1972 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 29th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, JANUARY 31, 1972

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 165 ]

MONDAY, JANUARY 31, 1972

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Delta.

MR. R. WENMAN (Delta): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the House

to join in welcoming today a group of students from North Delta

Secondary School. North Delta is well known because it is the home of

the boys' basketball champions and hopefully again this year.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for South Peace River.

MR. D.A. MARSHALL (South Peace River): Mr. Speaker, in the

Speaker's Gallery today from British Columbia's northern heartland, I'd

like to introduce the Mayor of Dawson Creek and he is accompanied by

Mr. Lewyn, the City Solicitor, Dawson Creek's own Attorney General. I

would ask the House to join me in welcoming them today.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition.

MR. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, it is an

unusual occasion in that I too would like to welcome the Mayor from

Dawson City. He was most hospitable in my recent tour of Dawson Creek.

He talked to me about incorporating not only Dawson Creek, but Dawson

City as well. But it was a very very fine visit. And for Hon. Members

who don't know the northern part, I invite them to accompany me on my

next trip.

Introduction of bills.

Orders of the day.

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Minister without Portfolio.

HON. I.P. DAWSON (Minister without Portfolio): Mr. Speaker it

is my pleasure once again to speak in this House today on behalf of

that great riding, Mackenzie constituency. I was a little fearful this

morning when I saw the snow coming down in Victoria that the sittings

were going to be hurt. Because in talking to Powell River this morning

they told me there was blue sky and that the sun was shining. And I was

thinking that you know we are giving a little competition to Victoria

this time and are living up to our reputation of the "Sunshine Coast."

I do want to also congratulate the mover and the seconder of the

throne speech, both of whom I feel raised some very interesting points.

You know, criticism of the throne speech by the Honourable Members of the Opposition reminds me of a story of a speaker.

Interjection by Hon. Member.

HON. MRS. DAWSON: Oh, I'm going to be very kind about it. I wouldn't

hurt you for anything.

This speaker gave the same speech year after year. There was very

little variation in the theme. And on one occasion after his speech he

met a young boy outside. "Hey sonny, how did you like my speech?" Well,

the boy looked at him and he said: "My dad brings me here almost every

year, and I've been coming for four years, and you know I've heard the

same old story every time. Mister, you need a new needle."

You know, there is much of interest in the throne speech concerning

many areas of governmental concern — programmes for people of this

province. And I have been wondering if the Honourable Members opposite

to me have perhaps adapted Mark Twain's famous statement: "Get your

facts first, then distort them as you please."

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MRS. DAWSON: They agree with me. Isn't that fine, isn't that good.

We suspected that for a long time, you know.

One of the highlights of centennial year celebrations, at least for

me, was a presentation of pioneer medallions to those of our citizens

who have lived in Canada and in British Columbia for 75 years or more.

I was asked to present medallions in many areas of our province, and

as I travelled throughout the province to communities large and small

and talked with recipients of medallions, it was increasingly brought

home to me that our centennial year has indeed marked a centenary of

achievements, and that our country is only as great as the people who

live in it.

Those who received medallions had a deep sense of pride in helping to build and develop this vast land of ours.

I would like to thank those in every community who took the time out

to research and contact citizens who were eligible for these

medallions. There was a true community spirit prevalent wherever I

went, and to me this was memorable for those who received such a token

from our province.

I went to such places as Dawson Creek, Williams Lake, Hedley and my

own area of course. Yes indeed, even into the stamping ground of the

Honourable Leader of the Opposition. And all these people wherever I

went were united in a common interest, the recognition of our citizens

who helped develop our land.

You missed that, did you Mr. Leader of the Opposition?

MR. BARRETT: Go ahead, go ahead.

MRS. DAWSON: I paid a little compliment to the Hon. Member. He doesn't get those very often. He should have listened.

Nine thousand six hundred and fifty-four medallions were presented

in 1971, 2,619 of which were given to British Columbia residents. The

medallions given to British Columbia residents as you are probably

aware bore the dogwood crest on the ribbon.

Even greater than that, as far as I could see, is that there were 65

residents who were given special medallions because they were 100 years

of age. As I travelled throughout the province last year, and the years

before I became increasingly aware of the efforts that had been made by

British Columbia Hydro to beautify wherever possible areas occupied by

B.C. Hydro transformer stations, and similar installations. Hydro

planning and design staff have been specifically instructed to

[ Page 166 ]

design attractive appearing transformer stations,

to include landscaping cost in their estimates, and to give careful

consideration to preserving the amenities of the areas.

Having seen the Arrow dam or the Hugh Keenlyside as it is now

called, and the surrounding area during the construction period, I was

delighted with the transformation of that area. Particularly around

Nakusp. It is easy to see that this area has a great potential as a

recreational area in the future.

It is also interesting to note that the Arrow or the Hugh Keenlyside

dam in 1970 received an award for excellence from the Association of

Consulting Engineers, and the magazine Canadian Consulting Engineer , as an outstanding and in one respect unique civil engineering achievement.

The Arrow project was also given an honour award in 1971 by the American Public Power Association. The citation reads in part:

The engineering of the dam and lock and other

facilities are of high order. Not only is this a handsome engineering

and sound functional solution, but it has contributed greatly to the

entire region surrounding the artificial lake… It has created a

regional recreation facility in the lake and brought life back to the

whole community up and down the lake.

The panel of judges represented the American Institute of Planners,

the American Society of Landscape Architects and the American Society

of Civil Engineers.

I was also very impressed with the fact that underground wiring has

been made possible in some areas, and while I am sure all of us realise

that underground wiring is costly and a monumental undertaking, I look

forward to the time when this can be accomplished to an even greater

scale, particularly at the community levels.

Mr. Speaker, I have with me here today some pictures on some of

these points I've mentioned in regard to the underground wiring in the

Nakusp area, and also the recreational facilities now being provided

throughout the Arrow dam area. And maybe you'd like to pass these

along, so you take a quick look at them.

There has been much said and written concerning the natural gas

pipeline which would service Vancouver Island and communities en route

to the island. Such a development would be of great benefit to my area,

in particular — and especially to Powell River where it would afford an

alternative source of power, and where it is essential for future

development of that area.

It is my hope that, whatever company is given the contract, the

Williams Lake – Powell River route will be chosen. Powell River area

residents are fully aware of the importance of such a development, and

Powell River will have a strong voice in presenting their proposals to

the hearings.

Since most of my work in the province concerns the welfare of our

senior citizens, I am pleased to see in the throne speech, mention of

the housing and special care programmes for our senior citizens.

We have now what you would call a five-point acute care programme

for our elderly citizens. First of all there is an acute care hospital

programme which provides hospital care at $1 a day.

In the Province of British Columbia we have at the present time 123

hospitals, broken down to 95 acute, 7 Red Cross outposts, 6

rehabilitation hospitals, 7 extended-care hospitals, 1 private company

hospital and 4 federal hospitals.

The total number of beds in British Columbia in hospitals is 13,834.

While the total number of hospital beds includes acute, rehabilitative,

and extended-care hospitals, senior citizens may avail themselves of

any of these services as they require them.

For senior citizens requiring medical attention but not requiring

acute type care, extended-care facilities fill an important role. This

programme is expanding rapidly, and in addition to the seven

extended-care hospitals I've mentioned already there are in addition 28

extended care units attached to acute hospitals throughout the

province. In 1971 major projects completed involved a total of 772

beds, of which 221 were for extended care. In addition 1,799 beds were

under construction at the end of 1971 with 1,054 of these being

allocated for extended care. As of today, January 31, 1972 there are

3,228 beds in the planning stage with 1,300 of this number being

scheduled for extended care.

Development of a third programme — the special-care programme administered under the Elderly Citizens Housing Act

has long been an interest of mine. I was indeed pleased with the

Premier's announcement of the programme last June. Before the programme

was instituted special care facilities had been considered by some to

be the "grey area" in service to our senior citizens.

Before implementation of a special-care service senior citizens have

had only one choice. That of residing in a private nursing home or rest

home. Now they will have an alternative.

As many of us are aware it takes as long to design a building as it

does to construct it. Nevertheless we have already received working

drawings and specifications required for construction of special-care

homes and we feel extremely confident that by the end of the calendar

year we shall have in operation at least a dozen major homes of this

type, for the benefit of all citizens who require such a service.

Special care embraces those who require personal attention, but not

24-hour medical attention. For example, those who require assistance in

washing, bathing, shaving, dressing, eating, people who are sometimes

confined to bed or to a wheelchair but who normally see their own

doctors for medical attention. In most such homes, a registered nurse

will be on staff and will be qualified to give medication et cetera as

required.

Should a resident of this type of home become ill, he or she would

go to an acute hospital or an extended-care hospital for attention.

We foresee this programme expanding into three levels of care: light, medium and heavy care.

A copy of the regulations pertaining to special-care homes has been

placed on Hon. Members' desks for their information today. In addition

to these regulations it is important to emphasise that no means test is

necessary for entry into special-care homes. I would like to point out

that the provincial grant of 35 per cent for construction of such homes

is an outright grant and for those citizens in need of this type of

housing welfare payments have been adjusted to take care of their needs.

Development to date of this programme can be broken down into four areas of participation.

First there are the partial conversions. Three such examples at the

present time are Glacier View in the Comox-Courtenay Valley, Olive

Devaud Home in Powell River, and the German-Canadian Benevolent Society

Home in Vancouver.

Glacier View is a permanent partial conversion home while the Powell

River and Vancouver homes will be permitted to operate as temporary

partial conversion areas

[ Page 167 ]

thus meeting an existing need until the construction of a special-care unit is completed.

Second, new special-care homes in varying stages of development. Ten

of these special-care homes are being developed, of which four are

already operating elderly citizens' homes.

Number three, firm inquiries. Four firm inquiries have been received

for such homes. They are from the Danish Home Society, the Port Moody

Senior Citizens' Homes Society, the Calling Foundation and the Columbus

Charities.

In the fourth category we have what you call a general inquiry.

General inquiries have been received from 14 groups, nine of which are

already operating senior citizens homes.

Thus to this date a total of 30 projects and inquiries are under

way. Looking at the overall picture I will predict that within a year

or two at most this programme would be equal to if not be even larger

than the present construction programmes for elderly citizens' housing.

It is proving very popular indeed and I cannot say too much in

recommending this programme to Hon. Members of this House.

The fourth programme available to senior citizens under the Elderly Citizens' Housing Act

is provision of boarding homes or resident type accommodations. This

type of care provides for the person who wishes meal service in

addition to accommodations. There are a number of these facilities

throughout the province. Here again I would predict that some of these

accommodations will in the future be coming up for consideration as

partial conversions for special-care homes.

The fifth programme under the Act is the non-profit self-contained

unit. I'm sure most of you are quite well aware of this programme. With

still three months to go, as of December 31, 1971, 1,426 housing units

have been completed under the Act and this total, I might say, is the

largest for any one year since the programme was first announced. The

cost of these units represents a total expenditure close to the $4

million mark.

As mentioned in the throne speech, at mid-year the total housing in

this province under these programmes had passed the 10,000 unit mark.

This is indeed an outstanding accomplishment on the part of our

government for the well-being of our senior citizens.

