1975 Legislative Session: 5th Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 1975

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 129 ]

CONTENTS

Afternoon sitting

Routine proceedings

Highland Water Control Act (Bill 22) Mr. Liden.

Introduction and first reading — 129

Point of order Ministerial answers during question period. Mr. Phillips —

Mr. Speaker — 129

Statement Details on purchase of Casa Loma Apartments. Hon. Mr. Nicolson —

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Restrictions on research and development

branch. Mr. Bennett — 132

Reassignment of research and development staff. Mr. Bennett — 132

Duplication of educational research funds. Mr. Gardom — 132

Harassment of research and development. Mr. Gardom — 132

Daon housing advertisement. Mr. Wallace — 133

Educational Research Institute funding. Mr. Schroeder — 133

China Creek Park development. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 134

Casa Loma Apartment purchase. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 134

Government policy on housing purchases. Mr. McGeer — 134

Deadline for school budgets. Mrs. Jordan — 135

Effect of school budgets on mill rates. Mrs. Jordan — 135

Priority of funds for reduction of pupil-teacher ratio. Mr. Fraser —

Throne speech debate. Mr. Wallace — 135

Hon. Mr. Hall — 139

Mrs. Webster — 145

Mr. Smith — 149

Statement Correction of facts. Hon. Mr. Lea — 155

Mr. Speaker — 155

Routine proceedings Throne speech debate Mr. Dent — 156

Mr. Schroeder — 161

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 1975

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. P.F. YOUNG (Minister of Consumer Services): Mr.

Speaker, today we have visiting us the law class from John

Oliver Secondary School, which is in the riding of

Vancouver–Little Mountain. They are accompanied by their

teachers, Mrs. Margaret Erickson and Miss Judy Dallas, and I

would ask the House to welcome them, please.

HON. G.V. LAUK (Minister of Economic Development): Mr.

Speaker, today we have from that great city-centre riding,

Vancouver Centre, representatives of the Strathcona Property

Owners Association. Would the House welcome them here

today?

HON. L. NICOLSON (Minister of Housing): Mr. Speaker,

visiting us today from Balfour and Nelson we have Mr. and Mrs.

Harvie and Mrs. McAdams, and I wish the House would bid them

welcome.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I would ask the

House to welcome a group of students from Mary Hill Junior

Secondary School in the beautiful city of Port Coquitlam.

Introduction of bills.

HIGHLAND WATER CONTROL ACT

On a motion by Mr. Liden, Bill 22, Highland Water Control

Act, introduced, 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.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I'd like

to rise on a point of order.

On February 20, in the Legislature, I rose to ask the

Speaker on another point of order if we could have the report

from the Premier regarding the railway boxcar situation in

British Columbia. I asked at that time that the report from the

Premier be given outside of question period, because I believe

this is the true order of business and I would like to oppose

strenuously any attempt by the Minister to give written reports

during the oral question period and take up the time of the

question period.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): You don't like the

answers, do you?

MR. PHILLIPS: We'll talk about the answers, Mr.

Attorney-General.

But, Mr. Speaker, we have an oral question period and its

specific purpose is to allow extemporaneous questions and

answers, right? The Minister has the right to take a question

as notice, but if he chooses that alternative then his reply

must come either in written form or by way of a Ministerial

statement.

MR. SPEAKER: Excuse me, do we have some authority on that so

I can look at it, please?

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, absolutely, certainly — May .

MR. SPEAKER: Well, that's what I'm asking for — your

citation.

MR. PHILLIPS: May , yes.

MR. SPEAKER: May or must?

MR. PHILLIPS: No, no. May , 18th edition, page 312,

order of business, prayers, et cetera, then questions, and then

business taken after questions. It says: "Ministerial

statements and statements by Mr. Speaker." I believe, Mr.

Speaker, that it is the practice in Ottawa that is followed

that Ministerial statements are given after the question

period, and I also believe, Mr. Speaker, that it is the

practice also in Ottawa to allow the Leader of the Opposition

to ask certain oral questions after the Minister has made his

statement.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I'll be glad to look into the point and

report back to the House.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, if you'd like to adjourn the

House for a half an hour while you survey the situation....

MR. SPEAKER: No, I don't think it's necessary because....

MR. PHILLIPS: ...we'd be quite happy to accept your

adjournment.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's a recess.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, while you're looking at it,

will you please advise the House that if it's not proper to

answer the questions in the question period, is it still proper

to ask the question in the question period?

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, Mr. Speaker, it's answering the

question, and if we can't answer it in

[ Page 130 ]

question period, then will they give us notice to do it on...? I'm sure you'll

straighten it out.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sure I will.

I noticed, Hon. Members, that in England they have a written

notice so that they have some warning what the question will be

at least a week in advance of its being asked in the House.

Then they make an oral reply, in England during question

period, and each question is numbered on that notice.

Here we have no notice, and where a Minister is asked a

question and doesn't wish to answer that until he has

investigated the matter, then he answers on a subsequent day.

As to which is the proper procedure, I will address myself

immediately and in due course will reply to the request of the

Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, we were given to

understand yesterday that the Minister of Housing would be

making a statement, a Ministerial statement, prior to today's

proceedings.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, of course, under our rules you can only

make statements prior to the orders of the day or prior to

question period, with unanimous leave of the House.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, surely unanimous leave of

the House would be granted to the Minister.

MR. SPEAKER: He has not asked for that.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: He has his mike up, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps

you might recognize him for that purpose.

MR. SPEAKER: First he has to ask me.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make a

statement.

Leave granted.

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Too late, too late!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, does this time come out of

the question period?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No, no!

HON. MR. BARRETT: And does that mean, Mr. Speaker, that you

ask questions all the way through the question period and then

we give answers outside the question period?

MR. PHILLIPS: You know better than that.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, Mr. Speaker, is there a written

question that the Minister is answering now?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: No. Sit down.

HON. MR. BARRETT: So we need to know the ruling, Mr.

Speaker, based on that Member's point of order, whether or not

this comes from the question period time or not.

MR. SPEAKER: All I can say is that if a Minister asks for

leave to make a statement, it is my duty, and I will always do

it, to ask the House whether he has leave.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

If he decides that he wants to make a Ministerial statement

and asks leave, that's his decision, not mine. I cannot

question his reason for doing so. Therefore, I've asked leave;

the leave has been given by the House. Now if he wishes to make

a statement, the floor is his.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Point of

order.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a

statement.

MR. SPEAKER: I think we're going to have to refer this to a

committee. (Laughter.)

MR. CURTIS: A point of order. Would you inform the House

whether question period has started counting as of this

moment?

MR. SPEAKER: No, I don't think so, because as the Clerk was

speaking the order of business, a point of order was raised. In

that case, I certainly would not consider this part of question

period. So the Ministerial statement is still in the wings

waiting.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Even Ministerial statements have to await

points of order.

[ Page 131 ]

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): Mr. Speaker,

you have agreed to make a ruling on the matter of answering questions.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Just a minute. The Member for Victoria

asked a question yesterday, it is my understanding, and that

the Minister is now determining, and you're going to determine

whether or not the answer to any question asked during question

period should be answered in or out of the question period. I

suggest that this....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: My job is to determine....

HON. MR. STRACHAN: You can't have it both ways.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, he said that he's making a

statement.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: You want it both ways all the time.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! I think my job is fairly simple.

I have to determine what is on page 312 of May . Now may we

proceed to a Ministerial statement?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, this is in answer to

questions that were directed at me during question period. One

of the three concerns expressed in the House about the purchase

of Casa Loma Apartments at 6077 Kingsway in Burnaby was as to

whether the government paid too much for the property. In this

connection, the $3,177,500 purchase price for the completed

125-unit building works out at $25,420 per apartment unit, as

opposed to Dunhill's estimated replacement costs, exclusive of

developer's profits of $29,650. I must stress that this is for

completed construction, this cost; and that could be the source

of some confusion where people think that we are paying $1

million in excess of what it was offered for, apparently, some

months ago. I don't know the details of that offer, I don't, in

fact, know whether that exists, but this is for a completed

project.

Mr. Speaker, it's evident that the government and the people of British Columbia

good value in obtaining senior citizens' apartments for this price. The price

we paid for the building works out at 26.23 cents per square foot, including

land and full underground parking. I would challenge anyone to build a new apartment

accommodation at this price in Burnaby today.

The second area of concern relates to whether or not Casa

Loma Motel Ltd. Is receiving a substantial profit on the

construction and sale of this property to the government. Based

on our examination of the Casa Loma Motel Ltd. financial

records, it seems unlikely that Casa Loma will make any profit

on the construction, although they will benefit from some

appreciation in the value of the land since they purchased the

property in 1972.

Another area of concern relates to Casa Loma Ltd.'s possible

liability for mechanics, liens that were placed against the

property after financial difficulties were encountered in 1974.

As this matter is now sub judice, I must limit my comments to

telling the House that it is my information that Casa Loma

Motel Ltd. had a fixed-price contract with Coast-side

Construction Co. Ltd., a general contractor, to complete the

project. After regular payments apparently ceased to be made by

the general contractor in 1974, a number of mechanics, liens

were placed on the property by subtrades and suppliers.

The subtrades as a group retained the services of a

Vancouver solicitor, Mr. Bruce MacDonald of Buell, Ellis &

Co., to represent their interests. On the basis of the

settlement recommended by the solicitor and accepted by the lien

claimants, Casa Loma Motel Ltd. agreed to pay $170,000 to have

the liens discharged.

Dunhill Development Corp., on behalf of the Department of

Housing, sent a letter to Casa Loma Motel Ltd. on December 24,

agreeing to enter into a contract to purchase the property. By

this date, all the mechanics' liens had been discharged.

Our agreement with Casa Loma is for completion of

construction on or before April 15, 1975. Up to now, Casa Loma

has been advanced approximately $570,000 by the Department of

Housing. In addition, Casa Loma will be paid approximately

$450,000 to complete the project. Fifteen per cent of the

progress payments will be held back until the building is

satisfactorily completed.

Mr. Speaker, I would remind Members of the House that if the

government had not stepped in to acquire this property, it

would likely still be sitting idle. By intervening, we are

putting tradesmen to work — and creating 125 badly needed senior

citizens' apartments. In this connection you should note that

the British Columbia Housing Management Commission has been

flooded with hundreds of telephone calls from senior citizens

throughout the Vancouver area seeking accommodation in this

project.

MR. SPEAKER: Now may we proceed with question period?

Interjections.

[ Page 132 ]

MR. SPEAKER: I don't think we can start a debate.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: It's not a prerogative. The House gave leave

for a Minister to make a statement. It was unanimous leave.

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): I ask for

leave.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Leader of the Opposition asks for

leave to make a statement in response. Shall leave be

granted?

Leave not granted.

MR. SPEAKER: Question period.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: A number of Members said "no," and I

can't proceed without the consent of the House.

MR. PHILLIPS: Closure, closure!

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! May we go on with question

period?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

HON. MR. BARRETT: We might go back to Social Credit

rules.

Interjections.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to

the Minister of Education....

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Clerk first call out question

period so that we know it's started? (Laughter.)

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hurray!

Oral questions.

