1970 Legislative Session: 1st 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)

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 28, 1970

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 61 ]

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 28, 1970

The House met at 2 p.m.

THRONE DEBATE

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Minister of Social Welfare.

HON. P.A. GAGLARDI (Kamloops): Mr. Speaker, first I would

like to congratulate you on your appointment as the Speaker of the

House. Down through — the years this august Chamber has had many people

presiding over the members of the House, and I think every one of them

did so with distinction and with honour, but I don't know of any

Speaker that's ever distinguished himself in any better manner nor

acquitted himself in any better manner, nor has shown himself to be

more impartial than you. We are proud that you're in the job because of

the way you do the job, and I'd like to congratulate you and pray that

you're there for many, many years to come.

I also would like to welcome to the House the new members,

particularly the ones on our side of the House, because I don't know of

any time when we have had a better rounded crew than what we have

today. It's nice to look across the floor of the House and see some

friendly faces as well as some rather austere countenances. I certainly

appreciate the fact that the second member from Burrard is with us

again and he should never have been away from us at any time, as he's

always done such a remarkable job and he's a real humanitarian, he has

the welfare of the people at heart, and does a good job, and I've

always failed to understand why the people of Burrard didn't return you

far sooner, in fact why they ever let you go in the first place. I'm

sure that this was a mistake and now they have rectified it, and I'm

proud of them, and proud of you.

It's nice to see that we have a couple of Mayors in our midst as

well, and this helps the legislative procedure, because no one is

closer to the people than the local government, and I think it's such a

beneficial thing to have individuals who come to grips with the day to

day administration of the different communities, and they add to the

Legislature and they also add to the legislation that is passed by this

House and it's nice to see that we have some of these members with us.

Also, no matter what stage of difficulty you get into, we can look

after you here on this side of the House. If you are a bachelor, we can

marry you, if you need a doctor we can fix you up, because we've got

doctors and we've got lawyers and just about everything that you want.

The only thing we lack is an undertaker, and who wants an undertaker — we want uppertakers not undertakers — and so we're doing all right in

that department as well. The queer thing is you're all on the other

side. There are no bankers, but we've got used car salesmen, and

believe me we've got good ones, and that's interesting, as well as

newspapermen, and man, I don't know how you could get more rounded out

than that. Farmers — oh yes, we have farmers, and we've even got

ladies, well man, I'll tell you, we've got everything, and we

appreciate them, and I'd hate to think right now what's going to happen

in the next election, with all the House being Social Credit members.

That might be, maybe that would be more beneficial for us….

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT (Premier): No…. No.

MR. GAGLARDI: You mean you have to have a little bit of

Opposition. I think you're very kind, Mr. Premier, and maybe I might

second that. Now, today for a few minutes, I don't want to take up too

much time because there aren't too many things, I'd like to finish up

by talking about one segment of the department of which I am a part

and, incidentally, in a very short time, the department will be named

the Department of Rehabilitation, and I want to talk about that for a

moment or two a little later on.

But I would like to indulge in some of the idiosyncracies and some

of the vagaries of the last election, because they were interesting,

and it was a rather interesting time, and we saw some rather amazing

things, and elections have a fascinating way of being able to solve an

awful lot of problems and answer a lot of questions.

The leader of the Liberal Party presented himself right at the start

of the election in Kamloops and unbared his chest and thumped it like a

Tarzan, and he said, that how Kamloops goes the Province goes, and

there were no more prophetic words uttered by any individual than what

he uttered. If he could tell the sex of whales as well as he could the

elections he'd be a first-class individual, not that he isn't, but I

mean that he would be a better first-class individual. Not only did he

make a trip to Kamloops once, but he came to Kamloops three times, "He

who drinks of the waters of the Ganges shall return to drink again,"

was his motto, and he was burned on three occasions. He worked at it

real hard and did the best and the biggest job he ever could do, and

believe me if there is anybody wants to put an a parade, you get the

leader of the Liberal party, he'll fill you in on how to do that job.