In addition to these programmes, we have the "555 Plan" designed for

pensioners who have a small amount of assets in the one form or

another, who may or may not qualify for the other types of housing

under the Elderly Citizens' Housing Act , but who nevertheless find it difficult to meet the current market prices for housing.

The essence of this programme is that using a small amount of the

pensioner's assets as equity towards the purchase of the unit in a

multiple project under the Strata Titles Act ,

the monthly amortisation costs plus the monthly assessments for

operations, taxes and insurance reduces the total to an amount

substantially below what the same units would cost or rent under

ordinary circumstances.

Furthermore, this stabilises the amount so the cost will not

increase abnormally under inflationary conditions. This is one of the

benefits of the "555 Plan."

While proportions might be altered somewhat, the "555 Plan" implies

that the pensioner would use $5,000 of his own assets, obtain $5,000 of

first mortgage from Central Mortgage and Housing and $5,000 for a

second mortgage from the province. Thus the pensioner would have a

title to his unit and would qualify for the home-owner's grant in

respect to property taxes. Roughly on a $15,000 unit financed as I have

explained you would have a total monthly payment outlay of

approximately $100.

In December, 1971, I had the privilege of opening the first project

completed under this plan — a condominium-type building containing 14

units when the senior citizens themselves played an active

part in the

planning stages and in which they had taken note of management and in

maintenance of the unit. They have formed their own management board

and I would recommend that any member of this House interested in such

accommodations visit the newly-completed project in the 1300 block of

Seaton Street, Victoria.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I'm sending a card around a little

later on for they have invited us to come and visit their project on

Wednesday, February 9, at 11:00 and I would like to see as many members

of this House visit this home next Wednesday, the 9th.

One of the things, Mr. Speaker, of which I am proud is that fact

that I'm an honorary member of two Indian bands of this province. I was

first given the name of Pudlass by the Kingcome band and then received

the name Anasuplanamlich by the Bella Coola band. To have earned the

respect of these two groups of people and to be received into their

bands has a deep significance for me personally.

Over the years the Indian has not had much respect for the promises

of politicians and others who administer his affairs. Too often, for

the sake of a vote politicians go among people promising them a sudden

Utopian existence if elected.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MRS. DAWSON: I'm telling those fellows. They know. They don't

have to hold their heads up either, Mr. Speaker, the fellows across the way.

They

don't have to hold their heads up.

Politicians go among them and promise them sudden Utopian existence

if elected, and then are never seen of or heard of again — until the

next election comes up. The first citizens feel that it is a case of

words, words, words.

Many of our first citizens are perfectly capable of having a say in

the administration of their own affairs and the time for promises is

past.

The people feel that it is evident that the administration of their

affairs is top-heavy. They complained that they had not enough to do

with the administration of their affairs. The complaint was repeated to

me so often, that I became curious enough to check the number of people

employed in British Columbia — and I'll include the Yukon regions. I

have found that 995 people are employed as full-time or casual

employees and it is interesting to note that of this total number of

employees only 281 are Indian people.

AN HON. MEMBER: Employed by who, the federal government?

HON. MRS. DAWSON: Yes, this was the federal government. Since there

are approximately 36,000 Indian people living on reserves this figure means

that

there is about one Indian Affairs employee to 36 Indian people. Surely this

proportion could be lessened and more Indian people placed in decision-making

positions wherever possible. It is my feeling again, as I said, that the Indian

people should be given a greater responsibility in the management of their

own affairs.

The people further complain to me that not only is the

[ Page 168 ]

administration of their affairs top-heavy but that

the paper work is made as difficult as possible for the band

administrators. Again this is from the Indian Affairs department.

Comments are often made concerning paper work in provincial

government, but let me tell you I have here in my hand a set of forms

which are required to be turned in to the Indian Affairs department

complete with the original and seven copies.

One copy is to be retained, I hope for the band's files, and the

other seven copies are to be mailed to the Indian Affairs department.

These forms represent operating and maintenance for one year. Imagine,

having to make out eight copies.

I was shown three other sets of forms. Also required to be prepared

with an original and seven copies and these forms were for projects for

a five-year period.

Our own first citizens' fund only requires one application form and a covering letter outlining the project.

Another matter which was brought to my attention was the fact that

it has been the usual procedure to have Indian children go home for

Christmas. These are the children who are attending school elsewhere

than in their own reserves.

The children travelling to their own homes are placed usually in the

custody of the Department of Indian Affairs while they are in transit

to their homes.

It would appear that this past Christmas season funds for travel for

these children had not been budgeted for by the Department of Indian

Affairs. As a result a great deal of confusion ensued and I had a

number of calls from parents of Indian children concerning the

oversight.

Fortunately after a great deal of confusion the situation was

remedied and funds were made available for these children to go home

during the Christmas holiday season.

However, due to the lateness of the arrangements being made and as a

result of prevailing weather conditions at the time I found that a

number of the children were shuttled back and forth — some children in

my area in particular being in transit between December 20 and December

28, without proper chaperoning. Of a total of 93 students travelling 54

were shunted back and forth between Port Hardy and Vancouver in the

care of a P.W.A. pilot.

The parents of the stranded children had not been notified that

their children were stranded and that they would not be home for

Christmas. The parents could have been informed through the means of

the Indians' radio communications, the "Raven" system, for although

they said that the other lines were down, this system was functioning

during this season and it could have been used to let the parents know

where their children were.

In Klemtu in particular, the whereabouts of two children was not

known and their parents were very concerned as to where they might be.

I can only speak for my area but I am wondering if similar situations

occurred in other parts of the province.

Just don't take this from me, I have a copy of a letter here that

was sent from a lady in the Indians. A copy of this was sent to all the

chiefs in my area, to myself, to Paul St. Pierre and to Senator Guy

Williams.

I think this is deplorable and I think that better arrangements must

be made by the Indian Affairs department when these children haven't

even been sent home for Christmas.

It's not good enough. It's not good that when children 12 years old

are left in the hands of just one person, a pilot, chaperoning should

not be provided for them. We can't account for weather. Everyone

understands that, but I feel these children should be given better

attention than that. Incidently, for those who may not know about it, I

mentioned the Raven communication programme. "Raven" is a communication

programme facility for Indians. It is developing over the years and I

think that in the future it is going to be a tremendous help to the

Indian people, especially in the isolated area. Not only in the way of

getting messages but through educational programmes for video tape and

many other ways. I think it's going to be a great help to these people.

For your information here, this communication programme has received

from the federal government through the Secretary of State, $25,000.

However, the first citizens' fund has given a $105,000, and I was told

by my good colleague, the Hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs, that a

further $30,000 was programmed to them two or three days ago, making a

total of $135,000 for this most essential communication programme.

Up to the end of March this year also, the provincial government

through the first citizens' fund were given an additional $2,000. What

was it for? Federal licensing fees for the Raven programme. By the end

of February, some 20,000 people will be served in scattered and

isolated areas by means of this communication system.

While housing is going ahead in many areas, among the Indians, there

are still aspects of the programme which leave a lot to be desired. For

example, the person or family who are to live in the home are not

brought into the picture enough. Indeed, the individual Indian is given

very little say in the planning and choosing of their home or scheme of

the colours.

The homes tend to be stereotyped in some areas and not always is due

regard given to the size of the family. In many instances the homes,

while completed on the outside, are not properly finished on the

inside. People have told me that very often the contractor is the

building inspector, and others told me that the building inspector very

seldom visited their building project. They have also said in some

instances that the contractor has been paid before the homes were

completed, and that they had no redress for incomplete workmanship.

In addition, while an Indian could be employed in building homes, in

many areas, this is by no means the rule. Indeed, it has been known in

some places that I have visited that Indian people who have been

building homes on the reserves were put out of work when contractors

employed help from outside the reserve area.

I think it might be worthwhile for the Indian people to look into

the possibility of establishing their own plant or mill for the

construction of pre-fab type of homes for their own people. A training

programme could be set up whereby training could be given on site,

under the present Manpower-sponsored training programmes for vocational

skills.

Thus, not only would a training facility be provided, but also, the

Indian people so trained would have acquired a skill which would make

them employable in construction under the Manpower mobility programme.

During the past year, I have continued my visiting of our first

citizens throughout the province and possibly one of the most rewarding

visits I had was made at the request of the homemakers and other Indian

groups to the Ingenika people.

The directions I had for finding this place were quite sketchy. I

had been told that they were at Fort Ware, a community some 200 miles

up-river from Fort McLeod.

[ Page 169 ]

There was no means of transportation to this area,

other than by barge from Mackenzie or by flying in when the mail went

in on Thursdays.

To reach Fort Ware, one must go by Williston Lake for some miles. I

must say how I enjoyed the scenery. It's a real rugged country and just

beautiful to see.

Upon arrival at Fort Ware, I discovered that the band I wanted to

see was another 60 or 70 miles away. However, the people at Fort Ware

were very pleased to find someone who was going to visit the Ingenika

people and immediately requested that I take letters and other articles

to their relations at Ingenika. The people at Fort Ware are in a

reserve. I found that they have a well-designed village, built mainly

of logs that have been stripped. They have a post-office and a store.

They use river boats for transportation along the swift-flowing river.

There's your answer. They have a health centre of which they are very

proud. A nurse visits the village quite regularly.

I spent some time with the Fort Ware people and found that they were

concerned about the lack of supplies getting up to Ingenika.

The Ingenika band has been discussed on radio and television and

other media as they moved to a new location when the W.A.C. Bennett dam

was being constructed.

At the time of my visit they were just getting settled in. There was

no place to land the plane that I was riding in — as a matter of fact a

boat couldn't land there very well. The only way to gain the shore was

to tie up to the largest floating log possible, then scramble over

brush and stumps for some 50 or 60 yards.

Once ashore, I was met by Francis Issac who is the band counsellor

for his people. The chief of the band when I was there did not live on

the reserve.

The people were busily engaged in constructing houses made from

logs, but they were very frustrated in their efforts to complete the

houses due to the lack of delivery of plywood, windows, doors, nails

and heaters which had been promised by the Department of Indian Affairs.

What was more shocking was the fact that they had no deliveries of

medical supplies of any kind whatsoever and two of the children on the

site were quite ill from a form of 'flu.'

The people were sleeping in tents while engaged in constructing

their homes. Their cooking facilities consisted of open fires with

metal grills and stands made from wood, or metal hooks were used to

hang the pots.

The day before my arrival, Francis had shot a moose and the meat had

been prepared and was already hanging out to dry. Some had been smoked

over an open fire. Some of the women were rendering down bear fat and

there was one lady who had just finished making a large pot of

moose-meat soup.

The people had no refrigeration other than the cold water from the

river. This they used, keeping perishable foods from spoiling by this

means.

The people are still hunters to some extent. However, their

arrangements might have been all right for summer camp, but certainly

not for the approaching winter, which comes early in that part of the

country. There were a number of children in the camp when I was there

and Francis Issac told me that they would be leaving in a week or so's

time for school.

The people of the camp were very pleased to have someone come in to

visit them and I was invited to share their meal, with much apologising

on their part for lack of facilities. I found the moose meat delicious

and since it had almost taken me all day to get there, I very much

enjoyed a nice cup of coffee, brewed over an open fire and having a

distinct tang of the woods about it.