RESTRICTIONS ON RESEARCH

AND DEVELOPMENT BRANCH

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct my question to the Minister

of Education regarding the research and development division of the Department

of Education. Since the firing of Dr. Knight, have there been any restrictions

placed on the remaining employees as to speaking engagements or public comment

about his division?

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): It would take me a

considerable length of time to discuss....

MR. BENNETT: Just yes or no.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MRS. DAILLY : ...research and development. It can't

be answered "yes" or "no." When I am speaking in the budget

debate you will find an answer to that question.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Have you quit beating

your wife? Yes or no? (Laughter.)

REASSIGNMENT OF

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT STAFF

MR. BENNETT: Will the Minister advise the House if any

member of the research and development division of the

Department of Education has been reassigned to other areas

since Dr. Knight's firing? If so, what qualifications are

specified for the replacement personnel?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: All that information will be given to you

when I speak in the budget.

DUPLICATION OF

EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH FUNDS

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): To the same

Minister: it was the statement of Dr. Knight to the effect that

there's a duplication of $150,000 of educational research. Is

that correct or incorrect?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: That statement is absolutely

incorrect.

HARASSMENT OF

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

MR. GARDOM: It is the statement of Dr. Knight to the effect

that the Deputy Minister, Mr. Jack Fleming, has harassed the

division staff and created a cloak-and-dagger atmosphere in the

department. Is that statement correct or incorrect?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: That is also incorrect. But I will

certainly be prepared to elaborate to you and to any others who

wish to ask further questions on

[ Page 133 ]

research and development when I discuss it during the budget

debate.

DAON HOUSING ADVERTISEMENT

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the

Minister of Consumer Services whether she's aware of this large

advertisement by Daon Developments offering the potential

owners of townhouses at Quilchena Park in Richmond $50 a month

for five years, or $200 a month until February, 1976, under the

title of "Daon Inflation Fighters Programme." I'd like to ask

the Minister: since this gimmick in fact inevitably increases

but does not decrease the cost of the house, would she consider

prosecuting the company for false advertising.

HON. MS. YOUNG: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately the Trade

Practices Act specifically exempts real estate, securities and

insurance. Therefore there's some doubt in my mind whether we

would be in a position to deal with this matter, but I can

certainly check and find out and advise the Member.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, a quick supplementary. Could the

Minister tell us, in fact, whether there has been any

investigation up to this point on the fact that, really, the

facts contradict the advertisement? Has it been brought to your

attention whether or not you have the legal authority at this

point in time to deal with it? It seems very obvious that

they're claiming to make houses cheaper when we all know this

gimmick must inevitably make them more expensive.

HON. MS. YOUNG: No, Mr. Speaker, this matter has not been

brought to my attention before now. I appreciate the Hon.

Member's bringing it to my attention.

EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH

INSTITUTE FUNDING

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): To the Minister of

Education: Does the Educational Research Institute of British

Columbia receive any public funds through your department?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Yes, they do.

MR. SCHROEDER: When were these grants first begun?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Those grants were first begun when we came into office

and found that the ERIBC, which you're referring to, was foundering because

of lack of financing from the former government. We picked up what we considered

was a very important, independent research capability, and I'm very pleased

to say that we have funded them since we came into office because the school

trustees were unable to, and the former government did not wish to.

MR. SCHROEDER: Supplementary. Does the Minister endorse the

Sunderland experiment, which was carried out by the ERIBC and

which was reported in their official periodical called

" Edge " — an experiment which would more appropriately be

called an experiment in nudity?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I'm not aware of the experiment, and I

think you must appreciate the fact that the terms of reference

are for an independent research institute. I'm not aware at all

of those specific funded projects.

MR. SCHROEDER: But you do endorse the programme?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I am not aware of the programme. Perhaps

you'd like to tell me about it.

MR. SCHROEDER: I'd be happy to answer that question.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I'm afraid that the question cannot be

directed to you in that fashion, because you're not responsible

for the department of nudity.

MR. SCHROEDER: On the same subject, Mr. Speaker....

MR. SPEAKER: I had recognized the Hon. Second Member for

Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, I will defer to the Hon. Member if

he's going to demonstrate what he is talking about.

(Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: Take it off!

MR. SPEAKER: Well, certainly. Would the Hon. Member wish to

expose further facts?

AN HON. MEMBER: Take it all off!

MR. SCHROEDER: Is the Minister not aware of the experiment

as reported in Edge , an experiment which includes

everything — touching, feeling, twinking, et cetera — and that

approximately $175,000 worth of public funds go into the

support of this particular research institute? Is she not

aware?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I have not had an

[ Page 134 ]

opportunity to read that copy of Edge . Secondly, I

want to make the point that $175,000 certainly would not have

gone for one small project.

CHINA CREEK PARK DEVELOPMENT

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Housing:

may I ask him whether he could confirm that when the government

purchased a property at 1040 East 7th Avenue, which is now used

for low-income housing, it was involved in a settlement in

which the subtrades holding the liens on the buildings in the

amount of approximately $78,000 had to accept settlement of

their outstanding debts at a total of something like three

cents on the dollar?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, if the Member is referring

to a housing development near China Creek Park, I would be

willing to check his figures and to supply further comment on

them in the next question period.

CASA LOMA APARTMENT PURCHASE

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, when he's checking those

figures I wonder if he would also check why in his statement he

referred to a letter of December 24 between Casa Loma

principals and his department and failed to mention the

reference made in today's paper by Mr. Paulus of Dunhill

indicating that he was approached by the Casa Loma lawyer, Amir

Virani, and why he did not give us the date of the approach by

the lawyer, Virani, to the Dunhill corporation.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, I think the very first

approach that we ever had was July, 1974.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Oh, big difference!

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Well, I said that, I believe, yesterday.

I haven't tried.... But we were not interested in anything as

it stood at that time.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The critical question is whether or not the principals

in this deal had knowledge of the government's intention to buy at the time

they settled those liens. I wonder whether or not the Minister, in his further

question to the House, would indicate why he omitted from his statement an elaboration

of this rather cryptic remark on page 8 of The Province of today's date in which,

"Paulus said the government became interested in the project after Dunhill was

approached by Casa Loma lawyer, Amir Virani." The December 24th letter which

he brought forward to us in his statement may have little relevance to the preceding

negotiations that took place.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, we were not interested in

dealing with them until liens had been settled. Liens were

settled.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Did they know that?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Pardon?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Did they know that?

Interjections.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): When did the

Minister of Housing or the government or Dunhill Development

first indicate to the developer that they would be interested

once the liens were settled? When was that first done?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think that these

Members are trying to establish something that might be sub

judice, and I...

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

Interjections.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: ...questions to deal with them as

honestly as possible.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, there still hasn't been any answer

to that, and it is clearly not sub judice. This is a question

about the government's action. When did it first indicate this

intention to the developers? It's a very simple question and a

very important one, Mr. Speaker. I hope the Minister will

answer it.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: I'll check it.

GOVERNMENT POLICY

ON HOUSING PURCHASES

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): I will ask the

Minister, in view of the latest revelations of the Liberal

leader (Mr. D.A. Anderson), whether it is indeed policy....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. McGEER: Would you ask him...to pay attention,

please?

MR. SPEAKER: Order! Would the Hon. Member

[ Page 135 ]

try to press on?

MR. McGEER: If he listens, he'll be able to follow the

debate.

In view of the second circumstance raised by the Liberal

leader, is it the policy of the Housing department to indicate

to people approaching the government that once they are able to

settle with subcontractors at a fraction of the money that is

owing to them, the government will then undertake a purchase?

That seems to be what is happening.

MR. SPEAKER: Sort of rhetorical, isn't that?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, this government is prepared

to build housing for senior citizens and for families, and that

is what we are prepared to do. You people there wouldn't have

to worry about it because you wouldn't build anything.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): If the Liberals would

attend to business....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

DEADLINE FOR SCHOOL BUDGETS

MRS. JORDAN: My question is to the Minister of Education. In

view of the fact that the deadline for school budgets to be in

throughout the province was February 15, would the Minister

advise the House how many of these proposed budgets in fact are

in?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Well, according to statute they all have

to be in, and they are all in. It's according to law. They must

be in.

MRS. JORDAN: Every budget from every school district in

British Columbia is in.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Well, as far as I know. If they are not,

they haven't met their statutory obligations.

MRS. JORDAN: But the Minister is not quite sure whether they

are all in.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: As far as I know — but I certainly can get

that information for you.

EFFECT OF SCHOOL

BUDGETS ON MILL RATES

MRS. JORDAN: Is the Minister aware from perusing these

budgets what the effect of the increased cost of education in

British Columbia this year is going to be on the local mill

rates of the municipalities?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I think the Hon. Member has been in this

House long enough to be aware that I am unable to comment on

that until the Premier brings down his budget speech.

PRIORITY OF FUNDS FOR

REDUCTION OF PUPIL-TEACHER RATIO

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): A question to the Minister of

Education. Today I received a telegram from 200 concerned

teachers of School District 28 — their concern being the lack of

funds for the reduction of the pupil-teacher ratio. My question

to the Minister is: does the programme that the Member for

Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) mentioned have priority over funds

for the reduction of the pupil-teacher ratio?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, I consider that an absolutely

ridiculous question and not even a fair question.

I want to just refer back and make this point: the ERIBC

(Educational Research Institute of B.C.) is also endorsed by

the B.C. school boards of this province; it is something which

they also support.

Secondly, as far as the pupil-teacher ratio is concerned, I

again would suggest that you wait until the budget comes down.

There will be further meetings with the school districts of

this province re that situation.

Orders of the Day.

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

(continued debate)

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I assure you I'll

be brief, having made several comments last night....

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Didn't hear them — say it

again.

MR. WALLACE: One of the Members did not hear the note on

which we finished. It was in relation to miniature forms of

various commodities — perhaps you can consult Hansard

for the exact quote.

To refer briefly to some of the elements in the throne

speech, I feel it is regrettable that the throne speech makes

so little mention of the Indian people in our province, and of

the problems to which we are all somewhat guilty of paying lip

service without actually carrying any of the commitments into

action.

Now I do know that the throne speech mentions the Babine

Forest Products project at Burns Lake, but we believe that the

Indian people have a legitimate grievance over land ownership.

The Progressive

[ Page 136 ]

Conservative Party believes that existing disputes can best

be solved by the combined efforts of provincial and federal

governments in fair and frank discussion with the Indian

people.

In the field of social services, education and housing we do

believe that there are very serious deficiencies in these

services — that in health alone, statistics speak for

themselves in showing the increased morbidity and mortality

among the Indian people, certainly in relation to violent and

accidental death. In the estimates and the budget speech we

will be raising this issue in more detail.

We would like to commend the government for certain

components of the throne speech. We think it is an excellent

example we are about to set in relation to our use of surplus

food, and the mention of help to ravaged countries such as

Bangladesh. We will certainly support that with great

enthusiasm in this House when the legislation is

introduced.

We like the fact that finally an expropriation Act will be

introduced into this chamber. We have had two royal commissions

in the last 12 years or so, with very many positive

recommendations which we feel.... I served on the committee on

the second occasion which reviewed the Law Reform Commission

report. I think that at an age and in this era when governments

are increasingly interfering in the lives of individuals and

taking more authority unto themselves in dealings on land and

property acquisition, it is vital that we have an up-to-date

expropriation Act. We look forward very much to this bill.