This parade, it was the most fascinating parade, I think, that's ever

been put on in any place in the world. Because you know the people

tried to figure out for a long time how these big gaps were appearing

in the Cook parade, a whole block long, and of course the Leader of the

Liberal party knows, and most of the public in Kamloops knows. This is

what lost them a tremendous amount of votes, because subterfuge is

something our people up there don't stand, and won't stand, but because

they only had so few cars in the parade, they only had them from four

different ridings, they would break off in the middle and go around the

block and then join at the back, to make it appear as though

(laughter)….anyway, the amazing thing was that so many people were

trying to figure out what was happening with this parade, why the big

gaps, and anyway, they figured it out after awhile. Another amazing

thing was that the leader of the Liberal party, though he didn't know

it and I'm not going to give him any more secrets than just the odd

one, right in his own campaign headquarters they were phoning me every

once in awhile when they'd get out of there, and tell me that they were

just there because they felt they had to be there because of certain

reasons, but not to worry, they were going to be voting the right way,

and I knew what the right way was. Even in the parade, the people that

were in the parade would stop at our office and say, well now we're in

the parade, but don't worry, we know what's happening and what's going

on and we'll be there when the time comes.

Of course the Liberals in my area felt they had the whole deal hands

down. The press helped them out, God bless them, they did a marvelous

job for the Opposition. They wrote up every story like it was a front

line and front page story, and every time the leader of the Liberal

party came to town you'd have thought it was an occasion for a holiday,

a Roman Holiday, or some kind of a holiday. One newspaper in our

community demanded and desired to print the truth

[ Page 62 ]

and did, but believe me, most of the media, outside

of television and radio, was on the side of the Opposition, and

particularly the Liberals, but it didn't seem to do them any good. Oh

man, I'll tell you radio was in between, it was right straight down the

line, they gave me a fair deal and there were no problems with radio

and television. In fact, I stayed less in the riding physically than at

any time in any election. There were fewer people visited my ridings

from the Government ranks in that last election than in any previous

election, by design. I was on television, the only thing I appeared

more on was television, and every time one of their speakers spoke I

would follow up and tell them the truth and straighten out the mess

that they made. I had me a ball, and an interesting time, and they

still can't figure out in Kamloops how the Liberals lost, but if ever

they want to come over and sit down for a quiet half hour I'll let them

in on how they lost. In fact, if you want to ask the real authority on,

it, it would be Howard Green, because when Howard Green was defeated in

the City of Vancouver they asked him on television one day how come he

didn't win the election, and he said, and this was a classic, "I didn't

get enough votes"…. (laughter) and that was a simple answer for the

Liberals. They just didn't get enough votes, though they couldn't

figure it out.

I would like to tell you, Mr. Premier, that when you came to town,

they certainly paid attention to you. I mean this, because if there was

any area in this Province that the Liberals and N.D.P.'s zeroed in on,

it was the city of Kamloops and the Kamloops riding, and they gave you

good attention. But when the Premier came to town, and I think he was

the only one on the Government side outside of the lady member from

Little Mountain.

AN HON. MEMBER: I was there….

MR. GAGLARDI: Oh yeah, pardon me. Man, that's right — you

were there, you better believe you were there, you did a fantastic job,

in fact you helped me out tremendously — you better believe you were

there…. But when the Premier came to town, I want to tell you, Mr.

Premier, that if there is any riding in this Province that did the

Government and you more proud than anywhere, it would be Kamloops

riding, for they put your Government back in again, right in that area,

just as powerful as they ever have, and if there is any riding that

needs to be patted on its back, because they listened to everything

there was to listen to. They had everybody in there. They even had the

temporary leader of the N.D.P. party in there, and he crowed like a

rooster and he told them all kinds of things about me, and the people

in that meeting came out laughing and roaring, because they knew that

he wasn't telling them the truth, and they went out and voted the right

way even after he said what he said. But he did a good job, they gave

him a good hand and listened, but that's right, gave him a good laugh.