Francis showed me a number of sites for homes and introduced me to

several of the men who were busy cutting logs and stripping them for

building. All about the site was a hive of activity and it was evident

that here was a people who were industriously engaged in trying to set

up decent homes for themselves and to establish a village literally out

of the virgin territory. Francis remarked that moose were plentiful and

that he had been very pleased to get three of them in a short space of

time.

The people were very thrilled to get messages from the folks in Fort

Ware and two of them gave me letters to drop off when I got off to Fort

McLeod.

I learned from Francis and others there that although they had their

problems in the new location and that even yet it may not yet become a

permanent location for them, all they were really concerned about was

that they desperately needed material to finish their homes and that

they were unable to reach anyone who had the authority to get such

material to them.

He said that the question of medical supplies was a vital one since they had no means of treating anyone who became ill.

Leaving the village, I was shown a gasoline-powered washing machine,

the only one in the village. The machine was by the river bank and the

people told me that it was out of order because a small part had broken

down and they were still waiting three months at this time for the part

to come.

Getting away from the village was an experience in itself, quite

unique for me. Due to the swift current in the river and to the lack of

a boat ramp of any kind, I could not leave by my original landing place

and the people had to ferry me out by canoe. I went down the river and

the canoe developed a leak and we had to bail like mad to keep afloat.

Because of the swift current and a strong wind, we had difficulty in

keeping on course. It's quite an experience climbing up on the pontoons

in the middle of the swift-flowing river and climbing into the plane. It

is quite an experience.

However, as soon as I reached Fort McLeod, I telephoned Victoria to

find out why the supplies had not reached these people. My only concern

at that time was that regardless of whose responsibility it might

properly have been, the supplies should be sent to the area as quickly

as possible.

Thanks to the good offices of my colleagues, the Hon. Minister of

Lands and Forests, the Hon. Minister of Health and the Hon. Minister of

Municipal Affairs, all of whom were quick to initiate action on behalf

of the Ingenika people with the Department of Indian Affairs…

Interjection by Hon. Member.

HON. MRS. DAWSON: Well they got together in a hurry, we sure did.

Medical supplies were sent in almost immediately and the building

supplies necessary to complete the homes were subsequently delivered.

As of October 28, 1971, I was very pleased to have a report from the

zone director of health services in the Indian Affairs. He informed me

that most of the houses had been completed and were occupied. In

addition, a clinic has been established and a third-year medical

student presently living in the area is in charge of dispensing medical

supplies.

[ Page 170 ]

On October 30, 1971, I received a letter from Francis Issac stating that they had now received all their supplies.

I am going to read you a part of it because I thought, I appreciated

getting this letter from him. "We are all very grateful for what you

have done on our behalf. We got all the supplies for the housing which

is very important to us under the circumstances."

I appreciated getting a letter from Francis Issac.

One amusing incident in the report from the zone director, was the

request from Francis Issac that a padlock be placed on the door of the

health clinic privy. He said this was to prevent children falling in

the 10-foot hole under the privy, dug by Francis. I couldn't help

thinking that without the padlock he could well have had a problem on

his hands, especially if the part for the washing machine had still not

arrived.

While I was in the northern area of British Columbia, I also visited

reserves in the Fort St. James, Fraser Lake, Vanderhoof and Stony Creek

Area. At Stony Creek the chief is a lady and she and I had a long and

interesting chat over a cup of coffee.

The chief, Mrs. Sophie Thomas, mentioned that apart from normal

administration problems, she was finding it difficult to get roadwork

and sewer and water projects completed on her reserve. She was working

on a very excellent programme for bringing home management courses into

her village.

One thing that occurred to me that was brought to my attention by

those who were on the reserve as well, was that the medical clinics

established in the reserves are only used for a very short period of

time. It seems to me that as these buildings are heated and are usually

serviced, they could be put to more practical service, to multiple use,

for example, for Red Cross home nursing courses and such like, that the

women would enjoy right there on the reserve.

In addition to bailing out a canoe, I had another experience which

was to me was a real ego booster. Visiting a reserve quite early one

Saturday morning, I was meeting with a group of people in a house, and

while we were discussing their affairs, people kept wandering in and

out of the house. One of the visitors looked me over two or three times

and then asked me: "How much would it cost to keep you for a year,

missus?" I replied that it would be plenty as I had a good appetite and

he said: "Well, you look as if you could work hard and it might be

worth it." I'll tell you the rest some other time.

During 1971, the All Native Children's Tattoo added its colourful

and interesting contribution to our centennial year celebration. The

group travelled to 12 communities throughout our province and comprised

about 360 native children and supervisors. All participants on the

floor, and those whose charges were lighting and decoration, were young

people between the age of eight and 18. They brought enjoyment and

appreciation of Indian culture to many thousands of people attending

their performances throughout British Columbia.

During the entire tour I travelled with these young people and

earned nothing but the highest praise for them not only for their

behaviour while travelling and staying in hotels and motels where they

were allocated but also for the excellence of the standard of their

performance, the esprit de corps and the cooperation of the supervisors

and instructors was tremendous.

Now, Mr. Speaker, in case Hon. Members would like I have some

pictures of the tattoo that they might like to see. I also have

pictures of the Ingenika band and the changes as of October. You can

see the construction of these log cabins. Hon. Members might like to

see these. Please let me have them back because one of the albums was

loaned to me.

All the technological wonders of this age with the power to change

our whole environment and the environment of our children and their

children may make for changes to better our world. Nevertheless, in

passing on the advances of our age to our future generations and in

giving these generations the impetus to change their whole environment,

we must be fully aware that in so doing we also pass to them a set of

values which they take from our lives and from our examples.

Children in their formative years spend much time in the home and

they are influenced by what they see and hear in their home

environment. Schools, too, play an important role and in these early

school years the children acquire the discipline of good work habits

and have application to the task at hand which paves the way for

successful adulthood.

While both home and school environments affect the child so

profoundly in his formative years, the youngster who is exposed to the

teachings basic to our society — the code for behaviour of man among

his fellow men as set forth in the ancient behavioural code the 10

commandments — is indeed fortunate.

From history's earliest recorded time, man has shared his strength

with other men, in the effort for survival. He has been obliged to

dwell in communities. From the uniting of his strength and survival

instinct with other men, he found it necessary to observe a code of

living so that survival of his species is assured.

There can be no doubt that the Hebraic-Christian tradition, with its

emphasis on the sanctity of each human soul, was one of the mainsprings

of the development of democracy in this land of pioneers. The moral

basis of our very culture rests on the dual postulate of the sacrosanct

nature of the individual and the duty of each person to do unto others

as he would have others do unto him.

Up to a point, a satisfactory system of ethics can be derived solely

from the consideration of the welfare of the community and the

definitions of right and wrong can be formulated in terms of social

consequence of the individual's needs.

Is it not true that all but a very small number of honest and

intelligent people of all ages of this nation will affirm that the

universe and the order of things in it is such that a sane individual's

acts are subject to moral judgments under all circumstances and under

all conditions? We are united by an affirmation of the common basis of

our many faiths. While we ourselves may not understand, or indeed be

interested in the beliefs of others around us, we must acknowledge the

common denominator present — that of the existence of a universal set

of laws for living.

A nation, a community, or an individual pays a price when the basic

code is abandoned or ignored, and again in ancient history we have a

number of examples of such events.

The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah is one of the earliest

recorded punishments meted out to a people who had offended the basic

code of living. There's a record of Abraham having interceded with God

for the people of these cities, people who had been given a chance to

improve their conditions and their behaviour, but had not taken

advantage of the offer. As a result, their cities were destroyed.

The moral of the story is an interesting one and while the actual destruction can probably be explained by the volcanic

[ Page 171 ]

and sulphurous character of the country surrounding

the area and the cities, great as Abraham's faith had been, his

intercession had been based on an insufficient principle.

Abraham thought in terms of communities while according to

translations that I was reading, God thought in terms of the individual.

The behaviour of the individuals in these two cities had remained

unchanged, despite a number of warnings, and the people there had made

no attempt to restrain nor to disguise their offences against the law.

The eventual destruction of the two cities and the fate that befell

Lot's wife, who was covered with the heaving and violently-disturbed

rock salt found in that area, points out that there is a moral demand

as well as a physical demand in this story.

For 1,000 years, the builders of the Roman Empire laboured

diligently and effectively to bring light, freedom and justice into a

world which had been barren of such things.

Their armies and their navy welded into the Roman Empire the major

part of the known world and brought peace and law and order to its

peoples. Commerce reached the highest degree of development ever known

and brought to Romans a standard of living not to be approached for

another 1,000 years. With the raising of living standards came a

generous measure of leisure and culture.

Then the sun began to set on Rome. Slowly but steadily the tide of

the Empire ebbed and the glory and the power that once was Rome faded

and died. The barbarians stormed her gates and the light which Rome had

brought to the world dimmed and died. Not for another 1,000 years was

the world to know anything but chaos and fear and suffering and

ignorance.

Why did Rome fall? Rome fell because the nation collapsed morally

and spiritually; because a hardy race thrifty and industrious gave way

to corruption and waste and indolence; because the nation bartered its

ancient heritage of hard-won freedom for the specious ease and false

security of an indolent and easy way of life.

We like to think that our society has come a long way since the time

of Sodom and Gomorrah and Roman times. We like to think of our society

as civilised. But do we really realise that civilisation is a recent

phenomenon in human history.

For all practical purposes, the material of human nature within our

civilisation is the same as that with which the Stone-age men and women

had to work.

Our environment is different, granted, but basically we are

primitive people in a modern world. It is dangerous as well as

advantageous to be heirs of all that has passed insofar as material

things are concerned and to carry with us still urges and impulses of

ancient days.

There are three things we can do with our instincts in trying to

conform to the requirements of civilisation: we could follow our primal

impulses, we can deny their existence, or we use them for ends which

are in harmony with our most ardent wishes.

The third, of course, is the most desirable. It's the outcome of

self-control and, says George Bernard Shaw: "The survival of the

fittest means finally the survival of the self-controlled, because they

alone can adapt themselves to the perpetual shifting of conditions."

If we recognise the need of self-control in our lives and the need

to regulate our instincts and emotions by self-discipline we have

passed the first hurdle. But there is more to it than that.

Children may take life as frankly beyond them. They do not feel the

need to fit their environment or the things in it that happen to them

into patterns of our living. But adults govern their lives by reason,

at least I hope, and the fuel behind reason for effective reasoning is

knowledge.

We have to school ourselves to think things out in their relations

to other things; we have to train ourselves to look at all sides of the

question. A well-disciplined person must use reason before he can judge

what is right or what is wrong, what is good for him, or what may be

harmful to him, what is a wise or unwise course of action either

mentally or physically. And in addition he must not only reason

selfishly for himself, he must take into consideration the results of

his actions from those within his home environment, his family circle,

those in his community, and indeed more broadly speaking society as a

whole.

Within his home environment the parent must be ever-conscious of his

responsibility for inculcating in his children a fundamental respect

for universal laws of living, laws which were basic to man's first

attempts at civilisation and laws which have throughout the centuries

remained unchanged. Times change and behavioural patterns tend to swing

with the changing times. However, the fundamental principles applying

to man's co-existence with his fellow man must remain the same.

Anything which attempts to undermine these fundamental principles of

co-existence, must be considered by each and every one of us in the

light of reason. Governments at all levels endeavour to legislate

improvements in areas of concern to all of us — concern for example for

the abuse of alcohol, and the abuse of drugs and the problems arising

from such abuse.