Perhaps more so than any other bill, we look forward to the

provincial elections Act which the throne speech mentions will

emphasize financing and disclosure. This party has already

voluntarily introduced a ceiling on donations to political

parties of $200 per year from any source.

We will be introducing a bill from this side of the House

which will encompass the basic proposals which we think will

bring electoral reform up to date.

We believe, Mr. Speaker, that no corporation, no labour

union, no society, no federation, no ad hoc pressure group, nor

any other society should be allowed to engage financially,

whether directly or indirectly, in the electoral process in

this province.

We firmly believe that the right to make financial

contributions to political parties, to candidates or election

campaigns in British Columbia must be confined solely to those

individual citizens who are eligible to be registered on the

provincial voters list.

We will, in our bill, spell out a ceiling on party spending, both during and

between elections. We see no sense in large sums of money being spent for purely

political purposes between elections when there is some artificial ceiling placed

either on the candidate or on the party during a period of four or five weeks.

We believe in disclosure of donations over $100. We believe that this government

should follow the federal example and provide a tax credit to the donor against

provincial income tax. We also believe that the federal initiative of providing

a per capita grant from revenues to each candidate is something which would

be well worth following provincially, provided there is the ceiling I mentioned

and provided the ceiling is applied not only during elections but also between

elections.

I think it should be clear to all citizens, particularly

from recent events south of the border, that the whole

electoral system can only benefit and regain public confidence

by having financing out in the open with some ceiling on

spending and disclosure of the sums donated.

We also would say that we approve of the system of some

alternative form of balloting, or at the very least we think

that the subject should be looked at by some form of neutral

inquiry.

I would also just note in passing that we would appreciate

the Premier, through you, Mr. Speaker, giving some commitment

on the question of redistribution. The Premier has stated in

this House, on one occasion at least, that a commission would

be appointed before the end of 1974.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Yes, before the end of the year, Mr. Premier, I

asked you that question in question period, and I am sure that

this was the answer. I'm not being picayune. Whether it's the

end of 1974 or the end of June, 1975, we're not quibbling

about, but it is a fact that the question is very much alive in

the minds of many people. For the sake of some stability in all

parties in the province it would help enormously if there were

some definitive commitment as to when redistribution will be

done and by what mechanism. If it is to be done by a

commission, the sooner the commissioners are appointed, I

think, the easier it would be for all four political parties in

this province to manage their legitimate business.

I would rather not have taken the time of this House to

bring up again the question of the Hydro committee, but, in my

opinion, this Conservative Party has to make a statement as to

where it stands and what it believes on the evidence presented

so far.

I think, unfortunately, there has been a great play on

semantics — what one means by the word "secret" or what one

means by the word "confidential" and so on. I would like at the

outset to say that I think these semantics are irrelevant to

the central issue. The central issue, which is clearly

documented, is that a committee has been admitted to have

existed. The explicit purpose of that committee was to consider

reallocation of costs of the Columbia River project at a time

when costs were clearly exceeding the

[ Page 137 ]

originally estimated cost.

So that there can be no future problems in the ongoing

debate I would like to quote from the memo dated September 20,

1967, from Mr. McMordie to Messrs. Chambers, Gross and

Milligan, entitled "Columbia River Project's Cost Reallocation

Studies." It reads:

"I wish to confirm that a meeting of the committee appointed

by Dr. Keenleyside to study possible reallocation of Columbia

project costs is to be held in my office on Monday, September

25, at 2 p.m. The assignment to this committee is described as

follows:

"1. Mica and Arrow costs that could be attributed in whole

or in part to other projects;

"2. Arrow costs that could be isolated and recommended to

the government as area or regional development expenditures by

the government itself."

I know I'm telling many Members nothing new in this House

because they have been party to this information in the last

several days. What I wish is that it be in the record of this

House, in Hansard , and I make no bones about that.

Later on we have further documentation, some of which I

would wish to quote, to establish beyond all doubt that a

committee existed. I don't care whether you call it secret,

confidential, sideways, up ways or any other way. A committee

was set up and this is what the committee was trying to do. We

can debate till Doomsday whether it was right, wrong, or what.

But let's not obscure the fact that this committee existed, and

we have documentation as to what this committee was

discussing.

One of the other documents under the same title reads as

follows:

"This paper discusses the pros and cons of allocating some

of the capital costs of the Duncan, Arrow and Mica storage

projects to other projects. Because the storage provided by

these projects determines the output of at least all of the

generating plants on the Columbia River main stem, there is a

prima facie case for allocating some of the storage costs to

those generating plants."

I continue with the next sentence, which is very

interesting, I think:

"This argument could be widened to say that the storage

costs should be allocated to the generating plants on the

Columbia and Kootenay rivers or even to all the generating

plants in the whole B.C. Hydro system."

They go on to say:

"It should be appreciated that if an allocation is made:

"

a) the basis of allocation would be arbitrary;

"

b) it would involve an allocation of the downstream power

benefits attributable to the storage projects as well as an allocation to our

generation plant outputs."

This is interesting also. Let's get the facts straight on

this, Mr. Speaker.

"

c) it would not save B.C. Hydro any money overall and would

not affect B.C. Hydro's overall cost truly chargeable to generation.

"

d) it would enable us to argue that the capital cost of,

say, the Mica storage project is less than the actual storage cost by virtue

of allocation of some of the costs to other plants.

"

e) it would enable us to argue...."

I don't know who they are trying to argue with anyway, but:

"It would enable us to argue that the system cost of

generation is lower than true cost by virtue of allocation of

storage plant costs to future plants."

They go on to quote.... I think it's taking some time, but

I think it's important that this be documented in this House,

as an example only. It quotes:

"If we were to assume that the U.S. payments were deficient

by, say, $180 million to meet the capital costs and, say, $12

million to meet the annual costs of Duncan, Arrow and Mica,

then this deficiency would be chargeable in some proportion

against each project. We have already announced, however, that

we will have spent over $500 million on these projects by March

31, 1972, and the general public could not reconcile this

figure with a figure of $180 million."

Now, Mr. Speaker, I think it's very, important that before

anybody goes on a witch hunt, or before any varying

interpretations are made on this whole matter of this Hydro

committee, I want to make it very plain from our party in this

House that we believe that a committee existed for the specific

purpose which is clearly spelled out in the particular memos

that I have quoted from.

The fact is very simple: that some measure of deception or

misrepresentation of financial facts was being discussed.

Indeed, the sole purpose of the committee was to consider the

feasibility of rearranging certain financial facts or, as the

minutes state in a euphemistic way, "reallocation of

costs."

The matter went further. I have a brief quote from the minutes of the meeting

of October 6, 1967:

"The committee discussed whether consideration should be

given to allocation of only the deficit or of the total cost of

the Columbia projects. The committee agreed that only the

deficit should be considered."

Mr. Speaker, when this matter was first raised publicly I

made a reaction publicly. While I still believe that there is

great reason for people to wonder

[ Page 138 ]

as to many of the unanswered questions, I do regret that I

used the word "Watergate" in my public response to the

information I had at that time. I retract the particular nature

of the meaning of the word "Watergate," which was a

criminal act, and many criminal acts. For the fact that I

implied the same degree of wrongdoing on this committee, I

publicly apologize to this House and I apologize to Dr.

Keenleyside.

Beyond that, however, the facts exist — and I have

documented them in the House this afternoon — that there are

more unanswered questions than there are answered

questions.

Because all the documents that have, to this date, been

presented deal only specifically with the committee. I would

like to know at least the answer to at least three

questions.

First of all, was the...?

MR. SPEAKER: Excuse me. Would the Hon. Second Member for

Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) please be seated? He is between

the speaker and the Chair.

MR. WALLACE: I would like to know what happened to the

recommendations when they left this committee. I would like to

know specifically if Dr. Keenleyside took these recommendations

to the government, and if he didn't take them to the

government, who did?

The third question I want answered is: what did the

government do when presented with this whole subject which was

the basic agenda of this committee? It has been stated by Dr.

Keenleyside that he had the greatest difficulty selling the

idea to the government. But with respect, I have to say that he

did not specifically make it clear whether, in fact, all or

part of the proposals were sold to the government.

Mr. Speaker, in the light of all these unanswered questions,

I do believe that we in this House and the people of British

Columbia are entitled to have the answers. I would strongly

support the proposal already made by other Members in this

House that we have a judicial inquiry which should have access

to all the documents already available, plus all the others

considered necessary.

I regret that we have taken up this much time in my speech

on that subject, but I do believe that it's important enough

that we can't leave all the unanswered questions hanging in mid

air.

I just want to touch very briefly on some of the points on which confusion

reigns in the minds of voters in this province, who are often asking what is

really the difference between the political parties in British Columbia. I think

it might be timely, very briefly, to spell out where the Conservatives stand

in 1975 to allow the voters to judge our goals and our principles.

Conservatives traditionally have emphasized the concept of

order — I don't just mean law and order; I mean order in

society — and we would like to expand it to give it a

contemporary meaning. The contemp orary meaning of order must

include some concept of security for people less fortunate than

the majority. Although, in days gone by, I will accept that

perhaps some of our efforts and programmes have been less than

adequate in that regard, the Progressive Conservative Party in

British Columbia stands firm and resolute to provide the

maximum degree of security for the disadvantaged, the poor, the

sick, and any handicapped individual unable to provide for his

or her own needs.

One of the basic subjects on which we argue with the other

side of the House resolves around the word "enterprise."

Conservatives emphasize the importance of enterprise in order

to achieve any of our economic and social goals. Mr. Speaker,

once and for all I hope I can get this point across:

Conservative in our modern society, and certainly in British

Columbia, feels that there must be much more to life than

simply increasing the size of the gross national product. We

recognize the importance of a healthy economy, but increasing

the size of the gross national product is not in itself a

sufficient goal in our modern society in the '70s. We

Conservatives are indeed concerned about the effects of

economic growth — what this does to the environment, the kind of

living conditions it creates, and its effect on the countryside

and our cities.

Again, I try to make the point very clear that the

Progressive Conservative Party in British Columbia does not

enshrine private enterprise as the most fundamental principle

of the party: nor do we condemn all government interference.

The Conservative approach is for government to interfere only

where necessary to achieve social and national objectives. We

certainly believe in incentives rather than the big stick. It

has always been, and remains, important to Conservatives to

encourage individual self-reliance. Certainly government red

tape and regulation, in our opinion, have gone too far.

Self-reliance and enterprise must always be encouraged, but

I am sure the government opposite will be pleased to hear me

make the commitment, and I will stand behind it, that our party

does not place private enterprise in a central position around

which everything else revolves. We recognize the responsibility

of government to restrain or influence individual action where

this is not in the interests of society, and whether a

government should or should not intervene, of course, is always

a question of judgment. The Conservative thinking in this

province today recognizes the role of government as the

regulator of individual conduct in the interests of

society.

[ Page 139 ]

These are some of the basic points, Mr. Speaker, which I

think it timely to spell out for this House, and I would just

close by saying (and we'll have more to say of this in the

budget speech) that this province wants neither the economic

and social imprisonment by a radical left, nor the wholesale,

wide open economic licence or the repressive social neglect of

the reactionary right.

