, one day the Minister of Labour

(Hon. Mr. King) said, "I have something to show you."

When the Member for Revelstoke-Slocan became Minister of Labour, he

found one of his offices was over in one of those little wooden shingle

buildings at the side of the Queen's Printer. This is where the former

Minister was. One of the discoveries the new Minister made was their

fire escape…a two-storey building…and what was it?…A great piece

of two-inch rope fastened to a great eye-bolt on the wall.

They tell me that whenever they hired any new stenos, the

standing joke was that they'd take them over and say, "Now

girls, the first thing you have to learn is how to slide down

this rope in case of fire." (Laughter.)

That was standard procedure under the old way, by the old

Minister in the old days, and they did nothing about it.

Interjections.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Yes, the Hon. Member says that that's the

way he used to avoid delegations — to slide down the rope.

(Laughter.) Apparently the old building and the old rope fire

escape have had a humorous ending; but it could have been very,

very serious.

In referring to halls: you see coats, desks…very

cluttered up. Clerk-stenos are crowded into the vaults…no

windows, no air circulation, and a very, very poor environment for working in. Yes, I'll pass the book about.

We found, up in the attic, that great masses of paint and

plaster were dropping from the ceiling of the rotunda, so we

went up and investigated and we found great plastic tents

hanging there.

At about the time we made this discovery, someone dropped me

a little cartoon in the mail. It shows a picture of quite a

large church, quite a good attendance, and the minister is in

the pulpit giving them a report on their appeal for a new roof.

He said, "You know, we didn't get enough money for the new roof,

but we did get enough money for six new buckets to catch the

drips."

That's precisely the way the old government used to operate.

When the roof sprung a leak they stretched some plastic and

bought some more pails and put the pails here and there.

(Laughter.) They were operating like poor church mice.

Now, concerning stone and concrete walls — and we have had

to, as you know, let a contract for over $100,000 to dig a

trench around the building, a drainage trench, and place proper

drainage tile — but in the walls in the basement, the walls in

the tunnel from here to the Douglas Building, were constantly

wet. At one point, the maintenance people had put little

galvanized troughs into the wall, so it would catch a little

water here and it would drip to there, and there would be

another trough and it would drip to here — and finally end up

in the bucket. (Laughter.)

[ Page 116 ]

So they had a full-time bucket brigade here. (Laughter.)

Rather than spending a dollar in attempting to maintain and

restore this fine old building, they had a bucket brigade doing

that. So, Mr. Speaker, you make no wonder that the group that

was so incompetent to cope with dry-rot, sooner or later were

bound to take the bite. (Laughter.)

I will pass this along without any further elaboration.

For those who say there was no dry-rot, what is this?

(Laughter.)

Interjections.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: You shouldn't do that; you make me lose

track of my speech. (Laughter.)

Now, Mr. Speaker, I will just give you a rundown on some of

the renovations that we feel should be made. When Francis

Rattenbury designed this building, starting, I believe, in

1893, he had great visions. He was one of the world's top

architects. It was planned in the early Victorian design, not

quite as opulent as the later Victorian design.

But I believe the early parliamentarians, the early leaders

of this province, are certainly to be commended in having

chosen an architect of that stature and then daring to build a

building of this type and nature, because it is a major

building of interest in North America. When I tell you that

since the new government…. Maybe the restoration has

something to do with it, but in the summer months this year we

had over 120,000 visitors go through. They're not just Victoria

people; they're not just B.C. or Canadian people. They are from

all parts of the world. That's more than twice as many visitors

as we have had in the two previous summers. Their total for the

two previous summers was 102,000. This year, it was 120,000. So

there is interest, and I think it is due in part to this very

fine building that Mr. Rattenbury designed.

Now, the first item I have listed is the matter of the

restoration of the library. It was designed to have stacks

going through the full floor, stacks to store books, and it had

never been allowed to function in that fashion. The stacks have

been bought and they are now pretty well installed. I believe

the tasks and work of the librarians will be easier. Their

service has always been good, but I hope their work will be

easier.

Rattenbury designed two elevators, one for each side of the

main building. A second elevator will be installed.

On this floor, the second floor, Mr. Rattenbury planned

provision for the legislators — that is, for both government

and opposition — also room for the press and the

Sergeant-at-Arms and so on, those working with the Legislature.

The plans on this are not complete. I see there are differences

of opinion, Mr. Speaker, on just what should be done with the Members'

rooms, and it may be wise to have a committee set up so that we

can get all points of view, the press, the Members in the

opposition of the various parties, the government members, and

so on. I'm certainly open to that consideration if the Members

would like to have some input, because we haven't done anything

really other than refurbishing the chamber on this main

floor.

Now, on the third floor, there will be a total of eight

suites; three that are now complete, another three that should

be complete by mid-December, and two more complete, I hope, for

when the spring session takes place.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: What is the cost per suite?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: I can't give you that. The Member asks the

cost per suite. As yet that hasn't been broken down, and I

think you can appreciate that with the type of restoration that

we have had to do, it wouldn't be fair to charge a $100,000

ditch against any one suite. It is part of the whole

building.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: On the third floor, we will have a total

of eight suites.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: We are planning on moving the executive

chamber over into the west wing to give more room for private

Members on the main floor.

I have made mention of the two stairwells that had been

recommended years ago by the fire marshal. We are going ahead

with this.

Now, I would say it will probably take, in all, three years

to complete this project, and I should mention that in the

original design Mr. Rattenbury planned an extension to the west

of us where the Motor Vehicle building is, and one to the east

where the Queen's Printer building is.

MR. SPEAKER: It's east of this building. Try again.

(Laughter.)

HON. MR. HARTLEY: I didn't realize we had changed the

setting of the sun since we took office. (Laughter.)

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): You thought you were still on the

other side of the House. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Oh, I see. Right on.

Oh, yes. I should mention that on the third floor we have

worked in a committee room between the

[ Page 117 ]

three Ministers' suites on the west side, and another

committee room between the three Ministers' suites on the east

side. So there will be two more committee rooms on the third

floor.

Now, as we were researching this, and working with the

planning and design people, I recalled having made a trip to

Europe a few years ago with my wife, and one of the very

interesting places that we visited was the House of Commons and

the precinct of Westminster. At that time, we were told how

this very historic and now hallowed site was started over 900

years ago. It was started by Edward the Confessor, but he

didn't live to make too much use of it because, as you will

recall, William the Conqueror came along, and he was crowned

there. But that precinct has been in use for over 900 years.

After the original Westminster Hall had been in operation for

300 years, they had to put a new roof on it. They did very well

to get 300 years out of their first roof; we haven't done quite

so well.

Those buildings, the Abbey and all, are the site of

thousands and thousands of people visiting there from all over

the world. I believe, just as we respect and you respect this

building today, by doing a proper job of restoring it and

refurbishing it, it is going to last not just for the term of

this government or another government, but it will be here for

all time.

As you know, the House of Commons was bombed during World

War II, and when it came to restoring the House of Commons

following the war, Winston Churchill saw to it that some of the

stonework and the masonry was taken from the rubble and the

ruins and built right into the new building. He said that he

wanted this as a monument to some of the ordeals that

Westminster has passed through.

Now, we are often inclined to take historic buildings such

as this, and such fine architectural masterpieces, we take them

for granted. We have torn down a lot of fine old buildings in

B.C. They certainly don't go back any 900 years, but they go

back 100 years. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, some people seem more

intent in pulling down buildings than preserving them, so I am

very delighted that we have the craftsmen and the materials,

and I am delighted that we have a Premier who takes pride in

our history and is prepared to pay for preserving it.

Interjections.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: I think it is only right that while Mr.

Rattenbury, the architect, didn't live to see the building

completed….

HON. MR. BARRETT: He was done in.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: That's right. We should give credit to Premier John

Herbert, who was Premier in B.C. in 1895, and to Premier Turner, and again to

the Conservative Premier. The early Premiers didn't have parties, so I can't

attach a party label to them. But between 1903 and 1915 we had a Conservative

premier, Sir Richard McBride, and it was under his aegis that the extension,

the second extension, the 1915 extension south of here, was completed.

Now, whether we can complete this in this term of office or

when, we don't know, but they say about three years time is

required to complete it. We've been less than a year at it

now.

Now, buildings are buildings, they are material things. But

I believe there is a great deal more to life, and a great deal

more to democracy, than just building buildings or effigies. I

believe that when the new government brought in the matter of a

question period, I think this was a step forward for democracy

in this province. I believe that this added greater dignity and

greater prestige to this assembly and to the institution of

democracy throughout the world.