There are those in our society who are ruthlessly prepared to

disregard not only the fundamental laws basic to our society as well as

disregarding the laws of the land, but also have a total disregard for

their fellow man for the sake of amassing a quick fortune through

promoting and selling substances which interfere with our individual

reasoning and which undermine the foundation of our society.

They care little, in their desire to prey upon human weaknesses for

purposes of monetary gain, that those who purchase what they peddle may

become broken in health and in mind and as a result become an

irreparable loss to our society.

What has been said about pollution of our environment? I ask you is

there perhaps a greater and more insidious pollution — a pollution of

which we are less consciously aware perhaps than that of our

environment?

The thinking and the reasoning adult must be increasingly conscious

of drugs as pollutants of the mind. While many of us are fortunate in

having enough self-discipline and knowledge of the dangers inherent in

these pollutants it is our responsibility as parents to see that our

children are made aware through family discussion, instruction in

school, local community awareness programmes, through the news media,

and indeed through any means at our disposal to make note to our

children of the mental and physical dangers inherent in the use of

these pollutants of the human race.

Being ever-conscious of this responsibility in the so-called

"permissive" age in which we live parents can go a long way towards

helping the up-coming generation step into adulthood as healthy, useful

and mentally alert citizens.

While awareness of the pollutants available to ourselves and our

children is essential, as parents we must recognise that while children

may not consider the need to fit their

[ Page 172 ]

environment around them into patterns of meaning

they do learn from their environment and they learn as they live from

day to day.

It is important to bear in mind, and I would like to quote this poem

I read the other day and maybe you have heard it lately too.

A child that lives with ridicule learns to be

timid. A child that lives with criticism learns to condemn. A child

that lives with distrust learns to be deceitful. A child that lives

with antagonism learns to be hostile. A child that lives with affection

learns to love. A child that lives with truth learns justice. A child

that lives with praise learns to appreciate. A child that lives with

sharing learns to be considerate. A child that lives with knowledge

learns wisdom. A child that lives with patience learns to be tolerant

and a child that lives with happiness will find love and beauty.

It's probably a tall order for us as parents to remember all these

things and to practice them in our everyday lives, in our day-to-day

living.

However, if we remember the basic tenets of our society and our

responsibility to the generation coming after us we should not find the

responsibility too heavy upon us.

If each and every one of us remembers the dual postulate of our

development as a democratic country — the nature of the individual and

duty of each person to do unto others as he would have others do unto

him — we would be well on the way, to combatting the most vile

pollutants of our society, the destruction of human minds from material

gains.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Surrey.

MR. E. HALL (Surrey): Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest

to the end of that speech, and I thought for a second we were getting a rallying

call for the election. Sodom today, and Gomorrah tomorrow.

But the thoughts expressed by the Hon. Minister will go in the record and I'm pleased she's on the right side. (Laughter).

I want to say, Mr. Speaker, it's a pleasure to take part again in

this debate and to bring before the government some of the areas of

concern. They may want later on in the session to address themselves to

these problems that we bring before them.

But first, like many others, I want to report on a couple of the

things that happened since we were here together. I remember a debate

about advertising and I took that to heart, Mr. Speaker, and I left

here and I threw away my cigars and I haven't smoked since.

I also managed to lose some weight and if I can manage to do those

two things anybody in this House can do them, I'll tell you that.

I left Victoria and I went to Ottawa just after the end of the

session last year. I was sitting in the gallery of the federal House

one day and I saw on the other side of the House our new Minister of

Labour (Hon. Mr. Chabot). He was getting an on-the-job-training

programme I suppose. I waved to him. I gave him the signal and

congratulated him by a hand signal. (Laughter). We're not allowed to do

that in this House.

But I want to say seriously that the new Minister of Labour

unfortunately as his first discernible act cocked his nose at this

Legislature on opening day or the day before, and I want to take back

that hand signal. I'm not going to congratulate him because I think we

are in worse trouble than we were before.

We also had last year, Mr. Speaker, the nuclear blast at Amchitka.

We saw how thousands of young people gathered to protest that event. We

saw thousands of people signing protests and I wonder how much more

could have been done if this government had seized the opportunity two

years earlier to do something about it. How we could have added some

focus to that protest? There were opportunities given to this

Legislature at that time.

I wonder, when the aftermath is examined, when the facts come from

Amchitka — and it's difficult to get some of those facts, one appears

to be that we've lost over 1,000 otters in that area, just one point

that's filtered out — I wonder if the whole hypocritical fact of that

blast being allowed on an island as part of a national wildlife refuge

was going to mean anything to anybody as far as what we do from here on

in.

I think the fight should still go on, Mr. Speaker, against nuclear

testing no matter who does it, no matter where it comes from. And I

think this government could do a lot worse than help those groups who

are continuing their activity post-Amchitka, and post the mainland

Chinese testing just a few weeks ago.

This government could do a lot worse as I say, to give some focus

and some assistance to those groups who wish to continue to draw

attention to the problems that are obviously involved in nuclear

testing.

I don't suppose, Mr. Speaker, that anybody is going to be very

surprised if I mention one subject today, and that's the question of

glue sniffing.

Three years ago, almost to the day, I was the first M.L.A. to draw

the attention of the Legislature to the problems of adolescents using

toxic solvents. Three years ago to the day, Mr. Speaker, on January 29,

I went through a series of facts and shared some figures and some

opinions with the House and for the next few weeks or there abouts this

item was discussed in the newspapers and the floor of this chamber.

At the time I was attacked — I was ripped into — that's about the

only expression one can use, if one looks at the papers — by one of the

lady Cabinet Ministers of using this problem for political purpose.

"Emotionalism", "why hadn't we reported it to the police" and so on.

I answered those questions — that it had been reported to the

Attorney General, it was being done right then. It had been reported to

the youth officer in a police force.

No wonder I've got the same kind of comments now. Because when we

checked the record we had in those days we find out that the Minister

responsible, the Attorney General promised an investigation. I quote

from the Vancouver Province of January 31: "In a discussion

with Dr. Mott, the deputy Medical Officer of Health in the city of

Vancouver… "And later on, this time in the Vancouver Sun :

"The Attorney General said Wednesday he intended to investigate

reports. He didn't know what could be done". Another column is

regarding the attitude of the lady Minister from Little Mountain (Hon.

Mrs. McCarthy).

And here we are three years later and since that time Mr. Speaker,

we've asked for the committee on drugs to be re-established. We've

asked a report on their work, we've asked for a report from the

Minister of Education on what he's done following that committee

report. As you can see nothing was done Mr. Speaker — just vague and

misleading promises — and three years later the Attorney-General is

making the same vague and misleading promises.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. The Honourable Member referred to my remarks as mis-

[ Page 173 ]

leading. I would ask him to withdraw. I have not mislead the House in any way in this matter.

MR. SPEAKER: I think unless the word "misleading" is prefaced

by "a deliberate method" to mislead, or imputing that the Minister

deliberately mislead, I could not ask for a withdrawal.

MR. HALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On this matter I feel that

the attitude and the answers of the Hon. Attorney General indicate that

he should move over. I think that the Hon. Attorney General should move

over and let somebody do this job who has a will, who's determined to

do something about it.

The government shows how inadequate it is in failing to show any leadership whatsoever in this province.

The House committee on drugs was killed — was stifled I think is the

popular expression these days. Resolutions from this side of the House

were ignored. And now we've got a new council on drug abuse set up last

year and I'd like to know what it has done because I don't think the

government really knows where to go with this problem.

They're not going to cure the drug scene by using flossy

advertisements on television. And something more than long-range

educational films is required.

Mr. Speaker, apart from a couple of trial programmes as well as the

volunteer groups not a single person directly traceable to an action of

this government has been placed on the streets to try and help solve

this problem. That's where the problem will be solved — where the

action is. Not in this chamber, only by finding out from the people who

are part and parcel of the whole scene, can we get any forward movement

in solving this problem.

But in the meantime, Mr. Speaker, we've got to start collecting

those facts. We've got to start investigating. And I appeal once again

of the House to meet and to work and fulfill what is now a fairly

obvious duty.

Mr. Speaker this is the sixth time that I've had the pleasure of

engaging in the throne debate. The attention of the politicians and the

teachers, the trustees, the Press and the public will once again be

diverted to the question of bricks and mortar, of dollars and cents.

The bricks and mortar, dollars and cents questions of education. Once

again, Mr. Speaker, the government has so arranged its affairs that no

discussion is likely on other crucial aspects of education while this

Legislature is sitting.

The quality of education, the whys and wherefores of education,

cannot be discussed after all the decisions about plants and formula

and budgets and deficits have been made.

No one, I suggest, is putting up any real argument that we should

spend more than a third of our annual budget on education. What people

are asked about are questions of values of direction, and about an

overall plan. It becomes obvious to anyone who cares to look that no

one really knows what's really going on in post-secondary education.

I ask some simple questions. Who is in charge of the game plan for

post-secondary education? Who's doing the research, who's doing the

decision making for the pyramid that we have in the department of

education, and outside in the universities and colleges?

Who's in charge of dovetailing the problems and the answers of our

college system into and as a replacement for the traditional university

stream?

I just did some random surveys of university graduates in the years

that this government has been in power. I took four fields of endeavour

which I think we spend more than enough time talking about — doctors,

social workers, dentists and lawyers.

In 1952, Mr. Speaker, 56 doctors graduated — that was actually the

class of '53. So in the early part of the 50's, 56 doctors graduated,

54 social workers graduated, no dentists, and 121 lawyers.

In 1971 there were 60 doctors graduated, an increase of 6 for 20

years; 61 social workers graduated compared to the 54 I mentioned in

1952, although there has been a peak of some 90-odd in the mid 60's; 20

dentists graduated — 20 dentists for the province of British Columbia,

and 186 lawyers graduated.

They are basic figures, they are raw figures. I only put them out to

show you there seems to be something going wrong. Although medicare has

been a factor in this province for a number of years, although our

population is growing as one of the fastest rates in Canada, we

produced the same number of doctors as we did 20 years ago.

AN HON. MEMBER: There are more doctors per capita right here in this province…

AN HON. MEMBER: Where are you getting them from?

MR. HALL: Not much better performance as far as social

workers are concerned. A terrible performance as far as dentists are

concerned, and a huge increase in the number of lawyers. And that says

something of our values and our organisation of education and perhaps

about our system generally.

I can only make a passing reference to education, because of the

bill introduced on Friday. I will say that it's pretty obvious now that

the whole education force in the province, teachers, students,

trustees, could only consider the Minister in this government an

educational disaster.

Mr. Speaker, any cursory or detailed analysis of the matters that

are coming before us as individual M.L.A.'s and any knowledge at all of

our constituencies and the province could only lead us to the view

today that one of the major problems is helping young people deal with

their problems.

So often they say that they are a problem themselves, and I prefer

to phrase it in that way, and the problems that the young people have

to contend with today are cruelly complex. And the problems of both

what they are doing and, of course, the young people themselves.

A list would include matters about drugs, about unemployment — we

know there's a larger percentage of young unemployed than ever before — the question of drop-outs from our public school system, the question

of street people, the question of transients that many ministers gave a

great deal of attention to this last summer, the difficulties in our

post-secondary education, the question that I discussed with our

Attorney General a year ago.