There is a progressive majority of people in this province

who will no longer wish to be governed by extremes. Our

political party regards the individual people of this province

as being the root and soul and the cause for us to be here in

this House, and I am not referring, Mr. Speaker, to all the

flim-flam of politics which we are compelled to indulge in, the

writing of the slogans, or the selective spouting off on issues

which merely give us political yards on a short-run basis.

These are the kinds of manipulative activities of politics that

the electorate, rightly, does not trust.

We feel that the NDP manifesto and reactions in combination

with some of the outbursts of its members are destructive to

good, sound business, and, being destructive to the business

interests, they are destructive to the real welfare of every

citizen in the province. The other extreme is the Socreds, who

are fervently committed to a policy which is good for business.

The question is, Mr. Speaker: how good, and for whose

business?

The nature of the human appeal that a political party makes

expresses its opinion of the individual citizen electorate

whose support it is attempting to attract, and the fundamental

issue in every election is not just whether the public has

confidence in the individual. There are too many appeals to

uncertainty, deprivation, the fear of loss, and to a shaking of

self-confidence, let alone to greed. These are appeals, Mr.

Speaker, to the dark side of human nature from which

individuals and societies have consistently struggled to

escape.

An appeal to the negative emotions of human nature is the

worse disservice that any political party can make because it

diminishes a people's sense of values, its positive spirit and

its concept of self-worth.

This is a positive province, Mr. Speaker, a province of

economic and social and human possibilities, uniquely blessed.

It is a province whose inner, deeper instincts, when encouraged

to be expressed, are basically decent, creative and good.

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): I've listened to a few

throne speech debates since I first came here in 1967, and I'm

reminded that we tend, I suppose in this House, perhaps above

all other Houses, to feed on each other and use the speeches of

yesteryear to justify the actions or omissions of today.

I could read a speech today from any one of the people who used to sit around

here which would demolish the arguments of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr.

Bennett), using the same criteria his father did, the same indices his father

used to talk about from this seat over here.

I listened to the speakers, or many of them, from the

opposite side who have painted a picture of despair in this

province. Yet, you know, they all applauded when the government

of the day, which most of them belonged to, used to talk about

job production, cheques cashed at the bank in a year, balanced

budgets and all that kind of thing.

I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that by those simple

criteria this government over the last two years has done a

better job than ever the preceding government did. Certainly,

as I look around and I see the job production, the improvement

in labour peace and labour standards over the last two years,

the better organization and control and production of our

forests, the new legislation — I really feel somewhat

depressed in a way that the business of exchanging newspaper

clippings over the years, if not the decades, is still carried

on by the Leader of the Opposition and some of the Liberal

Members.

We made some promises over the last two years, and we've

kept most of those promises upon which we've started work. ICBC — not mentioned much up to now in this session, not mentioned

much. The fact of the matter is that the financial statements

will be tabled with you shortly; we're still on-target; we're

still only spending from 18 to 20 cents of the premium on

administration — a better figure than anywhere else in North

America. It was a promise we made, I remember the numerous speeches made, into the small hours

of the morning sometimes, by the Minister of Public Works about

what could be achieved in that particular area of saving money

for the consumers and the motorists of this province.

Participation: we made many promises about participation.

Surely nobody will deny that this last two years has afforded

the public of this province a greater chance, a greater

opportunity, a greater guarantee to become active, to

participate in the business of running this province and

putting B.C. back on the map where it should have been for

many, many years.

Mr. Speaker, we talk about democracy. Never, ever, in the

history of the parliaments of this country have so many changes

been made in the democratic process to the ultimate benefit of

the populace than you've seen in the last two years in this

place. So when I hear some of the despair, I really think that

it's somewhat hollow and it's just another one of those mirror

images of exchanging one newspaper clipper for another — one

guy's file for another gal's file.

But you know, I want to speak for a moment or

[ Page 140 ]

two today about how I feel and sit here and appreciate and

realize what's going on, as the MLA for Surrey.

Surrey, for the years that I have represented it — 1967,

1968, 1969, 1970, 1971 and 1972 in opposition — was a riding

that was growing very quickly and continues to grow. It was a

riding that I charted on the various debates in this House as

being a riding with a great many problems.

If we examine our institutions, if we examine our problem

areas, we find that as a school district or as a municipality

Surrey was frequently on the top of the per capita list in

terms of producing those problems.

Six years I charted in this House government neglect of that

growing riding. Whether it was the non-expenditure of funds on

flood control and the charade of putting $5 million in the

budget year after year for controlling the flooding areas in

the southern part of my riding and never spending a penny;

whether it was the highway neglect; whether it was the

interminable arguments about who pays for level-crossing

signalization on the Crown corporation railroads; whether it

was the incredible neglect on our caseload figures in social

welfare where we unfortunately suffered the highest per capita

ratings than anywhere else in the province — I've charted those

figures, but the last two years have seen a lot of change —

whether you are talking about recreational facilities; whether

you are talking about help in sewage treatment; whether you are

talking about the signalization of level crossings — and it is

going ahead, Mr. Member, although you obviously don't know

about it....

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): They don't even know how much

they are going to have to pay for it.

HON. MR. HALL: We're going ahead with it and we are saving

lives, Mr. Member; that's what we're doing. We believe in

getting the job done and arguing later. That's what we're

doing. We've got the best formula in this country for paying

for those costs, and it will be better.

Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you about the recreational

facilities alone in Surrey. Hundreds of thousands of dollars

have been spent in the last two years to bring that riding up

to par in terms of its recreational facilities.

As far as cultural activity is concerned, only just recently

many arts councils and community groups in Surrey received

assistance from this government at a level that was never

received before.

I remember getting letters from the municipal council and

reading them in this chamber about the lack of help for that

burgeoning municipality.

MR. McCLELLAND: You don't read them now.

HON. MR. HALL: We don't need to because, as a matter of

fact, we are doing the job, Mr. Member — and I don't hear you

reading them either.

Just the other day $900,000 was granted to Surrey for the

sewage facilities assistance Act. Railroad crossing signals:

$88,000 has been spent signalizing the three main dangerous

crossings in the riding.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Ernie, is this an

election speech?

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Member, you must make up your own mind

about these debates as to whether you start knocking on doors

or not. (Laughter.)

Interjections.

HON. MR. HALL: We're working diligently in the ridings, Mr.

Member. I've told some of my friends in Point Grey that now is

as good a chance as any to stop the spread of Liberalism and

waterfront privilege over there.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): There are danger

signals in Point Grey.

HON. MR. HALL: Whether we are talking about farm assistance

programmes, whether we are talking about the construction of

rest areas, for the first time since I've been a Member of this

House, Surrey is getting its fair share.

I want to say this too: while all isn't being done that I

would like to see done, I think that the records of my

colleagues in Human Resources, in Labour, in Forests and

Agriculture speak well. I certainly know, having had a

full-time office there since 1966, what happens in Surrey and

what the complaints are. I can assure you that anybody who

feels at all moved to think there is some substance in that

despair, in that litany of problems that came from the other

side, take my assurances on it: things are looking well south

of the river there.

But I want to turn, if I may, to one of the portfolios I

have and expand a little bit on some mention in the throne

speech of a few items that are my direct concern.

I want first of all to talk about this year and the mention

in the throne speech of it being International Women's Year.

Our government is committed to the role of real equality in

every aspect of life for all citizens of British Columbia.

However, we do recognize that there are particular and serious

problems faced by women. Accordingly, we have a long-range

commitment for assisting women in British Columbia to overcome

the various forms if discrimination they face.

We as a government therefore view International Women's Year

not as an isolated acknowledgement of

[ Page

141 ]

the problems but as an opportunity to begin to focus on this

important area of government responsibility. We have had a

number of programmes in existence for a little while; we have

more planned which will make some substantial progress this

year. It is a fact that the status of women in our province, as

in many other areas of life and in many other areas of the

country, has been neglected. We are beginning to attack the

vast number of difficult problems in a careful, rational and

planned manner, and it is one of our priorities.

One of the first things we have done, Mr. Speaker, as you

know, is to appoint Ms. Gene Errington as the co-coordinator

for International Women's Year. Ms. Errington's first

responsibility is to co-ordinate the programmes contributing to

improvements in the status of women in British Columbia which

are already underway and, more importantly, to work with

departments to develop additional programmes to meet the needs

that women themselves have identified throughout the province

and have expressed to this government in meetings and in

consultations.

One of these commitments is the need for full implementation

of equal employment opportunities within the Public Service

Commission to ensure that government jobs will be available

equally to all members of society.

In the area of possible legislative changes: the Department

of Labour is reviewing its labour standards legislation; the

Attorney-General's department is reviewing all the statutes to

search out discriminatory clauses; the cabinet will be

considering the recommendation of the royal commission on

family and children's law, especially those recommendations

concerning matrimonial property, maintenance and the family

court.

We're working, Mr. Speaker, to give incentives to the

creation of community programmes which will provide an

effective long-term improvement in the status of women. The

second responsibility of the co-coordinator, Gene Errington, is

to work closely with the appropriate community groups

throughout the province to obtain for the government a clear

understanding of the areas of public concern with respect to

the needs of women, to assist the community groups in the

development of their own programmes and to assist in the

co-ordination of community and government programmes. While

carrying out that responsibility, the staff will, through other

members of my staff, communicate to the cabinet the concerns

and proposals that I mention.

The budget, Mr. Speaker, that we have for the remainder of the year, and hopefully

will have from Friday next, will allow for the provision of financial assistance

to community groups that carry out worthwhile projects. Emphasis will be on

communities outside the lower mainland where facilities,

services and information are not so readily available.

Mr. Speaker, I think that the programme is good, is well

based. Our government is committed to attaining that

real-equality goal in every aspect of life. Our Human Rights

Code is the strongest in Canada in prohibiting discrimination.

We recognize that women face some serious and specific

problems; we're making commitments to take that positive action

to overcome the various past forms of discrimination. We view

this year as an opportunity to begin to focus on the area of

responsibility of this government.

Mr. Speaker, we don't see it as a magic formula for the

solution of all the problems, and we don't suggest that our

various programmes that will take place this year will

represent the sum total of all our efforts to improve the

status of women. But we do expect to make substantial progress

in the area, so we can achieve a state of affairs to which all

British Columbians can be proud.

Another appointment recently, Mr. Speaker, made in my

department deals with the area of cultural development. I've

not had an opportunity during the past two years to acquaint

the House with some of the changes, some of the moves that

we're making in this government and in my department as far as

this important topic is concerned. I want to bring the House up

to date, if I may, by telling them that about a year and a half

ago, recognizing a backlog of frustration, recognizing some

problems that existed in the cultural community and recognizing

a very real upsurge in the interest and enthusiasm of the

artistic community in B.C., we did, through the old Cultural

Fund, sponsor a two-day conference in Burnaby. That conference

was named "Arts Access." The purpose of "Arts Access" was to

bring together representatives of the province's artistic

community and listen to their aspirations, their hopes, their

criticisms, their problems and their proposals for changes in

this very important field. We asked for written submissions

from concerned organizations and individuals, and scores of

briefs were received.