I think that the fact that we have a Hansard means the

constituents, whether they live in the east in Columbia, or

Atlin in the north, or in the South Okanagan, they can read

what goes on. I think this was another step that the new

government did that contributed to democracy, to greater

democracy in this province.

When the whole or part of this assembly is televised, I hope

this will interest more people in what is going on. Because so

long as the students in school, so long as the constituents in

the home riding are interested in what is going on in this

Legislature, I have no fear for democracy. But when people

become callous, apathetic and indifferent, then we are in real

danger. So I ask your support in seeing that the restoration

and refurbishing of this building be completed as best it

can.

Now the cost could be great, as I said in tabling the

7-year-old report. They said then that it would cost $1 million

to attempt to restore the exterior. That figure could well be

$2 million today, because of the increased costs of materials

and work, and also because greater damage has been done when

that work was not done earlier.

Now that, along with making new suites and restoring the

whole building, could well amount to $5 million. I don't know.

We haven't those figures; the contracts haven't all been let.

But we feel that it is a worthwhile building, that democracy is

worthwhile elevating and perpetuating and we're dead serious

about that.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I am

happy to take my place in this throne speech debate today, as

the representative for the great riding of Cariboo.

I would first of all like to take this opportunity of

[ Page 118 ]

congratulating the new Member for South Okanagan (Mr.

Bennett) and wish him well, as well as a long stay here. I

would also, Mr. Speaker, like to say to you that I thank you

very much for my new seat on the front benches. It has taken me

a long time to get here and I certainly appreciate your

thoughtfulness. I would like to make a comment that I don't

think I would ever have made if we had remained the government.

(Laughter.)

The only observation I have to make about that is the fact

that I don't think I'm going to have a very long stay on the

front bench, because there are a few things going on within our

party that will probably send me back to the backbench for the

spring session. However, time will only tell. (Laughter.)

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): No way. You're going to stay

there.

MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, it's a privilege to stand once

again in these gloriously refurbished premises. The Minister of

Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley) is probably one of the most

interesting and devastating personalities on the other side of

the House. Little did we know last September that he would so

quickly become a member of the jet set.

I understand that he has more time logged on the government

aircraft than all the rest of the cabinet put together, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. CHABOT: "Flying Bill."

MR. FRASER: However, we understand that it is very important

for him to travel across the province giving a critical

examination to the foundations of all government buildings; and

when he isn't working in Victoria we appreciate the diligent

way and the critical eye with which he has looked upon these

buildings.

HON. MR. BARRETT: How come you lost the bull throwing

contest?

MR. FRASER: I'm coming to that, Mr. Premier.

We appreciate as well today the expensive set of pictures

which he presented to this House, Mr. Speaker. Who else on the

other side of the House would willingly spend $2,500 on

photographic time and effort to give us the benefit of knowing

that these buildings are in danger of falling down. The

Minister of Public Works, of course, is an expert on buildings.

We all know that he purchased the Glenshiel Hotel but, for some

unknown reason, he couldn't give us the price that was paid for

it.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: If you sit down I'll tell you right

now.

MR. FRASER: Now, Mr. Speaker, we have examined these

buildings as well, especially the offices which we occupy as

the opposition. We have noted the hours and hours of jackhammer

efforts that went into drilling through the massive reinforced

concrete floors, and we know that while it was extremely noisy

that these buildings can be described as "solid British

Columbia."

As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, we measured these

reinforced floors and found them to be 12 inches-plus of

well-seasoned concrete. And while we're at it, the Members of

the official opposition want the Minister opposite to know that

if he is looking into our offices with an idea of covering

those reinforced concrete floors with any fancy, high-priced

plush rugs, we don't want them.

So, Mr. Minister, cancel any orders that you might have

made, through you, Mr. Speaker.

We have noted as well the interesting little holes that have

been gouged out of the walls of the crumbling structure. We

have measured the plaster and find that it is two inches thick

in places. We have examined the solid brick interior wall and

we know that it is faced with very substantial quarried

stone.

However, Mr. Speaker, we did not want the photographic

effort of the Minister of Public Works to be the sole

presentation to this House this afternoon, and so we went out

and got $2.50 worth of pictures to show some of the excavations

that have been made through the walls of this sturdy structure.

Having had the benefit of the opposite Minister's photographic

display, I'm sure the Members of this House and the public

would like to see as well some of these other pictures, which I

have prepared for you.

It is clear, Mr. Speaker, that if, in fact, there was a

danger of these buildings crumbling or collapsing, as the

imaginative Minister opposite would have us believe, they would

indeed be crumbling upon the fancy drapes, the high-priced

rugs, the bed-sized desks and the stuffed chairs and

chesterfields in the Ministers' offices. Yes, Mr. Speaker, the

Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley) was sent forth to

do a camouflage job of pictures in living colour in order to

cover up the biggest cost-plus fiasco since the over-run in the

Ottawa cultural centre. (Laughter.)

Mr. Speaker, the economy of the Cariboo riding has been very

good this year, but there is uncertainty about the future. The

lumber industry has been in full production, but have had their

problems all this year getting adequate transportation for

their products.

The cattle industry is happy with the prices they are

receiving, but it appears there will be a shortage of feed for

the coming winter caused by a late cold spring and a very dry

summer.

I am quite surprised, Mr. Speaker, when I look across at the

government benches. Members of the

[ Page 119 ]

executive council now take up over half the seats provided

on the government side; the cabinet has been increased by a net

of four. It certainly makes one wonder how long it will be

before cabinet posts are found for all NDP MLAs. They are now

more than half. I know the backbench would like that. Thank

you, fellows.

I would like, at this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to

congratulate all the cabinet ministers. I wish them well in

their positions, but I also say that I hope they don't hold

them too long.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Only till the next

election.

MR. FRASER: The NDP has been the government for a year now,

and I feel it is time for an appraisal of some of the various

departments. The Premier and Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr.

Barrett) has had a busy year. When the Premier was Leader of

the Opposition, he was opposed to creating surpluses. However,

for the past year he has continued to add new taxes to our

citizens and I'm sure will create in this fiscal year the

largest surplus that any finance Minister has ever

collected.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier and some Members of his cabinet

attended the Williams Lake Stampede in the great riding of

Cariboo at the end of June. We have heard something about this

but we have only heard part of the story.

I'm sure that while they were there they enjoyed themselves,

because the Williams Lake Stampede is the largest one put on in

the province and it provides entertainment for all sections of

the community.

One of the major events, Mr. Speaker, is called the bull

throwing contest. The event is arranged for visiting and local

dignitaries. They must be people who hold elective office such

as MLAs, MPs, aldermen and mayors. The entrants to this contest

must drink a bottle of beer as fast as possible and then throw

a piece of dried cow manure as far as they can throw it. The

participant who throws the farthest is crowned the Champion

Bull Thrower of the World.

HON. MR. BARRETT: The whole world! (Laughter.)

MR. FRASER: The whole world. Mr. Speaker, this year there

were about 30 participants, including the Premier of British

Columbia, and I am happy to advise you that the Premier won the

contest fairly and squarely. He threw the bull much farther

than any other participant and won the contest by many feet

over his nearest competitors. Mr. Speaker, the Premier was

presented with the trophy which acknowledged him as the

Champion Bull Thrower of all this world.

I want to advise you, Mr. Speaker and Hon. Members, of this achievement because I feel this title is

most appropriate.

I don't think that all observations of this government's

performance for the past year should be directed to the Premier

as there are 17 other Cabinet Ministers and I intend to discuss

some of their activities as well.

The Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) has had a

difficult year and continues to have one. This is caused by the

strong dissatisfaction with Bill 42 passed at the last session.

Bill 42 has caused great concern in this province and continues

to do so. It has successfully doubled the cost of land

available for housing to our citizens and it is almost

impossible to acquire any reasonably-priced land in this

province for housing for our ordinary citizens who need it the

most.

Bill 42 has angered all our farmers as well as our

locally-elected municipal and regional officials. Bill 42 has

taken away most of the zoning powers of our locally-elected

officials and given them to a government-appointed bureaucracy

in Victoria known as the Land Commission. The Attorney

General's department has had a year of non-performance and I am

sorry, Mr. Speaker, that the Attorney General has seen fit to

go and play tennis because I would have liked him to be here

and maybe he would have had a few answers to what I have to

say.

As I said, he has had a year of non-performance. This I

cannot understand because earlier in the year this Minister had

two departments. He had the Attorney General's department and

the Department of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce.

However he has been relieved of the Department of Industrial

Development, Trade and Commerce and now only has the Department

of the Attorney General.

By being relieved of this portfolio you would think that the

performance of the Attorney General would improve, but, Mr.