Are we going to make any contribution to a debate about young

offenders? And we know what happened to the bill. I still think that

this House should afford an opportunity to debate that — what kind of

legislation we'd like British Columbia to suggest to the federal House.

Problems about driving, about car insurance that are associated with

young people, and of course the feeling of irrelevance and what some

people call the communication gap.

It's obvious that young people do today have a conviction and a desire to serve and to do things and to help people that

[ Page 174 ]

we've not seen for thousands of years according to the history.

Now these remarks can't apply to every child any more than they

apply to any one single child. But that's the feeling I have. And we're

doing little if anything about this. Apart from making sure we're just

funnelling money around. Channelling money around. And I suppose it's

right to expect to debate about the value of the dollar spent. It's

also valuable, I think, to get the young people's opinion of those

dollars spent, and the value of the system which I maintain is less

than satisfactory.

Some of the programmes this government talks about are good, but I

wonder how relevant. The forestry camp programme is a good one, but how

relevant is it to the people I meet in Whalley and in Cloverdale and in

New Westminster? They show perhaps some of the rural bias of this

government, instead of awareness of the problems of the cities, that

I'm sure the Vancouver Members know about and should be talking about.

But I'd like to see a specific and a particular department, Mr.

Speaker, set up to deal with the young people and their problems, and

their place in today's society. I'd like to see a T.V. channel secured

now before it's too late, a co-ordination of government efforts and a

start made on programmes by young people themselves.

Again I say that won't be done inside this chamber. It won't be done

inside a bureaucrat's office, or a departmental office. It will only be

done by going both physically and mentally to where the problems are

and where the people are.

I think one of our first tasks is going to be to find out who we're

concerned about — an inventory of the problem and a description of the

concerns and the problems. It's almost a cliche to talk about

"involvement". But I can think of no other word to describe what I

consider has to be done.

I listen to some of the speakers who go on tour and some very

sincere and worthwhile people in our own civil service on some of these

programmes. But I am convinced in my own mind that the days of thinking

that these problems can be solved by some up-to-date pro-rec programme

or by simply the provision of playing fields or by the building of

community centres, they've surely gone. We've gone past that. I suggest

that while those schemes are important, in the main they are dealing

with the non-problem people.

A commission on youth should perhaps be the first step, followed by the setting-up of a department that I've suggested.

I mentioned unemployment. That's serious. I want to suggest why I

think it is more serious than enough and how I think this government

has got a larger role to play than that which it is prepared to admit.

Because, Mr. Speaker, here in British Columbia it is now very

obvious we're just simply an outpost for the North American industrial

system — a corporate system, a system in private hands.

It's also a closed system, Mr. Speaker. It's a system that's

designed to serve the North American industrial machine and throughout

the history of this province and during the whole of the Bennett years

— as we now hear them called — we in British Columbia have been a

store-house of energy, a store-house of resources for the North

American machine.

That's why, Mr. Speaker, under the Social Credit administration we

remained a province entirely dependent on the export of natural

resources.

We have seen the resources slipping out of our control so that when

we find our oil and our gas is owned by U.S. interests we're surprised.

We find our minerals are owned by U.S. and Japanese interests and our

forest industry is being gobbled up by multi-national corporations.

It's increasing our dependence on our natural resource industries

and it's a limiting factor in the growth and development of secondary

industry in this province.

An economy as dependent as ours on natural resources is an economy

that is subject to the buffeting of world demand for those self-same

resources. A natural resource economy is one that will never provide

enough jobs simply because our natural resource industries are not

labour intensive. We must develop a sophisticated and diversified

manufacturing industry and it's quite clear that the government — and

this was re-echoed by a government member the other day — is not able

to develop such a programme.

It has no policy for the development of resources worthy of the

name. Its only policy, Mr. Speaker, has been "come and get it." That's

why we are hit by unemployment. That's the responsibility that this

government cannot shift to Ottawa.

You can talk all you like about Gross National Product. Talk all you

like about Trudeau's policies. Valid comments have been made by some of

the Ministers in the debate last year and already this year. But that

dependence that I've illustrated is the one responsibility you can't

shift to Ottawa.

That's why our leader talks about Socred waste and welfare. That's

why there's no place in our system for thousands of people. There's no

place for the old age pensioner, no place for the people on welfare, no

place for the unemployed, no place for the working poor, and certainly

no place for the native Indian.

All these people live outside your corporate system. The system

doesn't require them as workers and it doesn't particularly require

them any more as consumers.

We as legislators and as concerned people provide a patchwork quilt

of welfare measures to solve our collective consciences. But the real

tragedy is that 20 per cent of our people are deprived of the

opportunity to play a constructive

part in the life and work of the

province. And that's waste. That's again the waste of welfare that my

leader talks about.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. HALL: I'm talking about this province here and now. The

statistics and raw facts given to us in the throne speech — and they'll

be repeated by the new Minister of Labour until we're sick of hearing

them — aren't good enough. About how "the graph has gone up here" and

how "there's more people working".

I'm talking about the fact that 20 per cent of the people are not — and I repeat not — part of the system. Two years ago and again last

year I asked for real figures and I challenge the new Minister to tell

us who is unemployed, what skills are unemployed and under-employed,

what mismatching of skills are there? Who is taking count? Who is doing

the research?

AN HON. MEMBER: He just left.

MR. HALL: A whole range of facts should be made available to

us and if not to us, to the department to find out what kind of

unemployment. Then something can be done following modern analysis.

The Minister (Hon. Mr. Skillings) in charge of the computer who sits next to the Minister of Labour should be

[ Page 175 ]

set free.

AN HON. MEMBER: Retired!

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. HALL: He

can change the buttons on the computer now, and he can stop studying

fertility rates — one of the last reports I got. He could start to

investigate the immediate problems of the unemployed. Let him put his

machinery to work. I join with the Hon. Member down the row here who

said that it is now almost impossible to discern any movement at all in

that ministry.

Mr. Speaker, I have a lot more to say about this particular item of

unemployment and the working poor during estimates in the budget

debate. But let me conclude by saying on this subject that unless we

establish this kind of information, unless we establish a B.C. Planning

and Development Council that could make an intensive and continuing

review of the industrial scene to chart a course for the growth and

expansion of secondary industry in the province, we're all going to

fail. We will all fail.

The council could be empowered to survey investment patterns and

requirements and would be required to lay plans before the cabinet

because the cabinet and ultimately the Legislature must be responsible

for the planning of economic future.

The council would concern itself with the total picture, not just

with the luring of investment in the province, no matter what kind of

investment it is or where it comes from.

The council and the cabinet would then be committed to a policy of

full employment, a policy designed to end the cyclical and seasonal

recessions that deprive so many people of the opportunity I mentioned — The opportunity, Mr. Speaker, of doing some useful work. We could stop

depriving our economy of the services of those people.

The government is fond of saying that its massive expenditures on

dam construction are the essential foundation of future prosperity in

the province. But what they don't seem to realise, Mr. Speaker, what

the government obviously fails to realise is that unless you've got a

highly-skilled and a well-educated people there will be no economic

future at all for this province and the prosperity is meaningless if

only a few people share in it. It's no good having prosperity, it's no

good showing graphs if only a few people are sharing in that kind of

prosperity.

I point out that our system is cruel because it excludes so many

people from a life of reward and of recognition and consigns them to

idleness and unemployment or at the very best unsteady, patchy work on

the fringe of this North American industrial machine. Mr. Speaker, I

said "our system" and I really want to amend that. It's their system

over there, not our system over here.

Mr. Speaker, I talked about welfare and I want to conclude by

bringing the attention of the House to the question of welfare in

Surrey. We've seen a lot of statements in the Press.

I've been uttering warnings about social welfare in Surrey for these

last six years. Headline grabbers on the municipal council have come

out with all sorts of absurd suggestions. The problems facing Surrey

find no solution, no immediate solution in the Speech from the Throne,

but I suppose it would be too much to expect that. They may in the

legislation that's hinted on but unless there are some solutions on

welfare costs, on housing and flooding, the majority of my constituents

will again be both disgruntled and disappointed with the government's

performance.

I'm going to present Surrey's case on welfare at the appropriate

time during estimates. But I do want to read some sections of the

report that the people of Surrey are faced with — simply that the

council in the municipality of Surrey is requesting that cost-sharing

on welfare be changed so that 100 per cent of the costs are borne by

the senior government.

Council is also concerned — and this is contained in the regulations

— that some municipalities with a population of over 15,000 are still

only paying a per-capita fee to the province,

whereas my municipality

is required to administer its own welfare department at a cost of $2

per capita, as against the 60 cents that's being provided by some

municipalities. We seem to have found a way of interpreting the

regulations.

Mr. Speaker, in six years the staff has grown from 28 people to 42

people. The costs have escalated. The administrative costs alone are in

the hundreds of thousands. One of the statements made by the

administrator — I want to read this to you, Mr. Speaker, because I

could hardly believe it when I first read it — he is referring to a

cessation of any services in the area as put forward by the mayor of

the district. He says:

Surrey is predominantly a working man's municipality, and any

reduction in services would seriously affect the majority of people in

Surrey. Furthermore, as social assistance only provides a basic minimum

standard of living any interruption in income for this group could

incite retaliation reminiscent of the 1930's. Now I didn't think I

would ever read a statement like that in this day and age by somebody

who is as close to the scene as the administrator in the Municipality

of Surrey.

But it is obvious that the problem is great. It's obvious that the

passage of three recommendations by the municipality — first of all

that it should be assumed to be 100 per cent of the costs by senior

governments, secondly that the formula be changed so that once again

people who have got money coming to them from this government get it on

time, at the right time, in the right place in the right amount. That

doesn't happen often enough when you have to deal with this government

in terms of transferance of payment.

If the government lived up to the regularity provisions of the Act

the budget in Surrey could be altered by some $230,000. Because of the

back-log in payments and the waiting for moneys to come in,

But as I say, Mr. Speaker, I'll be going into that in detail with

the Minister and in joining the budget debate. But it is an important

matter. It faces Surrey, one of the fastest growing municipalities that

unfortunately has suffered a rate above the provincial averages social

welfare case-load.

I intend to place a lot more of those problems before you in the

next few weeks. But as a start, the Speech from the Throne leaves a lot

to be desired and this government, Mr. Speaker, has a lot to answer for.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for North Vancouver–Capilano.

MR. D.M. BROUSSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Speaker,

it's been fashionable in this debate to make some comment on the

provision of new quarters from the Minister of Public Works, that we've

been enjoying.

[ Page 176 ]

Now, Mr. Speaker, I really don't want to look a gift horse in the

mouth but I do want to make some comments about this. Our quarters have

been moved from here to the far side over here and as a result of that,

Mr. Speaker I have occasion now to use this corridor along here a good

deal more often than I used to. I find that the specifications used by

the Department of Public Works in hanging the little wooden signs that

say "Speaker's Corridor" are rather low for some of us.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. BROUSSON: I see the Minister is not in the House at

present but I hope that someone will ask the Minister if perhaps he

could adjust the height of the little wooden signs. Some of us find

that it catches us in just the hardest spot.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. BROUSSON: Mr. Speaker, the standard of speeches delivered

in this debate by the members of the Liberal Party has been very high

this year. (Laughter).

I think I'll have, I'm sure Mr. Speaker, I'll have some difficulty

matching the intellectual quality or the eloquence of those who have

preceded me from this party. (Laughter).