Four major areas of concern were identified just 18 months

ago. One was funding of a new arts policy for the province and

changes in the methods of distribution of grants. Another area

of concern was the status and social conditions of individual

artists. A third area was the real concern about arts

education. The fourth was: what is the responsibility of the

government, and what is the responsibility of the artist to the

cultural environment?

Over 1,000 people came to that conference, from all areas of

the province — the Peace River, the Okanagan, the northern end

of the Island, all over. The free exchange of ideas was

evident.

The conference resulted in six basic recommendations:

[ Page 142 ]

that art education in the province be expanded, and that arts be taught

by qualified arts educators;

that a provincial arts committee be appointed, employing a staff;

that increased funding be made available to community arts organizations,

to cultural non-profit organizations and to individual artists;

that a means for a continuing dialogue between that community and the government

be established;

that a strong regional and national public relations programme be carried

out;

that an arts registry be established for the province and be kept up to

date in a real, current fashion.

We then started to examine those proposals with a view to

implementing, where possible, the various resolutions. I should

point out that apart from the six basic resolutions there were

another 100 detailed proposals. The Cultural Fund provided

continuing assistance to the conference people in order to help

maintain its operations.

Following that discussion I released, in April, 1974, a

paper entitled "Access to the Arts." That paper was distributed

widely throughout the province to stimulate discussion and to

get people involved. The guidelines were set out to provide

access, to involve artists, to eliminate disparities

regionally, to create employment opportunities, to support the

arts in education, to disseminate information, to distribute

grants and to supply sufficient funding to implement the

policy.

The most far-reaching proposal that we adopted was that of

establishing a regional arts panel which would have the

responsibility of providing the services. We then hired

somebody to go out and get even more feedback, more concern,

more involvement in the community. Then we produced another

position paper which, in effect, brought together all the

various ideas that flowed from the activities of the previous

year.

As a result of those travels and those discussions, we

decided, as a government, to go ahead with our basis scheme.

Mr. Speaker, in response to all those recommendations, we have

appointed the various people and we have appointed an interim

arts panel. We have just recently appointed Mr. Fielding as the

director involved in the arts board. That board has met a

number of times. It has reviewed over 180 applications. It has

arranged a number of meetings representing the publishing

industry with groups seeking assistance for projects in film,

TV, radio and areas which have not been funded or considered

heretofore.

I am proud of what we have done in the cultural field. I have had the opportunity

over the last two years to meet with other Ministers from other jurisdictions.

They have watched what we are doing with a great deal of interest. Some of them

fund at a higher level than we do — for instance, Ontario. Some of them have

rigid formulas. Mr. Speaker, none of them have the two-way guaranteed access

and input that we have put down firmly in a policy form.

Mr. Speaker, the Cultural Fund's endowment was increased

from $15 million to $20 million by the budget of last year,

increasing the interest generated by the fund by $350,000.

Currently the fund generates over $1.5 million interest.

We are also committed to provide a share of our lottery

receipts to cultural programmes, and the amounts will be

provided from that fund.

Mr. Speaker, I want to report with a great deal of

satisfaction that significant changes in our policy have taken

place in the last two and one-half years. I believe our

accomplishments in this regard have shown that we are moving

steadily towards a more comprehensive and people-oriented

policy and that the years ahead will truly bear out our promise

of providing access to the arts.

I mentioned in terms of funding, Mr. Speaker, that item of

the lottery. Many Members will know that we passed, I think

almost unanimously — maybe with a couple of dissenters —

legislation a year ago. Our first lottery has been held. We

have received a net profit in that first draw of $650,000 in

B.C. The money will be put in a special fund and will be used

to assist recreation and culture in the province.

I should report to you, although a formal report will be

tabled in the House, that ticket sales on that first lottery

amounted to over $1.5 million. More important than, or equally

important as, the $650,000 that accrued to the government was

the fact that 450 non-profit agencies throughout the province

earned $340,000 for their own good works. Commission to ticket

sellers — and I understand just by talking to people and

receiving reports that a large number of ticket sellers also

turn over their commissions to the non-profit societies that

they are working for and are members of — amounted to a further

$315,000.

Mr. Speaker, I think that's been a success story. I am

committed, as you know, and the House has committed the

government, to specific uses of that money and I assure you

that will be done.

Mr. Speaker, there is also, I am sure, in most Members'

minds some concern as from time to time they read in the

newspapers about what is happening in terms of our weights

and measures in this province and in this country. We did a

year ago pass the enabling legislation to get into metrication.

I think it's time I just shared with you a few thoughts and a

few reports on what's happening with that particular project

because as the public become more and more aware, our Members

will become more and more inundated with requests for

information, opinions, and maybe some negative criticism.

[ Page 143 ]

MR. WALLACE: How much will it cost?

HON. MR. HALL: That's so beautifully answered in the

traditional way, Mr. Member, by saying that that at the moment

is a federal responsibility.

British Columbia is giving full support to the federal

government programme on metrication announced in the White

Paper of 1970 and the metric commission created by

order-in-council in 1971.

It's generally agreed by governments in the country, Mr.

Speaker, that adoption of a universally understood world-wide

measurement language is important. The federal metric

commission was established to do that job and to set into

operation the System International, the SI Metric System. Under

its terms of reference, benefits ought to be achieved at

minimal cost if conversion is to be to Canada's best

advantage.

The metric commission is to be responsible for furnishing

information and liaising with the province. It is also

responsible for advising on the need for legislation and so on

and so forth. The question we are most often asked is: why we

are converting? That is the question which I think is going to

be asked more and more. As MLAs are in touch with ridings, I'm

sure most of you will realize there is an increased awareness

of this.

We are converting to the metric system because of economic

necessity. Remember that some 95 per cent of the world's

population live in countries either converted to or in the

process of converting to metric. In the field of trade and

commerce, 80 per cent of the world trade is in the metric

system. Many Canadian companies are already exporting in metric

to Europe, South America, Asia and Africa. More than 50 per

cent of Canadian manufactured products are exported to metric

companies.

So there is an urgent need for us to convert, particularly

true in British Columbia. Located as we are, we must maintain

our position as one of the major trading provinces in Canada,

and expand our secondary industries. We must be able to supply

goods in the manner in which they are required.

In short, the consumer is always right when you're a trading

nation, and most of them have converted to or changing to

metric — the U.K., South Africa, India, Australia and so on.

Changing to the international system, as agreed to by the

general conference, will help meet those problems.

I think you should know the progress which has been achieved already. Mr. Speaker,

we're well ahead of timetable in investigating and planning the conversion.

The target dates have been approved. I want to say to you, Mr. Speaker, that

the planning and

schedule of conversion by departments, industries or interest

groups should be substantially completed during 1976. Implementation has already

been started in some departments and will build up to a peak in 1977-78.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, many of our expressions in this

House will have to be changed, I am sure, if we get totally

metric. I am sure that the support which was given to the

enabling legislation will be continued on all sides of the

House.

The national target dates are similar to those I've

mentioned: after April 1 we will be hearing weather

temperatures only in Celsius; in September, rainfall will be

reported in millimeters; snowfall, whenever it comes, will be

in centimeters. In April the residents of our province will

start reading road signs, placed in selected areas, to indicate

distances in kilometers. During the month of September, 1977,

speed signs and distance signs will be changed.

Progress has been made in introducing the system into

schools of our province.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Will there be financial

assistance?

HON. MR. HALL: Of course, this is being negotiated.

Financial assistance is being negotiated and will have to be

available.

[Mr. Liden in the chair.]

I think it would be wrong of me to finish this short report on metric without

mentioning our biggest trading partner, the States, because I think many of

you know that politicians both in this House and in the federal House have said

a lot will depend upon what the States does, and if the States doesn't go ahead

it will mean a great deal of difficulty for us.

In the United States, the large multinational companies such

as General Motors, Ford, Chrysler, IBM, 3M, International

Harvester and so on moving on their own without the benefit of

federal law. An American national council, financed by

membership subscription, is being formed. It is a mirror image

of our own commission. American representatives do attend the

meetings of our federal group, and the same close cooperation

that exists between those meetings also exists between the

Standards Council of Canada and the various American standards

associations.

Although the 93rd Congress of the United States did not pass

the metric conversion Act which was on their order for the day,

it is likely that the 94th Congress will do so. Irrespective of

legislative commitment to the metric conversion, the U.S.

government, as a matter of policy, is continuing to look at

conversion as a growing and desirable fact, and had recently

allocated $40 million, be amendment to the Education Act for

the promotion

[ Page 144 ]

of the System International Metric System in the school system. The Act authorized

$10 million to be spent last year for metric education.

The Department of the Provincial Secretary and the

conversion committee here recognize our responsibilities in

ensuring the metric conversion as an economical and orderly

process, with everybody kept up to date and prepared for the

changes. A responsible awareness programme will be required.

The consumer must be protected. All the departments mentioned

are serving and cooperating in this process.

Mr. Speaker, the process of conversion is that the countries

presently converted are being metered by our own people, and I

can assure you that we should have a very successful

programme.

Mr. Speaker, in the few minutes that are left to me, I want

to discuss in general form one subject that has been referred

to not directly in the House but in comments by some Members

outside the House, by some industrial people and by some

municipal people. I'm talking about what has happened in the

public service in terms of wages, working conditions and

others. The Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson)

had a question the other day.

I want to preface my remarks by saying that I intend to

adhere to the agreement I have with the unions involved not to

release the details of settlements until all negotiations are

complete. I want to give you the position of our government and

answer some of the criticisms that have been made in ignorance,

I thank — in mischief by other people — over these last four or

five months.

During the 10 years prior to 1973, wage rates in the civil

service, now called the public service, were not increased to

the same extent as wages determined by free collective

bargaining. That is a matter of fact. The result has been that

the public service employees, particularly the lower paid, have

fallen further and further behind their counterparts outside

the public service of the Province of British Columbia. They

have fallen behind by comparison with the public service in the

municipalities of British Columbia; they have fallen behind by

comparison with the federal government employees within the

Province of British Columbia.

In 1973, the Treasury Board and the Public Service

Commission went through a quasi-negotiating system and we

awarded — and I use that word in its bad, old, paternalistic

way — an amount of money because the legislation on free

collective bargaining was not law. It had not been passed.

Since then, the Government of British Columbia has now

concluded a series of negotiations but has not completed all

the negotiations required with a number of components of the

public service, as requested by the B.C. Government Employees

Union.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Why can't you

release those?

HON. MR. HALL: They're not all complete — the hospital and

allied services component, the correctional services component,

and so on.

Most features of these agreements vary according to the

particular problems, the services and the working people

involved, as was shown and laid down in both the Higgins report

and the legislation. But some elements are common and some are

of considerable public interest.

Upon assuming office in September, 1972, we discovered to

our dismay that many people providing essential public services

were paid little more than the minimum wage. For example, a

forest assistant received the princely sum of $430 a month. A

clerk or switchboard operator received $332 a month.

September, 1973 — $332 a month. A senior janitor with many

years service received $500.

In 1973 an attempt was made to alleviate that condition by

providing what is called in labour-management negotiations — in

the "language" of negotiations — bottom-end loading, so that

the lower-paid workers received higher percentage increases and

more of the available money.