Some of them said that they came out with the old saying, Confucius

says "Where loud braying is heard, donkey must be close by" — and that

was their expressions up there. I would like to suggest to the leader

of the Liberal Party, that you never have to worry if you get out of a

job, because Barnum is still hiring people and circuses need them and

you'd do a fantastic job. If the newspapers could write about you in

the City of Kamloops like they wrote about you, and if it was the

truth, you can get you a job anywhere.

Wait until the member from Prince George gets up and tells the House

how they got a member on the Liberal team up in Prince George. They had

to rob a bus, if you please. You talk about holding up a stage — they

robbed a bus to get a member to run on the Liberal team. So it's been a

rather interesting campaign, not only an interesting campaign but, Mr.

Speaker, I want to tell you, we made a tremendous contribution to the

Liberals, because the man who was their public relations man we trained

in Kamloops. His first big public relations job, long before he worked

for Mayor Campbell, or long before he worked for anyone, as an

individual just starting out, they sent him up to Kamloops, or we had

him come up to Kamloops and do our P.R. work when I was running against

Davie Fulton, and we've never hired a P.R. man since. The Liberals got

him this time and he did a good job for the Liberals believe me, a top

notch job, he's a good man, but you have to give him something to work

with to be able to do a good job. That's right, and I'll wager, if ever

there was a place to spend money, I don't know how much money they

spent and I'm not putting any credence to this figure, but if you had

to put it, I'd think it would cost $50,000 to put on the show that the

Liberals put on in Kamloops to get me defeated. I didn't think I was

worth that much, or that I'd cause anybody that much difficulty, but

you know, you would almost have thought I was important the way you

fellows went after me, and I enjoyed every day of it, believe me I did.

I don't know when I had a more interesting time, and I was never so

humbled in my life, nor did I ever feel more proud — that's right — did

I ever feel more proud for a people, because really it was their case

that was vindicated; not mine.

I would like to tell about the member from Vancouver East, that you

are the individual that started a nice little story in this House about

an area called Blue River, and if you want to find out what they voted

on up in Blue River, you take a look at it, because up in Blue River

they gave me a greater majority than I've ever had in my life, so if

you have anything else to say, I'd say hold it until the next election,

then say some more, and I'll get more majority.

Now the N.D.P. have always had the idea that labour has been on

their side. If ever there was a time that people spoke out clearly and

decisively, it was in that last election. You want to see where labour

is represented? All on this side of the House, even the doctor from up

in Port Alberni, if you please, where perhaps is one of the strongest

labour ridings, and was represented by one of the few N.D.P.

individuals who could say he was a strong labour man, and now there's a

Social Credit member in that riding, and just about every labour riding

in the whole area. Mr. Member from Cranbrook, if it wouldn't have been

for ball-point pens, your bald-headed countenance wouldn't be in there,

because on a majority basis they voted you out, but you're here on a

technicality hanging by a thread…. (laughter) yes sir, a ball-point

thread, and so, Mr. Member from Cranbrook, if there is anybody who

should appreciate the privilege of sitting there it should be you,

because it was simply because a lot of Social Credit people voted with

a ball-point pen instead of writing with the pen they should have voted

with. Don't shake your head too much now, it will fall off, if you're

not careful.

There is a reason why, incidentally, that labour voted for the

Social Credit government. I think it is because they wanted stability.

That's right, and I don't know how you can get people to indicate

better how they trust you, than by doing what they did in the last

election. Mr. Premier, if there was any leader — I don't know how long

it is since there's been this majority in the House — but if there is

any leader in

[ Page 63 ]

this nation that should hold his head up in real

pride, though I know you are a humble man, hold your head up in real

pride, it is you sir, because of the tremendous amount of backing that

the Province of British Columbia gave you and your people in the last

election.