Speaker, it has only deteriorated. The Attorney General has so

many advisers and executive assistants to help him do nothing

that I don't think that he has even met all of them yet, let

alone assign them duties which will improve law enforcement in

this province.

He has appointed a liquor commission to advise him on all

liquor matters so he won't have to bother about this branch of

government operations. The RCMP tell him how they are going to

police the province rather than the Attorney General telling

them. As an example, Mr. Speaker, when a municipality enters

into a contract with the RCMP, the RCMP tell the municipality

involved how many men they require and what that will cost. It

is an ultimatum to the municipality. "You either sign on our

Where is the Attorney General and his helpers

[ Page 120 ]

when this is going on? He is nowhere to be found; that is

the situation at the moment. His department does not assist in

any way and in my opinion the Attorney General's department

should assist the municipalities when they are negotiating

their contracts with the RCMP.

I don't say this in any derogatory manner about the RCMP. I

think they are a fine police force but they send their little

boys out from Ottawa and they deal with the mayors and councils

of this province on a take-it-or-leave-it basis, and because

the Attorney General is the chief law officer I think he should

be in on these negotiations and possibly get them to water down

some of their demands that they are making on the

municipalities of this province.

The Attorney General is very biased when it comes to

salaries of lay and legal judges, Mr. Speaker. He makes sure

the legally-trained judges receive a fair and just salary but

he pays no attention to the inadequate salaries of the lay

judges. Consequently many lay judges are resigning because of

an inadequate salary.

Why should a full-time lay judge work for $700 or $800 a

month and a legally-trained judge get $2,000 or more a month? I

have no objection to the salaries legally-trained judges

receive but I object strongly, Mr. Speaker, to the salary scale

that the lay judges must work for.

This province will never be able to have all legally-trained

judges because of the many isolated areas in the province. So

by discriminating against the lay judges it seems to be the

opinion that just because the provincial judge has a legal

training this gives him three times the brainpower of a lay

judge, which the present salary

schedule seems to indicate.

I don't think that while we have them that we should

discriminate against them on a ratio of three to one in a

salary ratio.

I would also like to know where the Attorney General was

when we had the illegal walkout of the ferry workers. That was

one illegal act and I didn't hear anything from the Attorney

General on that one. Why did he not come to the rescue of his

colleague, the Minister of Commercial Transport and

Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) who said at the time that

the ferry workers had a gun to his head?

Now, Mr. Speaker, the way I interpret law and order that's

another illegal act. So we have two illegal acts. Certainly, he

needed help — and I refer to the Minister of Commercial

Transport and Communications. But nothing was heard from the

Attorney General and the Minister of Commercial Transport and

Communications settled this issue by signing a blank

cheque.

Neighbourhood pubs have been requested by many areas of this province, Mr.

Speaker. In fact local plebiscites have already been taken and passed by the

public but no legislation exists for these pubs. Where is it? Again we wait

while the Attorney General considers what to do. Bring in the legislation and

make it possible for those pubs if the citizens of the local area approve of

it by plebiscite.

Interjection.

MR. FRASER: Well, that isn't the understanding that the

people have.

Mr. Speaker, we have a new Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr.

Lea) and I am very happy to see him in his seat in the House

today. He hasn't spent too much time here but I congratulate

you, Mr. Minister.

I realize that this Minister has only been Minister for four

months. However, since he has taken on the Department of

Highways he has almost stopped the vital and necessary task of

upgrading our highways to accommodate the ever-increasing

traffic. Even funds for day-to-day maintenance are in short

supply. I wonder if the Department of Highways will have any

funds for snow ploughing this winter? I would suggest to the

Minister of Highways, through you, Mr. Speaker, that he request

additional funds from the Minister of Finance, who has a large

surplus, and get on with the enormous job of upgrading and

maintaining our vital highway system.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi)

is in his seat, which I am very happy about. I have a few words

for him. The Minister of Human Resources has new, beautiful

offices and is something like the Attorney General. He has so

many advisers that I am sure he has not met them all yet.

With these beautiful offices and large staff, at the public

expense, he has done nothing to relieve the cost of welfare to

municipalities. It was an election promise of the New

Democratic Party that they would relieve cities of this burden.

Nothing has been done and the financial load continues to

increase to all our citizens that live in the municipalities. I

again request that the heavy load of welfare costs be reduced

to our municipalities and that they not be replaced, Mr.

Minister, by some other charge that will add to municipal

taxpayers.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) is not

in his chair, so I haven't much to say to him other than to say

through you, Mr. Speaker — here he is — that his greatest

achievement since taking office has been the forced

amalgamations of Kamloops and Kelowna. Time will only tell now

how this will work out, but I think we saw the tip of the

iceberg in the by-election in South Okanagan on September 7.

How it will work out in the future….

AN HON. MEMBER: Who's next?

MR. FRASER: But I understand that many promises have been

made to these new enlarged areas by the government, and so far

none of these promises has been fulfilled.

[ Page 121 ]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP promised in last year's election that

they would have a new deal for municipalities. The only

evidence of a new deal so far is the fact that because of

inadequate grants to the municipalities by this government this

year, every municipal taxpayer in British Columbia was faced

with a 10 to 20 per cent increase in taxes on their property.

This is certainly a great new deal for all the taxpayers. I am

sure the citizens did not realize that the new deal promised by

the NDP would cost them so much.

The throne speech, Mr. Speaker, made reference to amendments

to the Municipal Act. I look forward to these amendments and

hope that they will provide some relief for the hard-pressed

municipalities of this province.

I have a few comments to make about Operation SAM, and I am

pleased to see that our new Minister of Recreation and

Conservation (Hon. Mr. Radford) is in his seat, whose

department this programme comes under. This programme was

instituted in 1971 by the prior administration and certainly

was well accepted by all the citizens of British Columbia at

that time.

The purpose of Operation SAM was to assemble and crush old

car bodies throughout this province and deliver them to a

crushing plant in Richmond for shredding and further use of

this metal. The Regional District of Cariboo did an excellent

job of organizing several sites for Operation SAM to operate in

the Cariboo. The crushing unit operated in the Cariboo in

November 1971 and stockpiled the crushed car bodies on several

private properties. Mr. Speaker, this is the middle of

September, 1973 and some of these crushed bodies are still

stockpiled in the Cariboo. I am advised by the Minister of

Recreation and Conservation that these crushed car bodies are

now being picked up by the provincial government, which means

that these crushed car bodies have been sitting in several

stockpiles in the Cariboo for a little more than 22 months.

I blame the past and present administration, Mr. Speaker,

for this utter neglect on their part of the bargain with the

owners of these car bodies. Several excuses have been given by

the present administration for this lengthy storage period, but

it really has been complete neglect by the government in not

seeing that these car bodies were picked up sooner.

The Minister of Recreation and Conservation should write a letter of apology

to all property owners who stored these car bodies at no charge to the provincial

government. The space these car bodies occupied was very valuable to these owners,

and I'm sure that if apology is not given that it will be a long time before

the government will get the permission of these people to operate and store

car bodies again. This is a shame because, when Operation SAM began, everyone

was in favour of it. Now, because of neglect by the prior and present government

in not keeping their part of the bargain, very few car bodies will be crushed

in the future in this province.

Now, Mr. Speaker, just one closing comment on SAM. It

incensed me to no end that the local people organized these

things, the government crushing unit comes in, and they leave

them stockpiled for 22 months. I appreciate that the new

Minister has written me and advised me these car bodies are

being picked up. Well, I drove down through the Cariboo a week

ago Monday to come to the session and the car bodies in some

cases were still stockpiled. I'm going to double-check. I don't

say the Minister gave me wrong information, but I have a

message for him, Mr. Speaker; if there are still car bodies

stockpiled in the Cariboo when I go home this weekend, I'm

going to get a freight line to haul them down here and dump

them in the Minister's office. And I realize he's got a big

enough office.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): You'd get the carpets

dirty.

MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, the greatest concern that the

citizens of the Cariboo have at the present time is the lack of

a forest policy by the Minister of Lands, Forests, and Water

Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams). No one can find out what his

forest policy is, or that government's, because the Minister

will not answer his correspondence; nor will he talk to the

industry; nor will he spend any time in the Legislature, Mr.

Speaker. This is causing widespread concern, and consequently

there has been no real investment in the forest industry since

this government assumed office over a year ago. The industry is

standing still waiting for announcements by the Minister about

future forest policy.

Several attempts at new forest policy have been made, such

as a new stumpage formula and the relocation of future timber

rights to government-owned-and-operated forest operations. The

quality of life in the Cariboo, Mr. Speaker, depends on the

land base which provides cattle, agriculture and, most

important of all, forest crops on a sustained-yield basis.