Even though we did that to the best of our ability in a

difficult situation by this quasi-negotiation, still the

lower-paid employees were paid little more than the minimum

wage. Even in 1973, after a settlement that some people call

generous, some people call inflationary, some people call

destructive, some full-time employees of this government

qualify — actually qualify — for the drug subsidy

programme...

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): Shame!

HON. MR. HALL: ...an ill-conceived, badly-devised system

by the previous government to provide assistance to those who

could not afford to buy medically required drugs.

We have people carrying out our own orders, Mr. Speaker, who

qualify for that kind of programme. They were...

MR. LEWIS: Progressive Social Credit government.

HON. MR. HALL: ...the hidden faces on the former

government's payroll, examples of what has come to be known as

the working poor. And to think that we were boasting about

billion-dollar budgets, wealthy provinces, no debt, contingent

liabilities or whatever it was. All those speeches — you

remember. And we had people who were classed by any independent

survey as the working poor carrying out our instructions.

All of us believe that the citizens of this province will

share the indignation over the fact that a wealthy

[ Page 145 ]

province subsidized its programmes by imposing low wages on

its employees. We're sure that the citizens of this province

will agree that it's morally indefensible for a wealthy

province to pay its public employees poverty wages. It's

impossible for the government to continue to provide essential

services without being able to recruit dedicated, capable

people at all levels of the service.

Interjection.

MR. P.C. ROLSTON (Dewdney): Were you Minister of Labour

then?

HON. MR. HALL: The government was experiencing critical staff shortages,

particularly in government hospitals. We believe it's essential that these services

be maintained and improved.

Those of us who had to wrestle with the problems of ICBC,

those of us who know something about Hydro, those of us who

know something about the commissions outside the narrow ambit

of government know that the public service of British Columbia

for years and years has simply been a training ground for

private and other public employers. Essential staff at all

levels have been lost.

I know the Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis),

in his concern about payment of accounts, will realize that

that was part of the problem. As soon as you trained an

operator to process the various pieces of information, he or

she was gone the first time ICBC, the City of Victoria or a

large company was looking for somebody to employ.

We therefore take as a basic principle the device of

bottom-end loading. We certainly urge all employers and trade

unions to do likewise in following this example of social

responsibility to those who are not in a strong bargaining

position.

I want to finish by quoting somebody...

Interjection.

HON. MR. HALL: The railroad got a catchup settlement in 1974

that people more qualified than I can refer to. I think you

know about that, Mr. ex-Minister of Labour (Mr. Chabot).

Mr. Speaker, the point that I'm making about society and

those who work for it was made very clearly by Pope John XXIII

in his 1961 encyclical letter on Christianity and social

progress, when he said:

"The norms of justice and equity should be strictly observed.

This requires that workers received a wage sufficient to lead a life worthy

of man and to fulfil family responsibilities properly."

That's been our keynote; that will continue to be the posture and the position

of the government, the public service commission and the Treasury Board.

When we're talking about those norms of justice and equity,

might I refer you to my earlier remarks by saying that, in my

view, after being an observer of this House for many years

before I was elected, I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, as we

stand facing the third budget day in a few days and the end of

this debate in a couple of days, that people, activity,

justice, fairness and openness in British Columbia have never

been in better shape than in 1975 now.

MRS. D. WEBSTER (Vancouver South): I'm very, very pleased to

be able to participate in this debate and to follow right on

the heels of the Hon. Provincial Secretary. I was pleased to

hear what he had to say about the plans that the cabinet and

the government are preparing to institute in relation to women

in this International Women's Year of 1975. I intend to confine

my remarks to International Women's Year.

As you know, the United Nations Commission on the Status of

Women in 1967 culminated its deliberations in the effort

towards a declaration against discrimination towards women.

After that, Canada held its own commission under the

chairmanship of Mrs. Florence Bird, and each of the provinces

set up their own status of women council.

In the intervening years, it's amazing. A remarkable change

took place in public attitude to women, showing a rapid change

in our social structure. But it really isn't quite as rapid as

the public is prepared to accept. A great deal has to be done

in the next few years.

I'm sure that every woman in this province is very, very

elated that this has been declared International Women's Year,

and as many as possible will probably participate in the

seminars and events that will take place. But let me say that I

don't think that seminars and other events of that kind are

sufficient unless we have some way of changing attitudes and

certain types of legislation.

I know that this is a federal matter on which I am going to

speak right now, but it was about 15 or 20 years ago that

divorces in some of the provinces still had to be passed by the

House of Commons. It was through long filibusters in the House

of Commons that that was finally changed so that it was taken

out of the House of Commons committees and put into the

courts.

One reason for that was because of our Christian religion.

The three things that probably hold back change more than

anything else are religion, our cultural background and our

general educational system.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

[ Page 146 ]

Today divorce laws are much more relaxed. As a matter of

fact, some divorces which are uncontested have become so easily

attainable that they can be had without the use of a lawyer. I

think that is a great step forward.

Mr. Speaker, in relation to abortion: we now have laws making abortion available,

but this legislation is still so stringent that it is very difficult for women,

particularly those in low-income categories, to be able to avail themselves

of it through legal channels. In a recent poll taken in one of the federal ridings,

that of Comox-Alberni, it was revealed that there is a strong desire to relax

abortion laws.

But much more has to be done by way of family-life

education. I think that has to be accepted by the home, by the

school and by the general community. It's very difficult to put

in family-life education if the parents in the community are

against it, so the parents must first be educated to that

before you can start in educating the children. Unless that is

done, we're going to have a constantly increasing rate of

illegal abortions which will not be slowed down under other

circumstances. For this reason I suggest, as many others have

done before me, that abortion must be removed from the Criminal

Code.

I'm sure that no woman really desires to go through the

trauma of an abortion. Many younger women really have to thank

people like Dr. Morgenthaler for bringing this subject into its

proper context with the public. In a good Churchillian phrase,

never have so many women owed so much to one doctor.

Now I know these are federal matters, but there is also

discrimination in relation to provincial matters. One of the

things that is still a problem is the fact that our whole

system is still inclined to be patriarchal. Women's attitudes,

as well as men's attitudes, have to change if we're going to

progress more rapidly.

We have to give up the attitude that men are more capable

than women. That doesn't mean that women wish to take over the

country, but we do want to share in running it. We do want to

share in a say as to what is to be done in relation to family

living and in relation to what women's place is in society.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

I would like to think that every educated man is just as anxious as women

to give women their rightful place in society as equals. Most intelligent men,

Mr. Speaker, would prefer to have for a marriage partner a woman who is as well

educated as themselves.

Florence Bird, chairman of the National Commission on the Status of Women,

said that World War I gave women their political freedom and World War II gave

them their economic freedom. During both these wars they were drawn into the

labour force to be able to free men so that they could enter the armed services.

But I would like to say that it was only the introduction of these freedoms,

because women were expected to return to the kitchen as soon as war was over.

Due to the commitment of women to the war effort in World

War I there also arose the suffragist movement, and an impetus

was created by the early socialists, so women were finally

enfranchised on the Prairies in 1916, in British Columbia in

1917, and a little bit later than that in the eastern

provinces. However, since women first got the vote only 21

women have been elected MLAs in British Columbia, and only

three have become MPs. Mr. Speaker, let me just say that two of

those three were elected just as recently as last summer.

For the past 10 years, Grace MacInnis has sat in the House

of Commons as the first and only woman ever to be elected from

British Columbia.

In the early days, the year after women got their vote in

British Columbia, Mary Ellen Smith, a Liberal, was elected — in

1918. That was before the CCF was even born. Three years later

she became a cabinet Minister, but without portfolio.

In the intervening years, only six women have held cabinet

posts, but of these only three have had portfolios, and Nancy

Hodges was the one and only women ever to become Speaker of the

Legislative Assembly of British Columbia.

The women have fared a little bit better on the municipal

level. They've become school trustees, they've become

councilors, and some of them have become mayors.

It's interesting to note that in the Third World nations top

positions by women have seemed to be more readily available

than in other countries. You will note that India, Ceylon

(which is now called Sri Lanka) and Israel have all had Prime

Ministers who have been women for quite a number of years. Now

we are elated with the results of the British leadership race

in which Margaret Thatcher was elected on February 11 as the

leader of the Conservative Party. We are looking forward also

to the campaigns of Flora MacDonald, for the Conservatives in

Canada, and Rosemary Brown, for the New Democratic Party,

towards national leadership of their parties.

But let's go back to World War II and some of the economic implications. Following

that war, many women, under the anti-discrimination clauses in their trade union

Act, kept their jobs, and natural attrition had to take place before men could

be hired in the positions those women held. Also, women who had been in he services

had proved themselves capable as technicians, as mechanics and as administrators

and had discovered these talents as very appealing to them. And, of course,

there were many women who kept their jobs or returned to the labour market after

[ Page

147 ]

the war because they wanted to help their husbands through

university, or to get them established in some business, or

they wanted to have a second job because they found that

because of the inflation immediately after World War II, where

it had previously taken one job in a family to maintain that

family, it now took two, if they wanted to remain at the same

standard of living as before.

There still is imbalance in some areas. Let me say that one

of those areas is at the university level. Although more women

may attend university today than ever before, I understand that

the percentage of women attending university in relation to men

is not much higher than it was in the 1920s and 1930s. Most of

those who graduate are in arts, education and nursing. What

about law? What about medicine, dentistry and commerce?

Here's a breakdown of the UBC faculties today at the

undergraduate level — this is the 1975 breakdown. In medicine

there are 246 men students and 75 women; law, 543 men, 147

women; dentistry, 134 men, 20 women; engineering, 846 men, 15

women; forestry, 296 men, 32 women; agriculture, 187 men, 149

women; commerce, 1,194 men and 176 women. This breakdown shows

that in most faculties the proportion is about four males to

one female student, and in some cases the disparity is as great

as 10 to one.

Mind you, I don't think that the imbalance can entirely be

blamed on the university. Part of it is due to women themselves

who do not realize their own potential, their own worth or

their ability in being able to aspire to work in those

particular professions which have been more or less categorized

as professions for men.

However, it's also true that they haven't been guided along

these lines. Women will never, Mr. Speaker, have the same

opportunities as men in business and in the professions unless

they are guided during elementary and high school to aspire for

a higher education along the lines where their best talents

lie.

Let me say conversely that the same holds true for men. Many

boys have been discouraged from taking music, art or nursing

because those subjects weren't considered manly enough. Their

parents wanted them to become doctors or lawyers or

businessmen.

Let's look at the job market in the trade unions. The

executive of the B.C. Federation of Labour last year suggested

that they hoped at their next convention, or probably soon

thereafter, that there wouldn't have to be a separate division

for women. They are very conscious of the fact that women

should have the same opportunity and the same status within the

trade union movement as men.

John Fryer, the general-secretary of the B.C. Government

Employees Union, had this to say in the January edition of

their provincial newsletter:

"The cynics are already saying that International Women's

Year will pass into history with nothing more than token

advancement in the area of women's rights. My earnest hope is

that the B.C. Government Employees Union will prove the cynics

to be wrong by making genuine advances toward equality for

women in 1975.