Now the Kamloops area, that I think did you proud, is a tremendous

area. According to statistics I think it shows that Kamloops is the

fastest growing community in the entire nation. I think that statistic

is correct. Not in British Columbia, but the whole of Canada. That's

right, and if it isn't correct, I'll make it correct….and I believe

that that's so. Now certainly there is a reason for that, and I notice

in the Throne Speech, that it said something about a smelter, and also

about several other great developments up in that part of the country

and, Mr. Speaker, I would like to suggest to you that Kamloops will be

one of the greatest mineralization areas there is in this entire

Western Canada. The whole of the interior, Mr. Premier, your area, my

area, many other areas that are represented in this House and right up

the whole of the Thompson Valley, up the Clearwater and Blue Rivers, I

think you will find one day will be one huge mineralized area and will

sustain a smelter and a number of other primary and secondary

industries. It will be one of the great areas of this Province, or one

of the greater areas of this Province than what it is right now, and I

think Mr. Premier, that you have paid a lot of attention to that great

interior metropolis and I'm sure you will see, that by the necessity of

this type of development, that there will be a lot more paid to it as

well.

Now, 1960 was a great era. 1960 was the era of scientific skill and

technological advances and perhaps human ingenuity from a mechanical

point of view coming to bear greater than it has at any time in our

history. You know that in the last ten years the entire or 90 per cent

of all the scientists that ever lived are alive right now. That means

that education-wise and from the viewpoint of intellectualism or

scientific advancement, progress and development on an intellectual

basis was greater in 1960 than in any period of time in our history.

Sum total of knowledge develops now perhaps about every two years,

wherein in previous times it was every hundred or two hundred or three

hundred, now about every two or two and a half years the entire sum

total of knowledge is doubled. That is rather fascinating, and 1960 was

the era of tremendous advancements scientifically, development-wise,

the whole world as well as the Province of British Columbia. 1960 saw

the time when a man sitting in a little office away out in Washington,

D.C. with a telephone at his ear, and if you'd have walked in and said

"Mr. President, who are you talking to?" he'd have told you he was

talking to the man on the Moon. You'd say, is this some kind of a

dingaling or is this fellow a nut, but he was actually doing exactly

what I am saying — talking to a man on the Moon. That was 1960.

But at no period in our entire history has the human side been more

at sea or in a greater difficulty, nor with more problems, than what it

was in 1960. No era perhaps has been more troublous, or more difficult.

We made fantastic advances from the scientific point of view but we

certainly, from a sociological or from a humanitarian point of view,

went backwards perhaps faster than we ever had. Which goes to prove

that every part of scientific achievement, though as good as it may be,

lacks the ability to be even able to take care of our human problems,

from a social point of view. We can get a man on the Moon, but we

haven't learned how to get along with our neighbour. So 1970 is a new

era. 1960 has been a time of tremendous advancement and achievement,

from a mechanical point of view. Now 1970 has to be an era when we find

the answers to the problems of human needs, of the 60's, and so we

venture into a new era, into a new time, into a new area of

advancement. This is one time when the whole of the human family has to

start thinking progressively, aggressively, and perhaps be more

humanitarian than ever we have been in all of our characteristics or

we'll destroy ourselves. The United States of America has found herself

in such a difficult situation from a racial point of view and from a

point of view of taking care of certain segments of society, that the

whole of the United States is in danger, because of its lack of ability

to be able to grapple with human problems.

Now, Mr. Speaker, this is a day when our educational system shows up

as being weighed in the balances and found lacking. We can easily train

men to give them the skills and the ability to be able to grapple with

the mechanical things of our world, and our times and our society, but

what we have to learn now is to how better to be able to control

ourselves and how better to get along with our fellow man, and how to

appreciate the fact that everybody is a human being, and everybody has

to be treated on the same basis, equal and commensurate with his own

needs. There is a segment of society that today stands in a tremendous

area of need and must, of necessity, be looked after, and education as

it is, isn't the answer. Intellectualism advances fantastically on just

about every plane, excepting on the social basis. We haven't learned

how to be able to get along with one another and so our world is in a

difficult situation. So the 70's, I believe, should be a time of human

understanding, a time when we should sit down and argue about the

problems and difficulties, and either we solve them or they will solve

us. The era of the 70's is a new era.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there are a number of areas here, that I think we