The Cariboo has many small, independent work groups which

produce for the forest industry. These are people of initiative

and enterprise who invest their money in equipment, operate it,

and benefit to the full from their own enterprise.

The new proposed stumpage policy is stupidity in the

extreme, except that it has a few dirty tricks tossed in as

well. One sawmill that presently is operating pays $360,000 per

year at the old stumpage rates: under the new proposed stumpage

rates, his rate of stumpage will become $810,000 a year, Mr.

Speaker. This is an increase of $450,000 per year. This mill

has never earned this amount of money in

[ Page 122 ]

its history and certainly cannot afford these new proposed

rates.

The jobs of hundreds of Cariboo people are at stake. It is

stupid to charge such high prices for timber so as to force

sawmills out of business and to face reduced manufacturing, and

thereby export jobs to the United States and elsewhere where

our lumber is sold.

Mr. Speaker, I would now like to discuss arrogant schemes

and dirty tricks that are being deliberately applied to shrink

the economy of the Cariboo. While I will give examples specific

to the Cariboo, I think every MLA in this House should examine

whether or not the established employment base in his riding,

or her riding, is going to be reduced by the zeal to favour

government ventures in another area of this province.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, oh!

MR. FRASER: Examine also whether or not private business is

going to be discriminated against and weakened as an employer

so public business can look good. The Premier said the record

of his government will rest upon the financial success of

Canadian Cellulose. The former loser must show a profit at any

cost.

This statement is the mandate for the Minister of Forests

(Hon. Mr. Williams), a most ambitious man, to use every trick

in the book to favour Canadian Cellulose. In fact, Mr. Speaker,

it is now apparent that he plans to make the northwest corner

of B.C. his personal fiefdom in which the Minister will be

dictator. When he emerges from it, he will have usurped the job

of the Premier of British Columbia. While I like the Premier, I

do not discuss affairs involving the Minister of Forests to

take sides in a power struggle within the New Democratic Party,

but because I do not want the economic welfare of the Cariboo

destroyed, Mr. Speaker.

What I have to say about the Cariboo applies equally to

Prince George and the Fort George riding. As everyone knows,

Fort George is represented by the NDP and, therefore, the MLA

does not understand or care about the economic welfare of his

riding.

Canadian Cellulose cannot show a profit using the same

low-quality, high-cost timber assigned to the former owners.

That timber costs more than $50 per unit, Mr. Speaker. The

Minister of Forests must stampede to pre-empt sawmill chips

from the central Interior, 600 miles away, at $10 per unit.

A dramatic plan of spending hundreds of millions of dollars of public money

to build railways is underway in the deal. The British Columbia Railroad equipment

will go on CN lines in order to subsidize movement of forest raw materials to

Prince Rupert from the central Interior, a distance of 500 or 600 miles.

Obscured by the dramatics, Mr. Speaker, are subtle plans

designed to achieve the following: manipulate boundaries of

forest management units to pre-empt timber supplied for the

fiefdom which should be allocated to supporting existing

industry in points in the Cariboo such as Williams Lake,

Quesnel and, of course, Prince George in the Fort George riding — and other communities as well; direct pulp chips to Prince

Rupert which, by any measure of economic logic, properly

belongs in the Cariboo or Prince George economy; utilize the

new stumpage policy as a device to minimize stumpage and

thereby increase the profit of favoured operators in the

Minister's fiefdom.

The Narcosli sustained-yield unit lies west of Quesnel in a

land form and drainage system which flows to Quesnel. The

ranchers and loggers who work in this area use public roads

that exist and forest access roads that originate in Quesnel.

This timber is pine timber, needed to supply several mills in

Quesnel that are specifically designed, Mr. Speaker, to utilize

the size and quality of wood that exists in this forest.

I might say that I am proud of the Cariboo operators. They

originated the total close-utilization policy and the cutting

of small timber, and showed the rest of this province how it

could be done on an economic basis.

The fourth is clearly a major part of the forest land base

which must be managed to sustain the employment base of the

Cariboo. There is a plan by the Minister of Lands, Forests and

Water Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams) to pre-empt the wood

supplied for the government operation of Plateau Mills at

Vanderhoof. To give effect to it, steps have already been taken

involving arbitrary use of contrived statistics to alter

allegations of Cariboo operators. Administrative rules have

been ensured which prevent Cariboo operators with financial

capability to develop roads systems westwards from applying for

or bidding on the timber they need for future requirements.

Mr. Speaker, I want the government-owned Plateau Sawmill at

Vanderhoof, which already has more timber quota than it can

fairly use if it operates on the same standard of utilization

required of others, to stay out of the Cariboo. I want an open

and above-table examination of the annual allowable-cut needs

of existing forest industry in the Cariboo.

Last month a clause appeared in the timber sales in the

Cariboo that said two things; (

a) operators must supply a

prescribed number of railroad ties to the British Columbia

Railroad; (

b) unless agreement with their railroad is

immediately completed, that timber sale would not be

operative.

Most of the Cariboo sawmills are not tie mills; they are

designed to manufacture specialty items which are sold under

contract to a wide range of customers all over the world. How

can Cariboo

[ Page 123 ]

sawmills maintain employment of their crews if the British

Columbia Railroad has given arbitrary right to pre-empt their

timber supply?

Why should not the government put their requirements out to

tender, so these mills with the capacity can bid for this

business? Mr. Speaker, the CPR has no trouble obtaining ties in

this manner. A few days after the clause was introduced, when

the fair market value for ties was $130 per 1,000 feet, the

buyer for the British Columbia Railroad was offering $70 for

the same 1,000 feet. Take it or forfeit your timber sales, it

is as simple as that.

I must ask…. Oh! Mr. Speaker, I want to welcome back the

Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald). I must ask the Attorney

General if the taxage in this case could be described as

extortionate.

Mr. Speaker, for a few minutes I want to discuss the new

stumpage policy that is proposed. The Premier and all MLAs have

received detailed comments from the Truck Loggers Association

and other agencies qualified to demonstrate the impact. There

is no doubt that, if implemented, this policy will shatter

employment in the logging and sawmill sector and, soon after,

the economy of British Columbia.

As has been pointed out, implementation will be the greatest

mistake in the economic history of British Columbia. I

recommend that all MLAs study most carefully the letter to the

Premier by the president of the Truck Loggers Association. Mr.

Viv Williams is the president of the Truck Loggers Association;

his operation is at Spuzzum in the Fraser Canyon.

Note well the point that the scheme is designed to limit

profits of not just the logging and sawmill industry, but every

trucking, road-building and small business that services the

forest industry. Is it not true that minimizing profits for the

purpose of maximizing stumpage leads eventually and quickly to

cost control, then wage control in the industry? Mr. Speaker,

will you agree with me that assessments imposed on industry,

and taxation as it affects profits of people in industry,

should be a function of this Legislature, not the secret

preserve of the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources

(Hon. Mr. Williams)?

MR. CHABOT: And where is he now?

MR. FRASER: In one year in office this government has set up

a situation even more appalling than Watergate. The stage is

set for friends of this government to put their fingers in the

public cookie jar, and the busy bees in the Minister's office

are in a position to cream off the honey.

If you think the setup will not and cannot be used to favour and discriminate,

please note that the areas where the government-owned Canadian Cellulose operates

have been assigned the most favoured applications of stumpage, and Prince George

has the most severe. Canadian Cellulose is already being allowed higher profit

and lower stumpage than private industry in the central Interior.

One can speculate as to why, under the close utilization

plan, certain pulp mills do not pay any stumpage, and are put

in the position to get raw material cheaply by riding on the

backs of the loggers and saw millers. Could it be that now that

the government is in the pulp business, and because the Premier

has said his government record rides on the profits made by

Columbia Cellulose, the government pulp mills will also pay no

stumpage and will also ride on the back of the people who work

in the logging and sawmill industry?

I say to the Premier, through you Mr. Speaker, stop this

hanky-panky. Get control of the Department of Forestry, make a

full scale public inquiry into the administrative procedures

and get judicial, unbiased policy guidelines established.

Eliminate the massive conflicts of interest that are abroad in

the land…a Minister with his own principality. A district

forester responsible for assessing stumpage, and thereby

limiting profits of private business, is on the board of

directors of Plateau Mills Limited and, in that position, is

obliged to see that profits of that company are increased.

Put the activities of Canadian Cellulose out in the open for

scrutiny in this assembly. It is public business, Mr. Speaker.

Have you so soon forgotten your campaign promises in respect to

public business? Do not implement the new stumpage policy; it

will destroy the country, but the country cannot afford to wait

until your political career is destroyed by such a policy.