"Is the BCGEU responding to the needs and bargaining goals

of its women members? How can the union encourage women to play

more active roles in BCGEU affairs?

"It's disillusioning to observe that the trade union

movement, traditionally in the vanguard of pressure for social

change in many areas, has too often been on the sidelines in

the struggle for women's rights. One of the reasons, but no

excuse for this, is that many unions have a predominantly male

membership. But the BCGEU, with 45 per cent of its members

women, has no rationale at all for any more complacency on

women's rights issues.

"There is more than social justice at stake in the pressure

for full equality for women in the work place and in the BCGEU.

As people who pay the same dues as men, women in our union are

undeniably entitled to have their aspirations clearly reflected

in the bargaining demands made by the union at the negotiating

table, and their dues entitle them to take their place at all

levels of leadership in their union.

"It is going to take more than pompous resolutions to make

equality for women a reality in the BCGEU. There will also have

to be changes in discriminatory attitudes held by both men and

women, and often traceable to childhood."

Now let us have a look at the professions. How are women

actually faring in the professions? European countries seem to

be far ahead of us. Statistics Canada for 1971 — that's our

latest complete report — shows that in Britain about 25 per

cent of the doctors were women; in Canada, only 12 per

cent.

In 1969 in France, 20 per cent of the lawyers were women; in

Canada only 8.7 per cent of the undergraduate enrolment were

women. That was a great improvement over what had happened

formerly. In France, 21.9 per cent of the dentists were women,

but as late as 1970 only 3 per cent of Canadian dentists were

women.

In 1962, 48.2 per cent of French pharmacists were women; in

Canada, Mr. Speaker, only 13.3 per cent. I believe we have a

lot of catching up to do.

Here's a report from the British Columbia Teachers

Federation newsletter for May, 1974. Believe me, again, some

astounding statistics. These figures are based on a

questionnaire sent out by the B.C. School Trustees Association

and the BCTF to all

[ Page 148 ]

school boards in the province. The school districts which

replied numbered 72.

Although there are over 12,000 female elementary teachers

compared to 10,916 male elementary teachers, including

administrators, there are only 219 female principals compared

to 1,027 male principals in the elementary schools of this

province. There are seven female vice-principals compared to 85

male vice-principals; 58 co-coordinators, or assistants to

principals, compared to 110 male assistants.

As early as the 1920s and 1930s, Winnipeg had female

principals and vice-principals throughout their elementary

school system. I won't say that they were all female, but they

certainly existed in a fairly equitable ration with males. In

the secondary schools, there are 286 male principals and no

female principals. There are 288 male vice-principals and only

five female vice-principals. There are 905 male department

heads and only 163 are female.

It's interesting to note, Mr. Speaker, that one of the

things that this questionnaire reveals is that of teachers who

applied for any administrative post in 1972-3, 1,730 were males

and only 155 were females. It appears, Mr. Speaker, that women

are not aspiring for these positions because in the past those

types of jobs were not open to them. I hope that during the

next year, during the next two years, or during the next five

years, women will take courage into their hands and apply for

these jobs and demand that they get equal opportunity with men

if their capabilities are such that they can handle the

position.

The United Nations bulletin for January and February, 1975,

in its first paragraph states: "There's a growing awareness of

governments that a healthy, modern society cannot afford the

waste of human resources exacted by discrimination on the

grounds of sex."

Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to turn to the media. In

Weekend Magazine , February 1, 1975, there are some very

interesting statistics concerning CBC in relation to the status

of women in the media. I'd like to give you one or two short

quotes from it. The first one is: "Though women form 25 per

cent of the CBC staff, they represent only 7.5 per cent of

management." Further on in the

article it says: "Two-thirds of

the female staff are stuck in secretarial or clerical

pigeonholes with little hope of rising to a higher level." In

another area, they said: "In senior management there are 800

men and only nine women." I suggest that, in all probability,

the ratio of the other radio and television stations is not

much better.

Mr. Speaker, I think that women everywhere — certainly across

British Columbia, and probably across Canada — hailed the

appointment of Dr. Pauline Jewett to the presidency of Simon

Fraser University and also the election of Shirley Carr of

Niagara Falls to a top, full-time position with the Canadian Labour Congress. In British Columbia now we have

our first female provincial court judge and our first female

federal court judge. These appointments are hopeful signs that

the winds of change are sweeping across this land in education,

in the trades and in justice. We hope these are not merely

token appointments.

Mr. Speaker, as late as World War II, parents were still

imbued with the myth that higher education would unfit their

daughters for marriage and motherhood, but nothing could be

further from the truth. Let us hope that this myth is finally

being dispelled. I would suggest that today's woman should have

all the education she can possibly absorb, realizing that

education is a lifelong process. This will not only make her a

more interesting and self-reliant person, but will also give

her a better opportunity to bring up healthier, happier

children, and make her own life more fulfilling.

I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that post-secondary education be

more easily available to women, whether married or single, in

the low-income brackets so that they can become as independent

as men in relation to caring for themselves and for their

children.

There's no reason, Mr. Speaker, why a female, single, head

of a family must not have the opportunity to earn just as

adequate an income as a man under the similar circumstances.

But today this is still not true. There are many female heads

of families, whether income earners or on social assistance,

who find themselves near or below poverty level. It's a case of

opportunity and choice. Once again, as I say, this type of

discrimination can take place in reverse.

For instance, during the past two years I think you have all

probably seen on television the dramatic stories of two

widowers in two divergent regions of Canada who had a great

difficulty in getting acceptance of their applications for

welfare so they could stay at home to look after their

children. It's about time we made our laws more flexible, both

for men and for women.

Mr. Speaker, I think special congratulations should go to

our Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi) for the efforts

of his department to open more opportunities for women. I would

like to say that in this case I am referring to the day-care

programmes which have expanded tremendously in British Colombia

in the last two years.

In that period of time we have increased our day-care

programme so that there are now approximately 16,000 children

in British Columbia in day care and probably half that many

again in after-school care. The Human Resources department is

working at it so rapidly and demands are so great that they can

hardly keep up with getting enough by way of money to be able

to pay for the programme,

[ Page 149 ]

yet it is very, very badly needed.

This more than any other single factor has made it possible

to free women to enter the working world, or to give them some

respite from their daily care of children at home. As a

preventive measure it may be responsible for reducing

psychiatric problems of the mothers and incidences of battered

babies.

During Women's Year I hope that women everywhere will make a

conscious effort to try to improve their education and

training. Mr. Speaker, women in their 30s and 40s have

astonished themselves by finding out that they are really

capable of adjusting to the discipline of study and continuing

in a trade or a profession.

Last summer when pre-university courses were being offered

for senior citizens, many in their 70s or 80s found that their

capacity for learning had not decreased. Some of them are now

continuing in regular winter programmes.

Mr. Speaker, let me turn to some other forms of

discrimination against women. What about the single, female

head of the family — a mother working to support herself and

her children, as the case may be? Why should she find it so

difficult getting a mortgage? One woman told me that she was

required to get the signature of a man, either her husband, if

she could locate him, or her father, for insurance up to 95 per

cent of that mortgage. Is she less reliable than the man who

probably deserted her and his children? I think the inference

is clear, and it's quite insulting to woman.

Other forms of women's rights should also be investigated.

Family property in the case of a divorce or of desertion should

be considered just that, family property. Probably a new

property rights Act should be put forward.

No divorced or deserted woman should have to suffer the

pains of being left penniless; now should a man's

superannuation be reduced or eliminated at his death unless he

has been predeceased by his wife. The woman in the home, the

mother, should have just as much right to that pension as the

man. Just because she made her contribution through a

supportive role as the wife does not mean that she has not

contributed just as much as her husband has.

It has been proven over and over again, Mr. Speaker, that,

generally, married men carry more responsibility than single

men and that they very often live longer, too. This must be

recognized by business and by those who work on superannuation

benefits. I am happy to say that this has been taken into

account in the public service in British Columbia, and that the

Provincial Secretary has worked with continued effort on this

matter.

Mr. Speaker, the message is for everyone — for men and women alike. It should

be one of cooperation and positive action rather than confrontation. More can

be done through good will and understanding than by the adversary system. I

personally deplore the adversary system which seems to be so popular today.

Men must begin to realize that women will no longer be

labelled as second-class citizens; they must have equal

opportunity. Similarly, women on their part must take a much

more positive action in regard to their own worth and

capabilities.

I would like to congratulate the Minister of Labour (Hon.

Mr. King) and the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) for

their initiative in producing the equal employment

opportunities programme that Mr. Hall spoke about just a few

minutes ago. In a bulletin that was passed to us, the

Provincial Secretary said,

"The provincial government is the largest employer in British Columbia. We have an obligation to set a

good example in our employment practices."

He mentioned the fact that Ms. Gene Errington is going to be

a co-coordinator between the government departments. She will

be able to pick out areas where there are possible signs of

discrimination so that that can be offset.

The Minister of Labour, Mr. King, stated:

"In order to correct the inequities of the past, we must take affirmative action to restore or

otherwise create the conditions of equal employment. That

means encouraging government departments to hire women, native

Indians, handicapped persons and other groups for a variety of

jobs while ensuring, of course, that all applicants are

suitably qualified."

Pauline Jewett, too, in her inaugural address at Simon

Fraser University, commits herself to programmes of women's

studies and to actively search out Canadians, particularly

women, for appointments. She also adjured businessmen to open

their gates to qualified businesswomen for top executive

positions.

As I have already pointed out, Mr. Speaker, much of the

anti-discrimination legislation is already there, but it must

be more effectively administered and enforced. Business, the

media, the professional institutions and the educators must all

be prepared to accept women and men as equals and to make

decisions in accordance with ability and training and not from

the standpoint of sex if the International Women's Year is to

be successful.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): It is a pleasure to take

my place in this throne speech debate. As I start, I would like

to reflect very briefly upon the passing of our greatly

respected and much admired senior Clerk of the House, Mr. Ned

DeBeck. I think he was an inspiration to all of us who have

spent some time in this House.

I can recall, as a greenhorn MLA in 1967, having

[ Page 150 ]

the opportunity to participate with other Members of the

House in a round-table discussion out at Ned's home. He tried

to bring into sharp focus the ideals and the reasons for the

parliamentary process. All I can say is that if those of us in

this House do not reflect on the advice that he gave us, then

it is our own fault, because there was a man who had a great

respect for parliament, for the traditions of parliament and

what it was all about. Certainly the Province of British

Columbia is sorrier for having lost him, but we will all

remember him with kindness and with great affection.

I have to now turn to what I would term the intemperate

tirade that we were subjected to yesterday by the Premier of

this province. I think that once again he has proven to all the

Members of this House that when he rises on his feet to speak,

quite often his statements are inaccurate and, in some cases,

untrue. A tirade such as we experienced yesterday is not in the

best parliamentary tradition; it makes a mockery of the

parliamentary process; it is an insult to the Members of this

assembly.

I intend to refer to some of the remarks delivered in this

House by the Hon. Premier when he spoke in debate yesterday. So

that I won't be accused of misquoting what he said, I'll read

an excerpt from the Blues.