have to do something about. There has to be a new look, and I am always

proud of men such as the men on our side of the House particularly, and

certainly you, Mr. Premier, because you are always willing and ready to

take that second look. If anybody has advanced with the times, this

Government has. This Government has. If any Government has been willing

to tackle the problem as it is, this Government has. I want to commend

the Minister of Labour, bless him, when he stood up yesterday and said,

"Either you fellows get together or else we'll get you together." I'm

proud of the minister for taking that stand, because I believe that

this is a time when we have to say to human beings, this is a day when

we have to get together. So this is a new era, a new time, and we must

take a new look, and the emphasis in this era of time has to be on our

human needs. Now who understands everybody? A doctor can understand the

physical, a mechanic can understand the mechanical, a scientist can

understand the scientific, but is there any individual that really

understands the intricacies of a human mind, and how to be able to

handle that human being? This is where we are falling down today, and

it's about time we took a new look, for the greatest need of this age

is our ability to be able to solve our human problems.

Now we have to take a new look at a number of things. First we have

to take a new look, I believe, in the area of management. You know

Governments are notorious for every time they get into difficulty; they

raise taxes. That's all, just raise taxes and hide the deficiency.

Thank heaven, this Government hasn't been guilty of those things. This

is one Government that down through the years has held taxes

[ Page 64 ]

down, and I don't know of any Government in this

nation — you check them all — you can't find one Government in this

nation today, that in the last two or three years that hasn't been

raising taxes notoriously. Hence we find the Federal Government, if you

please, putting up the White Paper on taxation. Now if there is

anything that will devastate this nation, it would be the

implementation of that White Paper, and it's about time we started to

realize this. Management is in trouble with that White Paper, and when

management is in trouble, labour is in trouble. For what is this White

Paper going to do but disseminate, if you please, and destroy all the

small business men of our entire nation. If ever there was a time when

you had to play on all the keys of the piano, it's now, the ordinary

fellow and all through the gamut of society clear to the top, the

entire keyboard of human society has to play that one tune of

cooperation. Now surely you can't do away with all the black keys and

the white keys, and expect to get the right kind of a melody — impossible. So today, what happens? The Federal Government, because of

a flagrant misuse of its authority and its past history, finds itself

in trouble and hits the White Paper. Why? — to lift taxation. To be

able to cover its needs, and its monstrosities like horses on the

pay-roll, and what is the name of that ship, the Bonaventure ,

and so on, and the C.B.C. and a few other things. Why man, it's such a

tragic situation, and the way that they increased the interest rates

today, I tell you it's almost impossible for a nation to continue on

any type of an aggressive basis. This type of a situation exists

because the governments think that all they have to do is say to

management, "We want more taxes."

Now what are we going to do if we lose that small logger, the man

who's that middle-man, and we need him. He ties the whole of society

together and, Mr. Minister of Lands and Forests, I believe in our

legislation. We should see to it that the small logger is given a good

portion of activity in the management of our Province, so that we can

preserve that man's identity, and his ability to be able to handle the

forests like he does. Let the big operator take his logs from the small

operator and chew them up into pulp and then everybody steps in society

on a proper basis, we need that tie.

So that White Paper…. I am not worried about Trudeau rattling

about the country in a jet airplane…. (laughter) yeah, skin

diving…. If he wants to go out with Bridgette Bardot, I'm only

jealous that's all, let him go ahead…. no, my wife knows me well

enough so that I can say those things…. and if he wants to go out

with Barbara Streisand, more power to him, after all that's up to him.

Also, I notice the news media, if you please, leap to the defence of

Mr. Trudeau because he is using the jet airplane. Where in the name of

common sense were you fellows when I needed you?…. (laughter) I'm not

worried about Trudeau's airplane, but I want to tell you right now that

I'm worried about Benson's policies and Trudeau's fine hand in those

policies, because if you want to keep a nation rolling, you don't keep

it rolling on that kind of a basis, and this is the day when we need to

understand management, not destroy it.