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. BROUSSON: But perhaps I can follow them in the theme of

inquiring regarding some of the things that were left out of the Speech

from the Throne — those policies that the government did not include in

their report to British Columbia. For instance, Mr. Speaker, first let

us consider the matter of oil leases and oil drilling in coastal waters

around British Columbia.

It was amusing last week to hear the Hon. Minister of Forests (Hon.

Mr. Williston) announcing with glee that he thought he had caught the

federal government off-base in awarding a preliminary exploration

permit for an area off the Queen Charlotte Islands and then an hour or

so later we learned that the provincial Department of Mines issues

these permits as a matter of routine and did so very recently to

another oil company.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. BROUSSON: It's well-known, of course, that the Minister

of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Kiernan) would like to find

ways and means to issue leases for oil drilling in the Strait of

Georgia. Only action by the federal government has locked the Strait of

Georgia away from the oil companies. Much to this government's regret.

Mr. Speaker, I'm tired of this kind of politics that Victoria and

Ottawa keep on playing in this matter of off-shore oil rights, as well

as in many other areas affecting the environment.

I'd like to tell the House, Mr. Speaker, the story of another

country in the Commonwealth in dealing with an equally difficult

problem in a way that puts Canada and British Columbia to shame.

The Great Barrier Reef lies off the north-east coast of Australia

and the State of Queensland. It's over 1,000 miles long and it varies

from just a short distance to the mainland to as much as several

hundred miles out. It is well-known as the outstanding coral reef area

in the world, and I don't have to dwell here on its great beauties and

ecological importance. There has been controversy in Australia just as

in other parts of the world regarding the dangers of oil exploration. I

believe the action Australia has taken might teach Canada and British

Columbia a valuable lesson.

Oil and gas are in danger of becoming diminishing resources and

pressure for their discovery is certain to increase. At the same time,

we have only one natural environment and it is too precious to be

destroyed or damaged. What did Australia do?

The federal government of the Commonwealth of Australia and the

State of Queensland agreed to co-operate on a Royal commission to

enquire into exploration and drilling in the region of the Great

Barrier Reef.

Can you imagine the Government of British Columbia and the

Queensland each appointed a Royal commission, comprising the same

members and the same terms of reference. Let me read some of the terms

of reference.

1. Taking into account existing world technology in

relation to drilling for petroleum and safety precautions relating

thereto, what risk is there of an oil or gas leak in exploratory or

production drilling for petroleum in the area of the Great Barrier Reef?

2. What would be the probable effects of such an oil

or gas leak and of the subsequent remedial measures on

a. The coral

reefs themselves

b. The coast line

c. The ecological and biological aspects of life in that area.

3. Are there localities in the area of the Great

Barrier Reef and if so, what are the geographical limits wherein the

effects of an oil or gas leak would cause so little detriment that

drilling there for petroleum might be permitted?

And so on, there are a number of other terms of reference, I won't go into in detail.

The commission was appointed in 1970 and it consists of three

people. The chairman is a learned judge, formally the president of the

Court of Appeal of New South Wales. With him is a respected consulting

petroleum engineer, — from Canada as a matter of fact — also a

world-renowned scientist, the director of the Plymouth Laboratory of

Marine Biology of the United Kingdom, a learned gentleman who was much

involved in the problems of cleaning up after the Torrey Canyon

disaster.

The commission has been sitting now for over a year and will probably bring in its report late in 1972.

Of very special significance to us, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that

these two governments, Australia and Queensland, through the

commission, are actually paying the expenses of the conservation

interests to make sure that adequate representations are made of their

case. What an example for the governments of Canada and British

Columbia!

Australians are a practical and pragmatic people. They passionately

love the outdoors and all its assorted activities and the environment.

They are proud of their world-renowned Great Barrier Reef, one of the

outstanding marine areas of the world. They believe this co-operation

and in-depth study is the way to approach such knotty problems.

I agree with the statement of the Vancouver Sun editorial of

last Saturday, Mr. Speaker, which said: "The environmental quality of

the West Coast is far too precious to be squandered on cheap politics".

The only reference in the Speech from the Throne to the

[ Page 177 ]

matter of the protection of the coastal waters of British Columbia

was, and I quote, Mr. Speaker, "as a result of a survey, new

beach-water quality standards have been set".

The Premier of British Columbia could well learn a lesson from the

first Ministers of New South Wales and the Commonwealth of Australia.

The throne speech mentioned the Kootenay Canal power project and the

leader of the Liberal Party explained that there appeared to be some

problems in connection with this project. The Minister of Lands and

Forests attempted, without much success, to answer these questions. I

would like today to add some detail to that story.

First is the matter of the economics of the project. As the House

was told previously, one consulting engineer, Mr. Francis Bartholomew,

who is known around the world for his work on power projects, has

prepared a study which throws grave doubts on the economic liability of

the Kootenay Canal project.

He suggest that for the 500,000 kilowatt plant that the Minister of

Lands and Forests talks about, there will be actually available water

capacity for far less than this, much of the time less than 130,000

kilowatt average output and at times as little as only 60 or 70,000

kilowatts and this from an expenditure of over $100 million.

"All further work on the canal project should be

suspended until it has been given a full objective and comprehensive

economic study, both in the near term and far term of its operation."

Mr. Speaker, I have neither the information nor the qualifications

to judge this statement and this project. I do know that rumours have

been heard for some time that the decision to build the Kootenay Canal

project is a political one rather than an engineering and economic one

and that B.C. Hydro was in effect told by the government to get it done.

I do know that if Mr. Bartholomew is even partly right, Kootenay

Canal power will be a very expensive contribution to the B.C. Hydro

system. There is not much use building a large plant if you can only

use its full capacity now and then.

A second problem is that of the City of Nelson. The Minister of

Lands and Forests attempted last week to justify this government's

treatment of Nelson, but he didn't tell all the story. I think it is

worthwhile reporting in more detail because it illustrates so well the

contempt with which this government regards any object which stands in

its way and the complete lack of consideration of the rights of any

lesser powers.

Nelson has had a successful hydro-electric plant for many years, and

is now the only municipally-owned power plant in British Columbia. The

operation of this plant is very important to Nelson. It provides an

annual profit of perhaps $500,000 or $600,000 — perhaps more — and it

is easy to see the importance of this sum of money in the budget of a

city of the size of Nelson.

Nelson is licensed, as the Minister detailed last week, for 1,428

cubic feet per second of water. It is true, as the Minister said, that

Nelson has encroached for some years on the Cominco water licence, but

it should also be clear — which the Hon. Minister did not mention — that this was done by arrangement and that the city paid the provincial

government for this water.

The Minister also suggested that the Nelson plant was inefficient

because it was old. This is neither a fair nor an accurate statement.

The efficiency of the generator has been established to be about 95 per

cent and of the hydro wheel about 82 per cent, which indicates an

efficiency very close to modern plants of this kind.

The problem today is that the City of Nelson badly needs a further

714 cubic feet per second to add to its present 1,428. Even though this

could be made available, B.C. Hydro is apparently so concerned over the

shortage of water supply for its canal project that it will not allow

this water to the city.

The catch is that Hydro needs 38 acres owned by Nelson and this plot of land is critical to the whole hydro canal project.

Nelson has refused to sell the plant and B.C. Hydro has refused to

provide either water or power and that's where the matter rests at

present.

To further understand the position of the City of Nelson, we must go back many years.

In 1949, the comptroller of water rights of the provincial

government of that day wrote to the City of Nelson and suggested that

in view of possible effects of development of the Columbia River, would

Nelson want to consider the desirability and usefulness of a further

1,400 c.f.s. of water over and above its existing 1,428 c.f.s?

In November, 1949, the city replied saying it would like to apply

for 1,400 c.f.s. In case of any future developments that would make

this water available.

Early in December, 1949, the deputy comptroller of water rights

wrote again to Nelson advising that the fee for such an application

would be substantial, about $2,500, that a refresher fee would be

required every six months until the licence was issued and that a

licence could not actually be issued until the water was available some

years hence.

The implication was this would be pretty expensive for Nelson in the meantime.

Finally, the water rights department suggested that if the overall

plan was agreed to between the U.S. and Canada, then the benefits

therefrom would be apportioned equitably.

The city agreed to leave the matter in abeyance for the time being.

In 1952 the city's position on water had become more urgent and the

city did apply for more water again and was told then its application

would not be entertained until more information was available.

In 1956, Nelson applied again and was told now that an order in

council dated the year before, 1955, put a reserve on all available

water, but that its needs will be noted for the future.

Now we come to '62. Nelson applied again and was told that a licence

had now been issued to B.C. Hydro giving the rights to store water at

Duncan and to receive all the downstream benefits, that the government

would not issue any new licence to Nelson without consultation with

other licencees.

In 1964, another application. Same reply.

So my question, Mr. Speaker, is: if in 1962 and 1964 the government

was so concerned in telling Nelson "we couldn't give you a licence

without consultation with the other licencees," why did they not advise

the City of Nelson when they were giving the licence to B.C. Hydro?

Let's have some discussion on this subject.

It seems that once upon a time when this government needed an

electric power operation for its own purposes, it took over the B.C.

Electric by calling in the Legislature to pass the necessary law. But

now, grown bigger and more powerful, it merely squeezes the small

operation, like the Nelson City power plant, until it is dry, and then

un-

[ Page 178 ]

doubtedly will take it over.

The City of Nelson's electric operation is only 2 per cent of the

size of the proposed B.C. Hydro canal development. Nelson has an old

and historic position in power generation on the Kootenay River and has

fought hard to maintain that position which today is important to

it.

The provincial water rights branch in 1949 lulled the city into a

false sense of security and advised it not to waste its money applying

too soon for a new licence but it would be looked after.

Nelson was there first, Mr. Speaker. Surely it has rights now?

Surely we have a moral responsibility now, not to merely brush

Nelson aside, because it is too small to receive fair and just

consideration from this government?

The Liberal leader in his speech outlined the kind of policy we

believe would ensure that these decisions would be made in the full

fight of informed public opinion rather than in the private board-rooms

of the government and its Crown corporations. Let me repeat the policy

very briefly to you.

1. The B.C. Energy Board, with broad terms of reference, would

gather data and make reports on all energy projects. 2. A new committee

of this House, the energy committee, would receive these reports and

give them full public discussion with the opportunity of calling all

interested parties before it.

3. The Legislature would receive and consider the report of its committee and make the final decision.

These are the kinds of policies and statements we would like to have

seen outlined in the throne speech, Mr. Speaker. Another topic on which

we might have expected some major comments from the throne speech,

would have been housing.

Everywhere one goes today there are problems in finding sufficient,

or indeed any, low-cost housing. But after all the fanfare during the

year and talk of action, this government has really not done very much

in the housing field. I guess it would not for that reason be able to

talk about it very much in the throne speech, in its review.

Later on in these debates I want to speak in more detail on housing

problems. Today I want to discuss a topic which I raised in my maiden

speech in this House. That of mobile homes.

I believe, as an increasing number of people do, that mobile homes

can help solve some of our low-cost housing problems. The cost is low,

the quality is good, they can be purchased with the very latest new

furniture and appliances already in place. They serve a special purpose

for the young family, the retired couple, the construction worker, and

so on.