When the government announced the purchase of Columbia

Cellulose, they stated that this was the key to create I

believe it was 20,000 new jobs in the northwest of British

Columbia. This is all very fine, but they did not say that it

will be at the expense of already-established and efficient

forestry operations in other parts of British Columbia.

While I am making observations about the Lands, Forests and

Water Resources department, I would like to deal briefly with

the Lands department of that Ministry. For many years the

provincial government has leased Crown lots in British Columbia

for summer homes. There are many Crown subdivisions in the

riding of Cariboo. These Crown lots are leased on a term basis

to the citizens, but the lease fees are open to revision every

five years.

If the price of land appreciates, which has been the case

for some time because of inflation, the lease fees are revised,

giving consideration to the increased values. The prior

administration gave instructions to the Lands department that

if these values had more than doubled in the five-year period,

the Lands

[ Page 124 ]

department was not — was not, I repeat — to increase the

lease fees more than double.

When the present government took office a year ago, they

instructed the Lands department to assess these lease fees on

the actual market values. Consequently, from last year to this

year, many lease fees have increased four and five times, Mr.

Speaker. I am amazed this government would allow this to happen

because it is causing undue hardship to the ordinary citizens

of British Columbia.

I mentioned earlier that many of these Crown lots are

located in the Cariboo and leased by citizens with moderate

incomes who come from Vancouver, New Westminister, Surrey,

Langley, Burnaby, Victoria, Nanaimo, and so on — in other

words, citizens from the lower mainland. The increase in the

lease fees put into effect by this government is making it

almost impossible for citizens of moderate incomes to maintain

these summer homes. In effect, the new fee structure for these

lots means that only the wealthy will be able to afford them.

It is a great surprise to me, Mr. Speaker, to find that this

little people's government has a lease policy that can only be

taken advantage of by the wealthier citizens of our province. I

say to the government that they should be ashamed of this

action and that they should take steps immediately to reduce

these lease fees so that the ordinary citizen can afford a

summer cottage in some part of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I have a few comments to make about the

standing committees' work. I have been a member of the

Municipal Matters committee for some time and I feel the work

of this committee has been very worthwhile. I cannot discuss

the report that will be presented shortly to the Legislature,

but I feel that committees operating between sessions are very

helpful for all the Members and, last but not least, a greater

opportunity for citizens of this province to present their

various views to the various committees.

My only wish is that when these committees report to the

Legislature, this Legislature takes heed of their reports and

does something about them. If this happens, the standing

committees, in my opinion, are a great success.

As a Member of the Legislature representing the large rural

riding of Cariboo in the central Interior of this province, Mr.

Speaker, I want to publicly thank the government for making

available airplane transportation to and from the riding to

Victoria. It has been of great assistance in enabling me to

better serve these citizens.

The throne speech, Mr. Speaker, did not give too much information on the government's

programme for this session, but it did give some information on what we might

expect. I look forward to the legislation which is to come. I might add that

this throne speech is certainly not any better or any worse than the last five

throne speeches I have read or have heard.

Mr. Speaker, I am alarmed and upset at the actions of this

government with our senior public servants. It is not a proper

way to treat career, dedicated people, to suddenly after many

years demote them and replace them with inexperienced party

hacks. Most of the Deputy Ministers who have been demoted have

spent their lives in the public service; to be suddenly set

aside a few years before retirement is shameful, Mr. Speaker,

just shameful.

What future is there for our young people entering the

public service of British Columbia today? They certainly know

they will never be able to reach the top after many years of

dedicated service. The actions this government has taken with

the senior public servants have certainly had a demoralizing

effect on all public servants and this is most regrettable for

all of British Columbia.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I have made a review of some of

the actions of this government after its first full year of

operation. While some of the backbenchers of the government

feel the record of the government is excellent, I cannot agree.

The forest industry, our largest industry, has stopped all new

investment in our province. The mining industry is not making

the investments they should because of the fear of this

government's future mining policy. Capital investment has

decreased sharply in all sectors, Mr. Speaker, and we've heard

the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea) attack another of our

major industries, the tourist industry. The Minister of Finance

(Hon. Mr. Barrett) has a policy of excessive taxation to create

huge surpluses. I say the government's performance in its first

year has been less than satisfactory and trouble lies ahead for

this great province of ours. Thank you.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to

rise on behalf of the people of Vancouver-Burrard to speak in

support of the Speech from the Throne. But before doing that,

I'd like to congratulate five of my colleagues who have

ascended into the cabinet and also the new Member who took his

seat in this House yesterday (Mr. Bennett). I would like to

extend to all of them my very best wishes and the very best

wishes of all the people in Burrard.

I visited my constituency last night, Mr. Speaker, using one

of the free airline passes that we have. I would like to assure

you that the people in Burrard are very pleased, particularly

pleased, that labour legislation is going to be given priority

attention this session.

In the past 20 years the workers of this province have

laboured under some pretty repressive legislation, some pretty

archaic legislation, legislation that was never designed to

ease their burden and

[ Page

125 ]

which threw up every barrier whenever those among them tried

to organize into trade unions.

This government has been in office for a year now and,

during that time, the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) has

assured us that he has been taking a good, hard, long look at

all the labour legislation that is now on the books. Now we

learn from the Speech from the Throne that he is ready to ask

us to consider a new labour code. This new labour code, we have

been told, will establish an improved framework for collective

bargaining and dispute settlement.

Expectations are running high, Mr. Speaker, and I would like

to state a few of the hopes and a few of the expectations that

I and the people of Vancouver-Burrard have for this

legislation.

It is our hope that the new labour code will deal with the

matter of first contracts. There have been many instances over

the past year when, despite a stacked deck, a local was able to

gain certification only to be stymied when it tried to

negotiate a first contract. It is my impression — and I think

this is a correct one — that each year there have been at least

a dozen strikes which have been fought over this issue of first

contract. In many instances, these strikes have been lost.

Without wanting to belabour the point, Mr. Speaker, I would

like to cite one such example and that is the case of

Sandringham Hospital right here in the City of Victoria. As

everyone knows, for nearly three years the workers at

Sandringham Hospital have been trying to negotiate a first

contract. In reply to a question asked on the floor of this

house yesterday, the Minister (Hon. Mr. King) explained that

under existing legislation there was absolutely nothing he

could do to terminate the deadlock between labour and

management at Sandringham Hospital, "because the employers were

not prepared to bargain in good faith."

Another example, Mr. Speaker: the Shoppers Drug Mart strike. That strike is

now in the process of being settled, but it should not have been necessary at

all. And Denny's Restaurant, another strike which has still not been settled.

All these have occurred because of the absence of legislation that dealt fairly

and adequately with first contracts.

Because so much of my concern is centred around women in the

labour force, Mr. Speaker, much of the changes in the labour

legislation that I am hoping for affects them.

It is my hope, for example, that the Factories Act will be

amended. This Act, as you know, covers a lot of what is known

as protective legislation. It's legislation that says, for

example, that a factory, shop or office in which females are

employed should have rest rooms and space and reasonable

privacy and couches and cots and chairs and this sort of thing.

It's the Act that also states that women need more bathrooms

than men do.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: No, it is preferential treatment, actually.

We would like to see these types of protective legislation

extended to cover men, too. We believe that men are human

(Laughter) and that if the Act finds it necessary to provide

couches and cots and chairs and bathrooms for the women, it

should provide them for the men too.

On the surface it might seem that this legislation really

demonstrates a concern for women. In point of fact, the

requirements outlined in this Act are often used as an excuse

not to hire us. I have received on more than one occasion

complaints from women who wanted to work for the Department of

Highways, for example, but who could not be hired because there

were not separate bathroom facilities.

Earlier this afternoon we heard a question in the House from

the Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland), who was asking about

the hiring of women to work for the Liquor Control Board. The

Attorney General explained that one of the reasons why this was

not possible was because of the weight involved — how heavy the

cases of beer were that had to be lifted on and off the trucks.

In point of fact, regulation 3 of the Factories Act makes very

stringent rules about the weight — 35 pounds it says, no more,

that women are permitted to lift. We feel that if there is a

weight factor this also should be extended to cover the men. I

am sure you know, as I do, many men who cannot lift 35 pounds

in the same way that we know many women who can lift much more

than 35 pounds. As a matter of fact it is a very rare mother

indeed who has not had to lift a child weighing more than 35

pounds at one time or another during her life, or a heavy pail

of diapers or something of that matter. So we would like to see

this amendment extended to cover the men the same way that it

does the women.

The same thing applies to regulation 4 of the Factories Act — the one that has to do with overhead stacking. I know, and we

all know, that these protective clauses were fought for, and we

know that the battle to get them incorporated in legislation

was a long and sometimes bloody one. But I also know that male

workers have as much need for this type of protection as women

do, and that to fail to expand this protection to them is to

continue to oppress them.