I think we have to take a look as well at labour, and I was glad

yesterday that the Minister of Labour talked about Bill 33. I'm not

ashamed of Bill 33. I like Bill 33. If ever there was any piece of

legislation presented to any House that was an honest, sincere

endeavour to get management and labour to the right table and to quit

smashing at one another, to get them to sit down and iron out their own

differences while they look at one another, it's Bill 33. I understand

so many times that labour wants to boycott. Why? Don't those labour

leaders want to solve their problems? I think that the labour leaders

ought to stick with labour because they, the labour boys, are voting

for this Government, which means they back our policy. This Government

knows that labour is the greatest force and the greatest benefit and

the greatest need, and good working men are at a premium all the time,

and the more we can give them, the more we like. We're 100 per cent for

labour. But we certainly aren't 100 percent for the labour leaders that

want to always be sniping and causing suspicion, and trying to

deteriorate the entire warp and woof of ordinary common people. Let's

get around that table, and understand one another in the 70's and let's

make our progress, shoulder to shoulder as we should. Believe me, that

Bill 33 was an honest effort on a mediation basis of trying, by the

grace of God, to get labour and management looking at one another, and

throwing their tomahawks away and trying to solve the problems of how

to be able to better help out humanity. In the 70's, Mr. Minister of

Labour, we have got to solve these problems, the strike business and so

on — why do you think labour votes for us? They don't like these

strikes any more than anybody else. We've got to get to a place where

the social problems of the 60's are solved in the 70's or else. Believe

me, this Government wants to treat people like they are people and

human beings, and labour is one of the great forces of our society, and

they must be looked after.

Another thing that I am quite discouraged and concerned about is our

nationalism, our nationalism. It seems that the Federal Government

doesn't know that there is a place called British Columbia or

Saskatchewan, or Alberta or Manitoba, but it's about time that they

did. It's time they did. I think that the Premier's idea is a

first-class one of making this nation a little bit of a closer unit. I

think that that's a good idea, because western ideas are western ideas,

and I think that decentralization is a good thing, and apparently our

gifts come from Ottawa, and they land in Vancouver, but they never seem

to be able to bridge that gap. I think it's about time that the Federal

Government started to pay a little bit more attention to our

nationalism, on a little bit of a different basis, because this is the

time when these policies are finished, they are outmoded, they belong

to a different era. The era of the seventies is get together and solve

your problems, sit down, bury your inhibitions and your hates and your

jealousies and your animosities, because this is a year when we need

unity. If ever there was a time to understand one another now is that

time. I think one of the things that this Government can be proud of,

and I'll be through in a moment or two, and that is that we want to

make an honest and a straightforward attempt at trying to do that.

As a Provincial Government last year, right on the floor of this

House, after the member from Vancouver Centre enunciated the policy or

the suggestion of the National Alliance of Businessmen, the Premier

asked me if I would take on the task. It didn't take very long to do it

either, a few minutes after it was suggested, because he knows good

ideas when he hears them and is aggressive. Here is a segment of

society that seems to be left out and not being taken care of on a

proper basis. So the Premier suggested to me that I should take on this

task and I did. It took a little while to get an idea as to how to

organize and so, in about the middle of July or August we got rolling

and we only have six or seven men in the entire Department. Now to

date, Mr. Premier, we have been able to find work for 1,150 people.

Directly off of the rolls of welfare we have been able to take about

350. I would suggest to you that every one of these people was

[ Page 65 ]

headed straight for the Welfare Department here if

we hadn't been able to get them a job. Now, we've been able to work

within the framework of the legislation that's set up today as far as

labour unions are concerned and other organizations. I've said it

before and I'll say it again, because when I talk to you next time I

want to talk to you on a complete change, an entire change. The whole

philosophy of how to look after the people in the segment of society

that are in need, without costing a dime more, and maybe using less

people than what we have today. Well, this is the day of a new

approach, the new era. This is a time when human beings have to be

recognized as what they are — creations that God made with talents and

abilities, and those abilities and talents can be challenged and

utilized, and that's what we want to try and do, and this is the

Government that has those aggressive and forward-looking ideas. Mr.