The Premier was speaking about the record of a previous

administration, in this case the record of the government under

Duff Pattullo, a Liberal government. He went on to say that it

was a government that he respected and that it was a great

success, one great socialist experiment that was a success,

conducted by the Pattullo government. That was in the field of

oil exploration in the Province of British Columbia. I'll read

exactly what the Premier said from the Blues:

Duff Pattullo was the Liberal Premier of this province who

had the guts to go ahead and try with some exploration for oil

and gas in this province on his own.

Duff Pattullo should go down in this history of this

province as one of the most fighting Premiers this province

ever had...

I think that's where he should have stopped.

...one of the most fighting Premiers this province ever had

when it came to understanding the importance of natural

resources. He was 300 feet short from reaching the first oil

well in this province and, God willing, if he had reached it,

we would have had publicly owned oil and gas in this province

under the Liberals in 1936 — in 1936 Duff Pattullo had the

foresight....

Then there's an interjection, and the Premier comes back to

someone and says:

Now we'll come back to your yapping in a minute, because

we'll deal with how you gave away natural gas to Washington

state.

Then there was an interjection from myself which said to the

Premier: "Get your facts straight."

I think that's what we expect from the Hon. Premier and

Members of this House when they speak in debate on the floor of

this House. Get your facts straight, Mr. Premier, who stayed in

this chamber for all of 30 seconds and then left. Get your

facts straight.

What are the facts of the matter with respect to the

socialist experiment by the Duff Pattullo government?

HON. L. NICOLSON (Minister of Housing): Where's your

leader?

MR. SMITH: Duff Pattullo? We agree; a man greatly to be

admired, a man who had great respect and great vision for the

Province of British Columbia — but a man who, by his own

admission, made a great and grave error when he became involved

in the exploration for oil in the Province of British Columbia.

But did he admit that at a time when he should have admitted

it, when it was first brought to his attention on the floor of

the House? No way. It just happened that the government of the

day was in the middle of an election campaign and there was no

way that they would bring to the attention of the public that

they were squandering hundreds of millions of dollars of the

taxpayers' money.

Let's take a look at the record of the day and see what it

has to say about this great socialist experiment in the field

of petroleum production. Most of you may have heard of

Commotion Creek at one time or another but, for those who

haven't, it's in the Pine Pass area, east of the mountains of

the Hart Highway.

Commotion Creek was the site chosen by the then Liberal

government for an experimental drilling programme in the

Province of British Columbia. It's well recorded in the

newspapers and the Journals of the day that this experimental

programme was entered into by the provincial government of that

day.

The first reference I have here comes from The

Province newspaper of April 23, 1941. At that time they

indicate that the drilling is going ahead but they've run into

a little bit of trouble. Apparently the drilling company was

able to advance 400 feet into the rock formation and then ran

into trouble and couldn't free the drilling equipment they had.

They had to abandon that and start the hole all over again. So

they did have some tough luck in getting the hole started.

On October 15, 1941, the headline in the daily

Province indicates that Premier Pattullo is gambling in

the oil business with public funds. I don't intend to go all

through the

article of that day but I think that capsulizes

exactly what was going on at that

[ Page 151 ]

particular time.

Remember that in this time an election campaign was bubbling

in the Province of British Columbia. By June 20, 1942, the

election campaign was over. "Commotion Creek Operations Will Be

Abandoned." "Cost to the People of British Columbia $500

Million" — at a time when the total budget for the Province of

British Columbia was just over $30 million.

"Commotion Creek is going to subside. After spending

half-a-million dollars, the government has decided very

reluctantly that the liquid gold which T.D. Pattullo went after

five years ago isn't there. Drilling for oil will be closed

down."

Interjection.

MR. SMITH: Yes, this is the project which the Premier was so

proud of yesterday as the greatest socialist experiment ever

conducted before the advent of the NDP as government in this

province.

And at the end of the

article it says:

"The provincial government will not invest any more of the

people's money in chasing this oil rainbow. The federal

government and the oil companies will probably avoid the

immediate area of operations under the Pattullo plan. Commotion

Creek is regarded as a bust."

There's one thing that was certainly true. That is that

every oil exploration company has avoided that area for the

last 35 years at least. Do you know something, Mr. Speaker? The

closest producing well to Commotion Creek in the Province of

British Columbia is between 50 and 60 miles away. And if they

were, as the Premier suggested yesterday, only 300 feet from

the pay zone, why wouldn't exploration be going on today? Why

wouldn't they have drilled again for natural gas, completed the

hole, gone down another 300 feet, and produced that liquid

gold, that natural gas that the Premier was so proud of

yesterday? But again, Mr. Member, they never produced anything

but a dry hole. A dry hole! So I guess he was mistaken

again.

On September 9, 1942, there was an

article indicating that

the B.C. government abandoned its search for oil at Commotion

Creek. I think perhaps the most telling newspaper column of all

comes from the edition printed March 18, 1943. It's headed up

as "Costly Nonsense."

"Debates on Commotion Creek in the legislature confirm our

worst suspicions of what a mess this business was. To satisfy a political whim,

the Pattullo government got into a wildcat adventure of the wildest kind, lost

$600,000 of the taxpayers' money; even yet there is no frank admission of what

fearfully unbusinesslike activities were involved. Today Mr. Pattullo merely

shrugs his shoulders, declares, 'The people settled with me" — and they did,

at the election prior to 1943 — "and regards the matter as a closed incident.

Mr. Pattullo enjoyed the thrill of being the magnate of a vast experiment. But

the people of British Columbia paid the bill."

But the people of British Columbia paid the bill. That is

the extent of the Premier's pride in what he thinks would be a

tremendous way for the Government of British Columbia to

proceed.

HON. MR. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): It's tax

deductible.

MR. SMITH: It's a fact, as recorded in the records of the

Department of Mines and Petroleum Resources, that that well did

spud in in Commotion Creek on June 4, 1940, and that it was

abandoned on October 15, 1942, after having spent $600,000 of

taxpayers' money on a socialist experiment — $600,000, Mr.

Speaker, at that time, was a considerable bite out of the

provincial budget of $33 million.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

So let us assume that the Hon. Premier and Minister of

Finance decides to embark on the same type of socialist

experiment right now. Let's assume, perhaps — because we know

what the figures were last year for revenue for the province

and expenditures projected — that he had embarked upon this

socialist experiment last year. If he had invested the same

percentage of available revenue as did Pattullo in 1941, what

would it have cost the taxpayers of British Columbia last year?

It would have been $43.5 million, Mr. Speaker, for a socialist

experiment. And we have to ask: if this is the course the

government charts for themselves, if this is their policy, will

the government of this day not be just as inclined to cover up

and gloss over any discrepancies in the programme so that they

can make it look good in the eyes of the public? How much of

the expense would be buried on the same type of socialist

experiment to pacify taxpayers that one of these days will be

going to the polls again?

No, instead of talking about rip-off profits by the

petroleum industry, I think the government should concern

themselves with programmes designed to help the people of the

Province of British Columbia, not squandering the money in an

area where they have no expertise. If, by the government's own

decision, it is fair to grant Westcoast Transmission a 9.5 per

cent return on their investment for transporting natural gas to

market, then is it not fair that the industry engaged in the

exploration for and the production of natural gas and oil

should receive

[ Page 152 ]

somewhere near the same return? There's no company, to my

knowledge, actively engaged in the Province of British Columbia

where their return is equal to or greater than 9.5 per

cent.

As a matter of fact, without costing you or me or any other

taxpayer in the province a cent directly out of our pockets,

the industry has contributed and invested $1.65 billion in the

search for natural gas and petroleum in the province. Certainly

they have been successful in many cases, but not in the

Commotion Creek area, I'll tell you. They have been successful

in producing natural gas and petroleum resources for which they

have received a total of $900 million in gross revenue.

Out of that they've hired crews and paid their operating

expenses. They've provided employment for a vast host of

people, directly and indirectly, in the Province of British

Columbia. They've paid all their federal and provincial taxes,

including royalties and levies and whatever other tax has been

levied against them. They've used part of that money to replace

obsolete equipment. They've spent a tremendous amount of money

at the request of the provincial government to update their

equipment to conform to our present-day pollution standards. At

the same time, they've been expected to find money for

exploration and to pay their shareholders a dividend on the

invested capital. It's a record that we should be proud of.

If natural gas is underpriced — and I believe it is as a

commodity — certainly we have a right to expect an increase in

the price of natural gas. When that agreed-upon price is

arrived at, the people who are subjected in the industry to the

same inroads upon their pocketbook as everyone else is today as

a result of inflation also have some reason to ask the

government for a slight adjustment.

What is the record in the petroleum industry this last year

as a result — and I say a direct result — of government policy?

Seismic exploration is the worst on record, the worst season.

It's almost to a close now. The facts are that the number of

companies employed in the Province of British Columbia is

drastically down from last year.

I have the current figures for anyone who is interested.

February 18, 1974: there were 41 drilling rigs available for

work in the Province of British Columbia and, out of those 41,

37 were actively in work under contract. This year we don't

have 41 drilling rigs left in the Province of British Columbia;

we only have 32. The rest have either gone to the Yukon, the

United States or to Alberta. They are out of the province

altogether. But of the 32 available on February 17, 1975, only

14 are under contract and presently finishing up drilling

programmes for this season.

If that is the basis you use for trying to replace the hydrocarbon energies

which are being depleted, then we'll never catch up. We are faced with a continually

decreasing situation, both with respect to the volume of natural gas available

and the revenue available both for the industry and for the provincial coffers.

Why has this happened? I'll tell you why; it's simple. The

facts of the matter are these Mr. Speaker. Under the present

circumstances, operating under the conditions that the industry

has to live with and the statutes that they know have been put

into effect during the past two years, no one in the industry

or anyone associated with resource development in the Province

of British Columbia trusts the NDP, a government that has

said "Trust us," and has proven in the light of

day to be untrustworthy. You have continuously changed the name

of the game at the slightest whim. You have passed regulations

and statutes to give to yourselves, as the Members of the

cabinet, completely unbridled powers which you can exercise

without recourse to this Legislature. This is why industry has

dropped off in the Province of British Columbia.

And what is your answer? You've developed your own Commotion

Creek to go out and drill another dry hole at the taxpayers'

expense and say: "Well, we made another mistake." But how much

is that going to cost the taxpayers? If you follow the example

set by the Pattullo administration, we may never find out for a

long time to come.

Interjections.

MR. SMITH: There's been a campaign conducted against

resource industries in this province; there has been a campaign

to purposely distort the facts in an attempt to discredit all

resource-oriented industries, including the petroleum and

natural gas industries. In short, the policies of the NDP

exemplify the worst, as often depicted by a character from Li'l

Abner, Al Capp's comic strip. We all have heard of him: General

Bullmoose.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, who's that?

MR. SMITH: Well, that's one of the characters created by Al

Capp. As you recall in Li'l Abner, General Bullmoose appears

occasionally and he huffs and he puffs and he blows smoke out

of his ears and nose, and then he loudly proclaims....

AN HON. MEMBER: What's good for General Bullmoose is good

enough for....

MR. SMITH: That's right. Whatever is good for General

Bullmoose is good for you and good for everybody.

Well, this government paraphrases that a little bit. Their

attitudes seem to be today that whatever is good for Big

Brother gover