I am against oppression, Mr. Speaker, and I hope the

Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) will seek to amend all of

this legislation to ensure that both men and women will be able

to work under safe and reasonable conditions.

Another piece of legislation that falls in the Minister's

portfolio is that of the Minimum Wage Act. This act, as you

will remember, Mr. Speaker, was

[ Page 126 ]

amended in the fall of last year and, indeed, it was a step

in the right direction, because it recognized the concept of

equal pay for work regardless of sex. It was unsuccessful,

however, in three areas.

First, it was not extended to cover a very large group of

people who work on farms or those people classified as

household help. In my travels around the province with the

Select Standing Committee on Social Welfare and Education we

were continually made aware of the hardship that this caused

those women who sought to work as homemakers on this home-care

project, but who, because they were not covered by this

legislation, were often offered less than the minimum wage and

so were unable to demand at least the minimum wage because they

were not covered by the Act.

The second flaw in the Act has to do with the age factor.

And I say the age factor because, as you will remember, the Act

provides for $2 an hour over the age of 18 and less below the

age of 18. What this resulted in in many instances was that

many women who were working in department stores on weekends or

on a part-time capacity found that they were removed from their

jobs, and their jobs were given to women 18 years of age for no

other reason than to cut the payroll expenditure. This is

especially hard on the middle-aged woman who, as we learned

from an

article in the Sun newspaper yesterday on the editorial

page, works because she has to and not necessarily because she

wants to.

The third area of concern cannot really be dealt with as a

failure, Mr. Speaker, but just as an area of concern. And that

is the Industrial Relations Board. This Act requires that at

least one of the board members should be a woman, and I would

like to urge the Minister not to accept this minimum

requirement as a maximum requirement.

Another Act that falls under the labour legislation is the

Workmen's Compensation Act . I would like to concur completely

with everything said by the Member for Delta (Mr. Liden) about

the Workmen's Compensation Board. I, too, can give hair-raising

examples of strange decisions arrived at by that board in the

past, particularly affecting disabilities dating back to the

'40s. We must, Mr. Speaker, reopen the files of those people

and bring their pensions into the 20th century. The

inflexibility of the board is legendary. The conditions must

change and maybe one way to do this would be to begin by

amending the 1968 Act.

In every instance where the word "widow" is used in the Act, I would like to

suggest that we substitute the word "dependent spouse." In this way we would

ensure that widowers — and not necessarily those who are invalided, because

the Act now covers invalided widowers — would not be discriminated against.

The same recommendation would apply if we substituted the words "foster parent"

wherever the words "foster mother" are presently used. What this would do, Mr.

Speaker, is to take into account the change in lifestyles that we are now dealing

with and the fact that, as rare as it may seem, there are some instances where

the man of the house would rather remain at home and take care of the children

than would the mother, and when this happens he would not be penalized for doing

so.

Before closing this

section on labour legislation, I would

like to quote from a speech given by Miss Marg Storm at a

conference in Kamloops recently. She said:

"I've had the protection of the IWA for 27 years and I realize

that the largest group of unorganized workers are women. The exploitation, discrimination

and poor working conditions that they have had to endure through the years brings

out the trade union anger in me. The labour legislation that we have had to

live with has made it impossible to protect these women while trying to organize

them. It is my hope that these inequities will be corrected during the fall

session of this Legislature."

That is also my hope and the hope of the people in Vancouver-Burrard, Mr. Speaker.

This year, Mr. Speaker, has been designated as Human Rights

Year. This year the world is celebrating the 25th anniversary

of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Surely there is

no more fitting way to celebrate this year than to introduce

some meaningful human rights legislation. By coincidence, Mr.

Speaker, the human rights legislation in this province is also

embodied in its labour legislation, so once again I confess to

the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) that my expectations are

high.

My expectations are that, despite the fact that the matter

of human rights was not mentioned in the throne speech, human

rights legislation will be forthcoming during this session, and

that this legislation will ensure in the field of labour, at

least, equal job and pay opportunities for all, regardless of

their race, sex, marital status, age, religious belief, ethnic

origin, sexual orientation, political affiliation or whatever,

and that this legislation, furthermore, will apply equally to

the Crown, non-profit organizations, educational institutions,

or whatever.

I would like to suggest further that the present Act cannot

be amended. Various groups in our society have tried to amend

the Act, Mr. Speaker, and it is so badly written or, as the

ex-Minister of Labour, the Member for Columbia River (Mr.

Chabot) likes to quote me as saying, it has so many holes that

you can run a truck through it. I really did say that and I

would like to say it again. I think that the Act has to be

rewritten, and when it is rewritten it must include marital

status in all sections as a specific characteristic against

which discrimination is forbidden. It must

[ Page 127 ]

ensure that jobs may not be restricted to members of one sex

because of heavy physical labour, late-night hours, preference

of co-workers, tradition or any other specious reasons.

It must ensure that no student can be denied access to any

school, university course, training programme, apprentice

programme, or any other kind of vocational programme, because

of race, sex, age or any other reason.

That the faculty of law, the only faculty of law in this

province, could have managed to graduate only two native Indian

students during its 27 years of existence is a disgrace. That

so few native Indian teachers have passed through our system is

a disgrace. That the top echelon of our civil service number

not even one woman among its ranks, and here I am referring to

the Deputy, Associate Deputy and Assistant Deputy level, is a

disgrace and I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that this is not

the kind of disgrace that this government can continue to live

with.

I recognize that we inherited this problem from a government

which condoned oppression of women in employment, but the

opportunity is now ours, and one of our most effective tools

could be the Human Rights Act and I, as indeed with most people

in this province, will be very disappointed if a new Human

Rights Act is not tabled in this House during this session.

The Speech from the Throne, Mr. Speaker, also mentioned that

there were going to be amendments to the Municipal Act. As the

representative of an urban riding, I welcome this news. I

welcome it in the hope that it will mean a closer liaison

between the two levels of government, and more dialogue between

these levels of government and the people of Vancouver. I am

tired of the cavalier manner in which the carving up of the

city is being conducted without any evidence of overall

planning. I have no idea what the amendments will cover, but I

hope that it will ensure that if this province plans to solve

its housing crisis through the development of units and the use

of land in the City of Vancouver, this should be done in

consultation with the municipal committee on housing as well as

with the people of the City of Vancouver.

It is my hope that the voice of these people will be heard

and that their wishes will be treated with respect. If

Vancouver indeed constitutes a part of the overall

transportation design for this province, then it is my hope

that this planning will be done in consultation with the

municipal government and with the people of Vancouver. Further,

it is my hope that all planning and all designs will be

integrated and will proceed at all times with the full and open

knowledge and support of the people of the City of

Vancouver.

The people of Vancouver, the people who live there, have a pretty good idea

of what they want for that city and of how they want to see that city grow,

and I hope that we will never lose contact and will never fail to listen to

their communications. Closer liaison, Mr. Speaker, between the levels of government,

is what we are looking for. It is no longer enough for the two levels to meet

merely to discuss funding. The whole growth and design of this city will affect,

and in turn will be affected by, the rest of this province, and we cannot lose

sight of this.

Last fall, I expressed the hope that the government would

take a serious look at the whole area of provincial-municipal

financing, and I certainly hope that this is one of the areas

in which the amendment to the Municipal Act will take

place.

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to deny my disappointment that

the Speech from the Throne has given no indication that the

government has any plans to deal with the plight of women in

this province. I am disappointed because I thought that surely

after a year in office we would be ready to move in the

direction of some meaningful legislation on their behalf. But

who knows? There may be surprises in store for us. So, with

this in mind, I would like to speak very briefly on behalf of

one group of women.

MR. SPEAKER: Would you kindly move your microphone so it

doesn't touch anything. It seems to be causing some static.

MS. BROWN: Oh, I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker. I'm causing static?

(Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: Unnecessary static.

MS. BROWN: I hope so, Mr. Speaker, I hope so.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: No, I am where I belong, thank you.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: I'm where the action is.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: I would like to speak, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of

one group of women, the largest group of women in our province;

namely, those women who have chosen to remain in the home. The

homemaker or housewife, whichever you prefer to call her; in

any event, that group referred to by John Kenneth Galbraith as

the crypto-servants of America.

Mr. Galbraith tells us that the woman who "devotes herself

to the well-being of her family, who is a gracious helpmate, a

good manager, or who, at lesser levels of elegance, is a good

housekeeper or a real homebody," is "uniquely moral" and

represents the highest of social virtue.