Premier, it wouldn't have been but for your forthright thinking, and

for the suggestion from the member from Vancouver Centre. Give him

credit because he deserves it. In fact, a fine Italian brain is a good

brain. (laughter). Well certainly, especially if it has been brought up

on prune juice, it's bound to be. So I suggest to you, Mr. Premier,

that you have a tremendous amount of credit coming for suggesting or

for accepting the basis of an alliance. Not only that, I want to show

you too, Mr. Premier, next time I have the privilege of addressing this

august Chamber, that that rehabilitation business should be one of the

biggest things that ever happens in the era of the 70's.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I've enjoyed the privilege of saying a few things

about some of our Canadian needs today, and I pray that I'll have

another opportunity of doing likewise, and I also wish all of the

members who follow me well, and I pray that we somehow can work

together so that we can make this Province the greatest Province,

because it is already. But we can help to make the nation as well, the

greatest nation because this is the kind of status that it deserves,

and that will make us all proud of being the type of Canadians that we

should all be. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Burnaby Willingdon.

MR. JAMES G. LORIMER (Burnaby Willingdon): Mr. Speaker,

although I did not support you in the election as Speaker, I

nevertheless wish you well during the Session. I would also like to

congratulate the new members that are here this year. I think that it's

only fitting for us old-timers to recognize the fact (laughter) that we

should welcome the new boys and girls. I must say that it is quite

difficult, Mr. Speaker, to follow a humble man in the debate, but I

would like to say that I was very pleased that some of the words it was

said he had mentioned, such as "deadbeats," were not used today, and I

feel very happy. I realize that when they were said that he didn't

really mean it, and that since that time he has spoken to some of his

Department people. I would like to quote from the reports from the

Social Assistance and Rehabilitation Division of the Social Welfare

Department of 1967-68, in which Mr. Burnham states, "Lack of public

understanding of the reason for public dependency results in a tendency

to regard all who are receiving assistance as bums. This has a highly

demoralizing effect on all welfare recipients. In fact, well over half

of such persons are not employable. Furthermore, it has been

increasingly recognized that the majority of those considered as

employable, but who are chronically in need of assistance, simply are

not acceptable to employers because of lack of aptitude, skills, or

capacity available to job opportunities." It goes on to state that

"Where there is some indication that the incidence of fraud had

increased, the number of those situations that come to attention are

relatively few in relation to the numbers assisted. In general, the

incidence would not appear higher than in non-public welfare

programmes."

Now, as Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Health in 1968, I had

occasion to interest myself, Mr. Speaker, in the situation at Jericho

Hill School for the deaf and the blind. Now the physical location of

this school is of the best, the lawns are probably the best lawns in

the City of Vancouver, and there is a million dollar view. There are

some new buildings, and from the outside the school looks very nice.

Enrolment at the school is anywhere from approximately 350 students.

About half of these reside in the school for 10 months of the year.

Others are there during the lesson period or during the day-time. The

number of blind are about one-third of the population and approximately

two-thirds are deaf. Also, a significant number of these people not

only have problems of blindness or deafness, but have other very severe

problems such as brain damage, autism and other physical defects which

are a great handicap to them, and mental retardation. These affect the

performances of many of the children.

Now I intend to devote a few minutes only to the health and physical

planned aspect of the situation and not to the curriculum, as I

understand a committee is working on changes in the curriculum at the

school, and I trust that any recommendations that this committee brings

about will be implemented, as I understand there has been very little

change in the curriculum at the school for some 15 years.

Now, throughout the years the Vancouver Health Department has

serviced the school and has continually requested further improvements

in the school situation, and on two occasions withdrew services from

the school due to the fact that they were not happy with the way the

school was being operated. Now, the professional people that were

employed by the City of Vancouver and were on loan to the Provincial

Government made certain reports on what they found to be the problems

at the school, along with people loaned from the University of British

Columbia, psychologists and so on. These reports were compiled into a

single report and subsequently submitted to the Minister of Education

and the Minister of Health by myself as the Chairman of the

Metropolitan Board. Now, Jericho Hill School must provide to a much

greater extent than a regular school programme for the development of

children, due to the fact that these children are physically

handicapped, and in a number of cases emotionally and socially

handicapped. Such a school should provide for an environment which as

closely as possible resembles the environment that they have at home.