I know the Hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Campbell)

and the Hon. Member for Nanaimo (Mr. Ney) and others in this House have

supported the mobile home. One of the major problems seems to be a

reluctance for municipalities and towns to look favourably on mobiles,

to provide the zoning climate which would encourage them.

Mobile homes can be harmonised with the environment and they can be

an asset to any community with understanding and co-operation. I agree

with a number of the members, as I said first in February, 1969, that

the political climate must be changed from hostile to friendly.

However, in attempting to set up a better climate for mobile homes,

as usual, this government appears to have stubbed its toe over its own

prejudices and its lack of foresight and common sense.

A year ago the government realised it has created a real mess by its

approach to assessment and taxation of mobile homes. So the Legislature

passed, over a great deal of opposition from this side of the House,

the Mobile Home Park Fee Act , which required the operator of a mobile

home park to pay a fee which averages $5 a month for each occupant on

one of his spaces.

Now let us examine the results of that bill, after it has been in operation for seven or eight months.

Not only are there many mobile home parks in British Columbia, but

there are a number of subdivisions where the lots are zoned for mobile

homes, where the developer particularly tries to sell his lots to

owners of mobile homes. In fact, in a number of cases, you can find a

mobile home park and a mobile home subdivision side by side. Let us

compare the two situations.

First, the mobile home park owned by a free-enterprise small

businessman, who has invested a large sum of money in his park. He has

provided concrete pads for each unit. He has landscaped. He is required

to meet the terms of local bylaws and the regulations of the provincial

Minister of Health, in provision of such facilities as buffer zones,

recreation areas, laundry or washing facilities and so on.

He has built and he maintains the roads. He carries out snow

clearing. He provides sewers or septic tanks. He provides street

lighting and electric wiring. He provides the water lines. He arranges

and pays for garbage collection and fire protection.

He pays local tax on the property and the improvements he has built.

He must now under this park fee Act remit $3 to $8 per month for each

mobile home in his park. His tenants pay $40 to $50 per month, perhaps

a little more in some of the very deluxe parks.

Right beside him or across the street is a development which

advertises, "Lots for Sale for Mobile Homes." The usual practice is to

sell the lots for 1 per cent and 1 per cent per month so a typical deal

is perhaps $35 or $40 down and $35 or $40 per month.

Now the developer has put in the roads, but then the roads are

turned over to the provincial government or to the local district or

municipality and so now the local district or provincial government

maintains them or does the snow clearing. B.C. Hydro puts in the

wiring. No charge. On top of all this, if you own a mobile home and put

your $40 down and pay your $40 per month you get the $1,000 home

acquisition grant, and of course you will also receive the home-owner

grant, thus your local taxes are paid for you. It will be a rare

situation where you'll pay more than $1 per year for all of these

services.

Does this seem fair, compared to your friend across the street who

perhaps owns the identical mobile home that you do, but who lives in

the mobile home park, pays about the same rent per month to the

operator who must provide all of these services and also pay his own

local taxes?

It seems, Mr. Speaker, there are clearly two kinds of mobile home-owners — first class and second class.

There's another catch, Mr. Speaker, perhaps after you have lived in

your new home for a few months enjoying your $1,000 grant and all the

services you get so cheaply, you might decide to move to another town

for a better job. So you simply move your mobile home to a new

community.

But maybe you buy another lot, maybe you just rent from a mobile

home park in the new town — it costs about the same. And the friendly

real estate developer who sold you the first lot will even help you

rent it to someone else,

[ Page 179 ]

who will put his mobile home on your lot and keep up the payments for you.

Obviously, this must be a pretty good deal, Mr. Speaker, for the

developer as well — who has all the advantages of the park operator,

and none of the problems.

I went to ask one developer about his operation. I discovered I

couldn't get much information, he was in Tahiti for the next two

months. Then I discovered, Mr. Speaker, the biggest developer of all in

this area was Great National Lands Ltd. of Nanaimo, with five different

sub-divisions and nearly 500 mobile home lots developed or under

development.

Mr. Speaker, I suppose we cannot help wondering why this government

makes it so good for the real estate developer and so bad for the

mobile home park.

I suppose I should mention, Mr. Speaker, for those who don't know,

of course, that Great National Lands is operated by that great friend

of the mobile home, the Hon. Member for Nanaimo (Mr. Ney). Surely, Mr.

Speaker, there are obvious injustices in this situation, and some

serious administrative problems — both created in part by the fact that

a perfectly legitimate mobile home-owner may of necessity have to move

every few years to different parts of British Columbia, because we are

that kind of a province.

There are also to my certain knowledge some not-so-legitimate mobile

home-owners, who have seen a way to get cheap use of a mobile home lot,

and a $1,000 subsidy from this government with no intention of living

up to any commitment they might have made.

The government went into this programme — as usual — without

adequate consideration and consultation with all of those concerned.

Surely, just once, this government could admit that someone besides

itself has some ideas. Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, it's still not too late to

repair the damage.

I would suggest that the government should bring in representatives

of mobile home parks, from the Union of B.C. Municipalities, from the

real estate associations and from the mobile home owners, who have an

association of their own. And work out a programme that is fair and

equitable to all these parties.

It could have been done last year, it could have been done the year

before, but as usual, the Hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs would not

listen.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to discuss briefly, the third Burrard

crossing in Vancouver. Another major subject, completely neglected by

the Speech from the Throne.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. BROUSSON: Just listen. For years this crossing has been

something of a political football, and now it's again becoming the

centre of controversy. There has been so much said that is ill-informed

or misleading, that I would like to put the matter into perspective.

Incidently, Mr. Speaker, I was delighted to hear the Hon. second

Member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Wolfe) give support to this crossing

the other day. Mr. Speaker, I am for the crossing, but I would not be

for it if provision for rapid transit were not an integral part of it.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. BROUSSON: The regional district seems to becoming to

grips with the problem of rapid transit, but with this new Burrard

crossing there would be no way to provide rapid transit to the north

shore. You had your turn the other evening, Mr. Member.

In effect, Mr. Speaker, the tunnel built into the crossing will be

largely paid for by the tolls on automobiles. The day the crossing

opens, there could be an express bus service operating from the north

shore to the central business districts of Vancouver, using the rapid

transit lanes. Provision for this is in the present plan.

The Burrard crossing as presently planned, provides benefits to many

parts of British Columbia, not just the north shore. It will carry

traffic to Nanaimo and Vancouver Island. Traffic for the growing

industrial centres of Squamish and Whistler and on to Lillooet later

this year. Traffic which takes freight to the P.G.E., for transport to

the northern and central parts of the province. Traffic for the

container-terminal for sea-transport for Prince Rupert. Traffic even to

the Yukon. Traffic seeking recreation along the sunshine coast,

Seymour, Cypress Bowl, Grouse, Whistler and so-on. In Vancouver City,

Mr. Speaker, it provides a route under the central business district.

It arranges distribution for the traffic wherever it needs to go, to

the east, to False creek, to Point-Grey and so-on.

The fact is, that rather than greater downtown congestion, when the

crossing opens an average of 70,000 cars a day will disappear from

Vancouver's downtown streets because of the by-pass tunnel and the

waterfront distributor.

Referring again, Mr. Speaker, to the suggestion for a separate rapid

transit crossing, this would cost by itself almost $100 million, and

it would not provide the other advantages that I have outlined.

If all the travellers going to the central business district were to

use rapid transit in 1985, the two existing crossings would still be

completely clogged with other traffic, which we have been talking about.

The federal government is clearly committed to this project. This

goes back to 1967 when the then Hon. Prime Minister Pearson, by letter

and telegram, confirmed the federal government's involvement.

Since then, Don Jamieson, Minister of Transport, has repeatedly

confirmed his commitment to the project, and in fact he repeated this

last Friday, when he said: "The government has said it will build a

bridge or a tunnel component and it still intends doing so, in fact we

even decided to help the municipalities get a comprehensive proposal

together, by giving them the assistance of a co-ordinating official at

the National Harbours Board office in Vancouver."

Jack Davis has explained that he expects the federal government to

provide at least the equivalent of what the National Harbours Board has

done in the harbour at Montreal where two crossings have been built,

and at St. John's, New Brunswick, where another has been built. And

these, of course, are all toll structures.

But the federal government is committed only to the crossing, as we

have explained it. It will not, and cannot, build a rapid transit

system for Vancouver, under any of the present arrangements.

I think it should be clear, that under the British North America Act , this is not possible.

To put some of the opposition in perspective, I would like to quote

an editorial from the North Shore Citizen of January 19, this year.

While we think that a new crossing is needed, we respect any

individual who honestly differs with our opinion. The operative word is

"honestly." The left wingers, who want nothing more than to disrupt,

are using whatever sincere

[ Page 180 ]

opposition there is to the Poddy Neeles, the Harry Rankins and the

Bruce Yorkes, those great champions of the people. They are maybe

fooling some of the people, but their predicable obstructionism is

doomed to failure.

In general, it seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the

honest opposition, very often appears to lack the facts, and in many

cases, have not even read the great many reports, that are now

available on transportation and traffic and so-on.

Unfortunately, many of these people are reacting out of emotion,

ignorance and fear. I think it also important to point out, Mr.

Speaker, that the crossing will provide over 800,000 man hours of work

directly, plus many hundreds of thousands more indirectly.

The Hon. Premier has apparently accepted in principle proposals that

were made to close the gap in finance. It is now time to get on with

it. We need those jobs starting this year. The provincial government

has a direct responsibility to assist in the crossing, as it continues

to improve Mt. Seymour and Cypress Bowl, improve the road to Whistler

and Lillooet and carry increasing traffic on its ferries out of

Horseshoe Bay. But, in effect the Hon. Premier has still not fully and

officially committed the provincial government except by offhand Press

conference announcements, rumours of corridor conversations and relayed

telephone messages.

The Speech from the Throne should have spelled that policy out. And

I ask for the Hon. Premier to include a commitment of the Burrard

Crossing in his budget address.

Two other points are important in any discussion of this subject,

Mr. Speaker, as I said, I believe the provision for rapid transit is an

essential part of the Burrard crossing. Personally, I am not afraid of

the completion of a simple freeway system on the lower mainland.

Goodness knows, we don't have anything like a system now, and I believe

we have to complete our simple basic system, at the same time as we

develop an improved regional bus and light rapid-transit system. But in

order for both the freeway system to be kept under control, and for the

rapid-transit system to prosper, we must control parking as well.

Unfortunately, parking has been taken out of the terms of reference

of the regional district transportation policy statement. Vancouver has

three times as much available parking as Toronto, in proportion to

population. As long as you have 15 cent parking lots all through the

downtown area, as long as you provide hundreds of parking spaces in

every new building, you will have too many cars in the central business

district.

You must be able to control how much parking, where it is to be, and

how much is to be charged. The provincial government must insist that

this parking problem be controlled.

Finally, in order for the transportation system we are building, not

to spawn unlimited urban sprawl, we must control what happens out on

the Fraser Valley flatlands. We've heard a series of proposals for

this, to provide green belts for preservation of the farms and so-on.

I don't know which is the best plan, but I do know the provision of

such a plan under provincial auspices is essential, to keep the rest of

the system in balance, so that the lower mainland of British Columbia

is preserved as a pleasant place to live.

Mr. Speaker, these are just a few of the things which the throne speech could

have spelled out as government policy.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member

for Skeena.