[ Page 128 ]

Society tells us that the mother and wife are among the most

valued and cherished members of our community. What they fail

to mention, Mr. Speaker, is that they are also among the most

insecure and least protected members of society. The woman in

the home is totally dependent on her spouse. She is completely

dependent on him financially and, in the event of some mishap

such as divorce, desertion or separation, she often has no

recourse short of social assistance.

This government must find some way to give security,

financial security, to this group of women. The real tragedy,

of course, is that so many of these women are in their late

forties or early fifties. The new Mincome programme which goes

into effect on October 1 is a blessing. It was not designed

only for women, of course; it covers everyone. But, in point of

fact, it will have more impact and more effect on the lives of

women than it will on the lives of men, if for no other reason

than that we usually outlive the men.

MR. GARDOM: You know why? (Laughter.)

MS. BROWN: We're stronger.

AN HON. MEMBER: Here we go.

MS. BROWN: What this Mincome programme means is that many of

these women will be able to get off social assistance five

years earlier than they would normally. But the young mother

with small children, or the middle-aged woman with no skill

other than a great ability to love and nurture her family,

finds herself at a decided disadvantage when she suddenly is

without any form of financial support and is forced to enter

the labour market.

This government must address itself to the dilemma of this

segment of the population. Today, if the young mother on

welfare tries to enrol in university in an attempt to complete

her education or get a profession, she is immediately cut off

from her welfare payment. Not only is she discouraged, but she

is actually forbidden by the financial realities of the

situation from trying to enhance her educational status.

Surely, Mr. Speaker, now that we have in this province an

insurance company that can insure us against fire and against

theft, surely this company could also look into the matter of

insuring the woman in the home against complete loss of

security in the event of desertion or divorce.

I would like to suggest, or I would like to strongly recommend, that as a planned

and vital function of the new insurance company of B.C. there should be some

kind of provision designed to guarantee that the housewife who suddenly finds

that she must enter the labour market as a result of death, or desertion, or

divorce, or some other type of misfortune, will have some kind of financial

support while she is in the process of training, or re-training, or otherwise

preparing herself for re-entering the labour force.

Although this request has been put forward on behalf of

women, it really should apply to the dependent spouse whoever

that happens to be. As I mentioned earlier, with our changing

lifestyles it is possible, Mr. Speaker, that there are times

when this kind of financial insecurity could apply to the man

in the home.

It is possible, Mr. Speaker, that many married women may

never find it necessary to ever use this type of insurance, but

the rate of marriage breakdowns being as high as it is, and

getting even higher, would seem to indicate that some type of

security is necessary to do for the woman who stays at home

what unemployment insurance does for the person who loses her

or his job.

Before I leave this topic, Mr. Speaker, I would like to

point out that the report on the status of women outlined many

areas of responsibility which fell within the venue of this

province and of all provinces which needed changing. This

province is probably far ahead of most other provinces in terms

of meeting some of these recommendations and in terms of

meeting its responsibilities. But there are still a number of

recommendations still not implemented, among them

recommendation 164 which states:

"We recommend that the federal or provincial

territories and municipal governments each establish an implementation

committee composed of a number of its senior administrators to plan

for, coordinate and expedite the implementation of the recommendations

made by the Royal Commission on the Status of Women."

This has not yet been implemented. It is my hope that

recommendation 164 will be implemented in this sitting of the

Legislature, and also that the convention resolution which was

passed and is now part of the policy of the New Democratic

Party for a ministry of women will receive some kind of

priority attention from this government.

I stated earlier in my speech, Mr. Speaker, that I represent

an urban riding, a riding where at least 50 per cent of the

constituents occupy rental accommodation. This number is

growing. Consequently, the Landlord and Tenant Act and the

amendments to it which were passed during the last session of

the House were of primary concern to us. It soon became clear

that the amendments did not go far enough and that the Act was

failing to give renters the adequate protection which they

needed. This was drawn to the attention of the Attorney General

and he has since referred this Act to the Law Reform Commission

for study. I'm sure the commission will do a thorough job in

this area.

Nonetheless, I would like to take this opportunity to bring

to the attention of the Attorney General that

[ Page 129 ]

the tenants in Vancouver-Burrard are still being exploited,

that they are impatient and hope the report of the Law Reform

Commission will be tabled before this session of the

Legislature is completed, and that there will be further

amendments to that Act. The areas of most flagrant abuse are

those of eviction without just cause and the ones covering

unconscionable rise in rents.

The strata-title crisis in the City of Vancouver has been

halted for a while due to the actions of the city council

freezing all such strata-title matters for the period of a

year.

Before I close, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to say a few words

about the Social Welfare and Education committee. The Speech

from the Throne spoke of the activities of the standing

committees of the House, Mr. Speaker. I had the privilege to be

a part of two such committees and both of these committees

travelled throughout this province during the recess between the

sessions. As chairman of the committee on Social Welfare and

Education, I would like now to ask leave of the House to table

the 150 briefs and submissions which were made to my committee

during its tours.

MR. SPEAKER: I take it that the purpose is to have them

available to the public in the Clerk's office. Is that

correct?

MS. BROWN: By all means, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

MS. BROWN: The job of this committee, as you know, Mr.

Speaker, was to look at the need for home care in the health

delivery system and make recommendations. Its job was not to

write health-care legislation but to examine the need and make

recommendations to this House. I submit to you, Mr. Speaker,

that this committee did its job. Travelling and meeting with the

people, listening to their submissions, we learned much, not

only about the delivery of health care but about many other

aspects of the life of the people of this province. It was a

very worthwhile endeavour and it is my hope that the precedent

set will become an established practice.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to issue a plea for

more flexibility in decision-making in government. I'm thinking

now specifically of two cases concerning people who live in

Vancouver-Burrard.

One of them had to do with a 59-year-old woman who was living common-law for

17 years while the man with whom she was living waited for a divorce from his

wife. After 17 years, the divorce was finally finalized and plans were made

for them to marry. The minister was contacted and everything was in readiness

for the wedding. Unfortunately, the man immediately took ill and died.

Because they had not lived common-law for 20 years, she was

not regarded under the Act as his wife and as a result of this

had a lot of difficulty in the probating of his will and

inheriting whatever small estate that was left. The common-law

stepdaughter of this woman and the minister involved and

everyone else contacted me as the representative for the riding

and I, in turn, had to make a plea on behalf of this woman to

have her case dealt with on compassionate grounds.

It was successfully settled, Mr. Speaker, and I'm happy to

say she did get the estate eventually. What I am saying,

however, is that it should not have been necessary to go

through all of that to have this matter dealt with.

The second case has to do with an elderly woman who applied

for the Elderly Citizen Renters Grant and her cheque was due to

come through on April 13. Unfortunately, she died on April 4,

but she had paid rent on her apartment up to April 30. When her

son explained this and asked that the cheque for that month

come through to meet the rental requirements, he was told that

she had failed to meet the requirements spelled out in the Act

and so this matter could not be dealt with. The requirement

spelled out in the Act, Mr. Speaker, was that she had to be

alive at the time that the cheque was paid out, and by dying

nine days earlier she did not meet these requirements.

Now, surely, Mr. Speaker, if there is one fact that has been

established through the ages, it is that we have very little

control over when or even how we die. So, in closing, I would

like to ask that the quality of mercy be exercised more

generously in governmental decisions and that we never lose

touch and cease to heed the people whom we are here not to rule

but to represent. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. McCLELLAND: I too would like to express my thanks for

the chance to enter into this throne speech debate in this fall

session of the Legislature. I too would like to welcome my new

colleague from South Okanagan (Mr. Bennett) to the House. I

would also like to take the opportunity with some of the other

Members to welcome the people from the B.C. Association of

Non-Status Indians to the House today, and in particular, the

president, Mr. House, who was in the Speaker's gallery. If he's

still there, I'd like to welcome Mr. House to Victoria.

I was reminded, first of all, by the Member for South Peace

River's (Mr. Phillips) comments, and then the comments about

the Premier who has now become the world champion bull thrower,

that the world is a bit of a small place.

I'm reminded of a story that our colleague from Chilliwack

(Mr. Schroeder) tells about a 250-watt radio station down in

Wyoming that he knew about

[ Page 130 ]

when he was in the Wyoming area. I think it reached about

eight people in a radius of 11 miles or so. The disc jockey

used to get on the air every morning and say, "Good morning,

world." That's the kind of confidence we like to see in the

House.

I'd also like to compliment the Public Works department on

the repairs and renovations to the House. As a member of the

committee that sat and recommended that television be proceeded

with in this House, I feel I may have made a mistake because

the recommendation was that television be allowed provided it

didn't disturb either the decorum of the House or the comfort

of the Members of the House.

Some of us do have a sun rash and it's very uncomfortable at

times. I notice many of the members of the press gallery have

gone out and bought eye-shades. I went out today and bought an

expensive pair of sunglasses, and I'm going to have to wear

them in the House because it is extremely uncomfortable under

the lights of the House.

Interjection.

MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, and they look much better through these

sunglasses — rose-coloured glasses.

I'd also like to say, Mr. Speaker, that it was interesting

that the Second Member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) gave

an impassioned speech against discrimination in employment for

women the same day that the Attorney General said that women

could not be hired in Liquor Control Board retail stores

because they can't move cases of liquor — the same women who,

in the home, as the Second Member for Burrard so eloquently

pointed out — move refrigerators, pianos, chesterfields and

everything else that's necessary; but they can't move a case of

booze in the Liquor Control Board store.

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the Second Member for

Vancouver-Burrard should look to her own government first of

all for this kind of discrimination because there is no reason

for women in this province to be refused jobs, particularly in

Liquor Control Board retail stores. But they are being refused

jobs.

I have a number of letters from women who say they have

applied for jobs in Liquor Control Board retail stores and they

have been told, "No, the policy of the Liquor Control Board is

that we do not hire women in these positions."

Mr. Speaker, I would also mention briefly a few comments

about the Select Standing Committee on Social Welfare and

Education. I won't go into details of a minority opinion that I

filed with the press and with the chairperson of that committee — with prior knowledge of the committee, as a matter of

fact.

But I do want to say that I hope the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) was

misquoted in this morning's paper in this

article which says that "Cocke Defends

Health Report Role." If he was quoted correctly, it seems very much like the

Minister of Health is saying that that committee was merely window-dressing

and that the Minister of Health could have done it himself; there was no need

for the committee.

The Minister of Health is quoted as saying in this article:

"While that committee went out for 15 days, I went out for six

solid weeks visiting hospitals, health units and different

groups all over the province. Now based on what I did, I

consider I got as much input as the committee."

He could have done it himself. What was the purpose of the

committee? I'd like to express my displeasure, Mr. Speaker,

with the fact that while that committee was an interesting one

and an exciting one and one in which I was proud to take part — and I compliment the chairperson on that — I'm disappointed

that in the final deliberations of that committee, the members

never got the chance to see the final report as it was written.

Never got the chance. We should have been given that chance,

Mr. Speaker.

There was an astonishing hurry for the report of that

committee. I can only assume that the need for rush and haste

was because the Minister of Health wanted to make some

announcements and he couldn't do it without embarrassing the

committee if we didn't file our report first. The members of

that committee did not get the opportunity to see the final

draft of that report. Now it's as simple as that, and there's

no way around it, Mr. Speaker.

HON. G.V. LAUK (Minister of Industrial Development, Trade, and Commerce):

You weren't there.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I'm hearing from the Hon.

Minister of Industrial Development, Trade, and Commerce (Hon.

Mr. Lauk) that I wasn't there. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to say

right now that my attendance in those committee hearings was as

good and better than any of the other members. I was not there

for the final reading because it was never given to us. It was

never given to us; we never had the opportunity to read the

final report.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like the Minister of Industrial

whatever-it-is to apologize for that because I didn't miss any

of those meetings; we never had the opportunity. We were not

given the opportunity; is that plain? Is it clear? Do you

understand it, Mr. Minister? We were not given the opportunity,

Mr. Speaker, and that'll be the end of that.

I'd like to ask the Minister how many meetings he attended.

How many meetings did you attend, Mr. Minister?

[ Page 131 ]

MR. SPEAKER: One minute, what is your point of order?

MS. BROWN: A point of privilege, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: It sounds like a point of order to me.

MS. BROWN: Oh, is this a point of order?

MR. SPEAKER: What is your point of order?

MS. BROWN: I'd like to reply to the accusation that the

members were deprived from seeing the last….

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. If you have any correction you

wish to make on any imputation that's been made about you or

anyone concerned, would you do so at the end of the Hon.

Member's speech, please?

MS. BROWN: Certainly, Mr. Speaker. I was only trying to

bring an end to the diatribe between these two.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: In this House a peace-maker is not always

welcome. (Laughter.)

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I don't want to impute any

negligence on the part of any member of that committee.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Let him get on with his diatribe.

MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, let me get on with my diatribe.

I'd like to begin my participation in the throne speech

debate, Mr. Speaker, first of all by just talking briefly about

some educational problems that we have in our constituency. I'm

sorry that the Minister's not in but I'm sure that these things

will be passed on to her.

Briefly, the problem is that the Langley constituency,

particularly the Langley School District, School District 35,

is a rapidly growing school district, perhaps the most rapidly

growing in British Columbia. Because of that rapid growth,

there are some serious problems being experienced in Langley

School District.

Basically, those problems have to do with overcrowding and the need for more

essential classrooms as quickly as possible. Last session in the House I quoted

from a document, which was written by the district superintendent of Langley

School District, entitled "The Educational Plan for a Decade."

I'd just like to draw the Minister's attention to that

document once again because, while it was written in 1969, many

of the problems detailed in that document continue today. The

situation, as outlined to the Education Minister (Hon. Mrs.

Dailly), is now critical.

We have six secondary schools in Langley School District;

four of them happen to be on shifts right now. One elementary

school in the Langley School District is now on shifts. We're

utilizing, in the Langley School District, church halls for

kindergartens, which isn't a bad idea; but most of those halls

are not set up to handle those students, and it's causing some

hardships for them.

Many of the elementary libraries in our schools are also

being used as kindergartens — and as classrooms as well.

Schools presently under construction are being bothered because

of labour disputes and other construction problems; the rail

strike held back much of our construction.

Right away we need some portable classrooms and we need a

number of things in our school district. It's going to cost

about $400,000, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to urge the Education

Minister to give real priority to this request for extra money

for School District 35.

We have a problem which is not being faced in any other area

of British Columbia at this time because many of the other

schools are finding either a leveling off of school population

or, in fact, a decline in school population. That's not the

case in School District 35 in Langley. The need is urgent. I'd

like the Minister of Education to treat it as urgent.

I'd like also, Mr. Speaker, to call on the Government of

British Columbia to clean up the mess that it has caused in

British Columbia in relation to land-use matters. Mr. Speaker,

nothing that this government has done so far has caused so much

confusion, so much uncertainty, so much chaos, as its fumbling,

amateurish attempts to establish new land-use policies in this

province.

Not only have those attempts initiated a very dramatic

increase in residential land prices — an almost criminal jump,

as a matter of fact, in the cost of land and housing; and that,

of course, contributes even more to the inflationary spiral — but the land-use policies of this government have also rendered

it almost impossible to get even the most minor changes or

decision in land-use policy done without being choked in some

kind of bureaucratic jungle.

No one in British Columbia knows who's doing what to whom.

Because you can't get any decisions made in land-use matters

you go to the regional district, and you're told to go to the

Land Commission and from the Land Commission you're told to go

to the Minister of Agriculture, you're told

[ Page 132 ]

to go to the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr.

Lorimer); from the Minister of Municipal Affairs you are told

to go to the Environment and Land Use Committee; from the

Environment and Land Use Committee you are told to go to the

regional district and you are right back where you started from — and you haven't any decisions made. And that's only in the

minor matters; wait until you find out what happens when you've

got a major decision to get. It's impossible.

Who is responsible for land-use matters in British Columbia?

Is it the Lands and Forests Minister? Is it the Minister of

Municipal Affairs? Is it the Land Commission? Is it the

land-use secretariat? Who is it? Nobody knows. That's one of

the reasons why there are 800 or 900 applications right now

sitting on the desk of the Environment and Land Use Committee

not being processed.

Interjection.

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, they're going to get a new desk.

That's right; they'll probably come up with some solutions when

they find they have to get out of the dilemma they are in with

their own insurance claim centre in Richmond which has been

frozen. (Laughter.) But there isn't anybody in charge — that's

the problem. Nobody in charge and no coordination in land-use

matters in British Columbia.

The matter was really highlighted effectively by the actions

of the Cariboo Regional District recently. The Cariboo Regional

District refused to go through the charade of holding public

hearings in connection with the establishment of a land-use

reserve. The Cariboo Regional District was the only regional

district in British Columbia, as a matter of fact, that was

able to see through the smoke-screen that this government has

thrown up in front of Bill 42. The Cariboo Regional District

refuses to jeopardize its credibility with its people by

holding a public hearing to deal with matters over which it has

no real control and about which it is almost certain to be

overruled. The Cariboo Regional District believes in the need

for honesty in its public hearings and it refused to fall for

the malarky that it was being asked for input when in reality,

as is so often true in the actions of this government, there is

only the flimsy appearance and none of the reality of

cooperation with the people who a