MR. D.G. LITTLE (Skeena): Mr. Speaker, I would like to

congratulate the Hon. Member for Columbia River on being elevated to

the cabinet. There is no question that he will be able to give a good

account of himself as the Hon. Minister of Labour.

May I at this time thank the Hon. Members of the House for their concern and well wishes during my illness last March.

Mr. Speaker, the mover of the throne speech noted that we have

entered our second century of British Columbian history. We are part of

Canada, a nation with recognised Canadian nationality. Today we are no

longer looking for immigrants to colonise British Columbia. We want

future good Canadian citizens to improve Canada economically,

culturally and socially. The following is a Press report from the

Vancouver Province , January 21, 1972, and it says "Judge Heaps Ire On Heroin Sellers."

"In my opinion all heroin drug traffickers should be

sentenced to life imprisonment," Provincial court Judge David Moffat

told a convicted trafficker Thursday. He made the comment in sentencing

Lube Gresofski, 45, to five years after he was convicted of having 50

capsules of heroin in his possession when the police stopped his car in

the 600 block on Granville Street September 1.

Court was told the drugs were found under the driver's

seat. That Lube Gresofski had $515 on his person and a search of his

west-end suite uncovered equipment for capping heroin. He denied any

knowledge of the drugs. "I think trafficking in drugs, particularly

heroin, is one of the most serious crimes and the deterrent aspect has

to be taken into account as the drug scene is out of control," said

Judge Moffat. "The absolute minimum jail term for a non-addict

trafficker is five years," he added. He said, after the hearing that in

fact provincial court judges must limit their sentences for trafficking

to a certain level as the severity of sentencing is limited by the

court of appeal. Gresofski, the court learned, came to Canada from

Yugoslavia 30 months ago and is a non-addict.

Mr. Speaker, I say there is no way that you and I should have to pay

to put this man behind bars for five years. We don't want this sort of

thing. This man should be deported.

There's a heavy load of unemployment in Canada and British Columbia.

Many people have been here the required time to become Canadian

citizens, but have not. Some hold jobs Canadians should have and still

some fill the unemployed ranks. This situation existed in the previous

depression years. As a result Canadians formed the native sons of

Canada originating in Victoria, primarily that Canadians would have

jobs in preference to British subjects.

Why should British subjects not be Canadians? Their livelihood is

provided by employment in Canada and British Columbia, and I draw

attention to B.C. because of the heavy load of unemployment.

There should be no difference between alien and British subject, all

must become Canadians to rightfully take their place in this society.

This motion was passed five years at the Social Credit convention.

Let's get it in force. Put it before the federal government. So we

stand united Canadians. Canada is our nation.

Mr. Speaker, in Skeena Highway Yellowhead 16 has been brought to

standard east of Terrace, and Highway 25 south to Kitimat. For Terrace,

the engineering department has advised that they have $230,000

available to bring approaches and grade up to requirements for a new

bridge

[ Page 181 ]

over the Skeena. Action should be taken here immediately. We should

bear in mind that high water will come in May. Foundations for piers

and approaches should, if possible, be made before that date.

In Skeena we have several communities that need a government project

not only to provide employment but also the needs of the locality.

First, Kitimat needs a B.C. Government building to provide a court

room, an office for the government agent as well as other provincial

departments which are located thither and yon in Kitimat and even in

the federal building.

Kitimat is still referred to as the Aluminum City but with Eurocan

now in Kitimat employing an additional 925 people, the population has

increased to approximately 12,000 and with this diversification of

industry new facilities are desperately needed.

Secondly, in South Hazelton you can look across the Bulkley River to

Hazelton itself, yet if you wish to drive there the distance is nine

miles around by way of New Hazelton and over the Hagwilget Bridge which

is unsafe for heavy traffic.

A new bridge should span the Bulkley River from South Hazelton to

Hazelton where this government has helped make a wonderful Ksan

picnic-camping area and backed an Indian carving school — a great help

to the Indians and a great tourist attraction.

I urge the government to do the engineering on this bridge project

in order that an early start can be made. It is communications and

tourism.

Kemano, which is tucked away in the base of the mountains by way of

the Douglas Channel and Gardner Canal, has approximately 30 miles of

road. The government forces people to pay gas tax for private vehicles

in spite of the fact that they do not have to license their cars as

these are company roads. An order-in-council should be made so the

people using these private roads no longer have to pay gas tax at least

not on cars or on pick-ups used as buses to transport people to and

from work.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I think it takes a bigger man to admit that he

made a mistake than one who will try to hid it, and I would like to

show you the headline in the last Smithers paper. The headline is "Mill

Failure Affects Business." It goes on to state in this

article that the

Bulkley Valley forest industry had lost approximately $5.5 million in

the first six months of this last year and that since last fall they

had laid off approximately 200 workers which was costing approximately

$150,000 a month.

In Skeena we have large empires created by the government when huge

timber licences were given to pulp companies which left fully committed

areas with no timber left for anyone else to operate.

Since the licences were issued there has been a change in our

economy. We now have non-performance by some of these companies. There

is an opportunity for new industries to be established in both Smithers

and Terrace. This would give employment to hundreds of men. The

government should consider this as pulp mills are proving they are not

more valuable to a community than sawmills or plywood plants which

could be established if quotas were reviewed and readjusted.

It is time to take a hard look at what has been achieved by our set

of rules. If adjustments should be made let's be the first to admit our

mistake and make the necessary corrections now.

Mr. Speaker, I know that without question that the Honourable Member from

Omineca (Hon. Mr. Shelford) would back me in what I have to say about forestry

and

I consider him as one of the knowledgeable men in this government.

A concentrated effort is needed to bring to highway standard the

road between Terrace and Tyee. This road is narrow and dangerous and

the bridges are not safe.

Truckers are licensed to carry maximum loads but have to use

load-restricted bridges. This condition has existed for years.

Immediate action is needed as it is not fair to the licensee.

The government should replace these old wooden bridges in the interest of public safety.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Attorney General had stated that his

department welcomed criticism and if this is the truth I know that

he'll be happy to hear me speak today.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. LITTLE: I'd like for a moment to relate what is going on

in northern B.C. I have many friends there and when the government goes

off on a tangent — which the people have come to expect, incidentally — they merely smile and say to me: "I see the government has found

another queer idea to pursue." But lately things have gone from bad to

worse. The people are frightened.

When the Attorney General's department had nothing better to do they

decided to attack topless dancing girls in Vancouver. They did this

with a threat to use every means possible to close these places

completely, ignoring the fact that the City of Vancouver saw fit to

issue a licence to operate.

Then we in government should keep our cotton-picking hands away from their business.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. LITTLE: Mr. Speaker, I cannot stand deception. It is

wrong for the Attorney General to outlaw topless dancing girls in

Vancouver, when right in this building he condones more topless girls

to be seen than can be found in the whole City of Vancouver.

As a matter of fact he even has his girls lit up so that they may be

seen by all people, whether they like it or not. Mr. Speaker, they are

right here in this chamber. If this was considered to be decorative

before the turn of the century I see no reason why we should not

appreciate it now.

Mr. Speaker, may I suggest in all sincerity that when the Attorney

General leans back in his chair and appears to be deep in thought

perhaps he may be enjoying the show that is put on by the topless girls

in this chamber. (Laughter).

The public won't accept this, but there is alarm up north as I

stated previously and it was not until I looked at the papers that I

realised the cause. In the Vancouver Sun of December 29 it

states: "Any and all laws under the Criminal Code dealing with

obscenity should be used in an effort to ban the topless display."

In the Vancouver Sun of December 30 Mr. Peterson said: "I am bringing it to the attention of those charged with enforcing the laws." The Vancouver Province of December 30 had a headline: "Peterson Wants to Wrap Up Naked Nightclub Dancers."

"There is no reason why they should express surprise,"

Peterson commented. "This is not the first statement I've made about

this. I discussed the general subject a year or

[ Page 182 ]

more ago indicating my views and these received wide publicity at the time."

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. LITTLE: The Deputy Chief of Police in Vancouver also

gets into the act and he states: "We are concerned about this sort of

entertainment and the way it is spreading. We are watching topless

dancing clubs very closely" he said.

Then came the editorial in the Vancouver Province of December

21, and the editorial said: "Get to the bottom of it Mr. Peterson. It

is horrid sex that is at the bottom of the whole filthy business. Show

new leadership, Mr. Attorney General. Make sex illegal. Then you would

really make an international name for yourself." (Laughter).

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. LITTLE: Mr. Speaker, this is the cause for the alarm up

north. I call for a free vote on this matter but I do not believe I

would like to vote the same way as the Attorney General or the Minister

of Social Welfare and Social Rehabilitation who appear to oppose it. I

believe the people in Skeena are not in favour of any change at this

time.

Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, it is a good throne speech and I intend to support it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for North Peace River.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Mr. Speaker, it is a

pleasure to once again stand in my place in this House and take

part in

the throne debate, to add some comments that I hope will be of value to

this discussion of this debate. I've listened intently to the remarks

that have been made by some of the other Members both on this side of

the House and then the Opposition benches.

It was interesting this afternoon, for instance, to listen to the

Honourable Leader of the Opposition when he got up on his feet and

tried to pursue a little bit of P.R. work with the "Mayor of Dawson

City, whoops, Dawson Creek." It's amazing to realise that the Leader of

the Opposition spends so little time around the northern part of the

province that he hasn't realised yet that Dawson City is only 1,400

miles from Dawson Creek. It's just a matter of a mere little

technicality but after all what's 1,400 miles between friends?

So, the next time the Hon. Leader of the Opposition wishes to get to

his feet to address or speak or welcome a mayor from a northern

municipality and a northern city to the Legislative Buildings at least

he should make sure that he knows where he is from and that he knows a

little bit more about what goes on there than he seemed to know this

afternoon.

You know, the Leader of the Opposition also likes to spend a little

time when he is in the north talking about the seven safe Socred seats.

Everywhere he goes he likes to talk and scoff about the seven safe

seats. I suppose he feels that ridicule in an area where he is

powerless to do much else is a good form of debate. But I'd like to

suggest to the Leader of the Opposition — He can sit down, this is my

speech not his.

Interjection by Hon. Member.

MR. SMITH: I'd like to suggest to the Leader of the

Opposition that he's making a great mistake. It's not seven seats in

the north, there are eight seats up there, and he is doing a great

disservice to his Member from Atlin (Mr. Calder) when he doesn't

include him as a Member from a northern riding. I will tell the Hon.

Leader of the Opposition this, that if he had more members in this

House of the stature of the Member from Atlin he would have far less

trouble about worrying about where he's going to go in the next

election. At least he makes an honest contribution to the House. He

stands up and he speaks for the area that he represents.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who are you speaking for?

MR. SMITH: I speak for the area I represent, my friend, and I'm proud of it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

MR. SMITH: Of course we usually have occasionally a bit of

the odd visit from the leader of the Liberal Party. He whips through

the north country once in awhile and even when he doesn't, he likes to

make and release Press releases.

The latest one that I have heard about is the fact that the leader

of the Liberal Party has said in all sincerity that he would be in

favour of paving a road from Fort Nelson to Fort Simpson. This should

be a number one priority, the paving of a road from Fort Nelson to Fort

Simpson.

Well I would like to ask the Honourable M