The second thing they should have is a staff trained in the problems of

child development and the nature and effect of the various handicaps of

these children. Now this is not the case at Jericho Hill, and there

should be a co-ordinated educational programme and physical programme

for the health of these children. There should also be encouragement

and opportunity for maximum involvement of the parents, and this is not

the case here. The parents are a somewhat frustrated group, and it

appears that unless the parent is very actively engaged in and about

Jericho Hill School, he does not receive encouragement to discuss

matters with the school authorities, and develop programmes which

attempt to overcome the dangers inherent in the sick or in those in

residence. Now the professionals servicing the school have recorded in

their report that the

[ Page 66 ]

facilities at Jericho Hill School fall far short of even a minimum standard for such a school.

AN HON. MEMBER: The era of the 70's.

MR. LORIMER: …. Now I mentioned that I presented this

report in 1968 to the two Ministers and I think that the two Ministers

actually had two hang-ups about the situation. The first was that they

had believed, and I think that they probably did believe at the time,

that this school was a model school for the North American continent,

and I think they had been told this. I think it was probably based on

the fact that the school does have a swimming pool, a very fine

swimming pool, and some of the deaf children at this school had done

very well at the Blind Olympics. However, this is surely not the test

of the value of such a school. The second hang-up was the fact that it

was felt that this was a boarding-school and not a treatment centre.

Now this is quite true for a certain percentage of these people, the

students that are there, but a great number of these children, as

mentioned before, have other problems, and certainly there has to be a

treatment centre at this school or else about a third or better of the

children should be removed from this area and put into another area

where treatment can be given. Now, there was very little done during

1968. However, we were advised that the Minister of Education was going

to have a report made by a Doctor Demesa of Ontario and a Doctor Clark

of the University of British Columbia, and they were to make a private

report to him, which we certainly were pleased to hear about, and I

understand these reports have now been made. I did not bring this

matter to the attention of the Assembly last year because I wished to

give the Minister time to carry on some improvements. Now, since that

time there have been some improvements made at the Jericho Hill School.

The first improvement was in the correction of the infirmary where

there were some problems which have basically been resolved. Also, a

new playing field has been constructed. However, the problem here, of

course, is that there is no P.E. teacher and so the children at the

moment are not using the playing field. The new positions on staff have

been created on paper, but there have been very few bodies produced to

fill the vacancies. Now, the morale of the staff, I suggest, and the

report states, is very low, and resignations are still taking place in

some of the areas. Now it's true that some of the students at Jericho

Hill do go to University and to Vocational Schools, and in fact do very

well, and these people certainly have benefited from their experiences

in the school. But I suggest that the majority of these are those who

live at home and go to their lessons during the day-time, and have

parents who understand and sympathize with the problems that they face,

and as a result they do very well in later years. But the many others

have been less well served, and leaving the school with social,

emotional and educational problems acquired during their stay, and

enter a community which they are poorly prepared to cope with, both

personally and vocationally.

Now, the older buildings of Jericho Hill have generally outlived

their usefulness and are in an active state of decay. In recent years a

number of new buildings have been designed and built at Jericho, but

the plans for the replacement of the old buildings generally are on the

drawing boards, and the mistakes in the design of the older buildings

tend to reproduce themselves in the new construction. The report states

that maintenance service for the physical plant has never been more

than adequate, but in the last two years has deteriorated

significantly. This change appears to be due, in part, to an inadequate

number of cleaning staff. Now, the kitchen and the dining halls were

erected some 26 years ago as a temporary facility and are still being

used, and due to lack of staff and poorly supervised mealtimes, the

mealtime period is basically a period of bedlam.

Now this report further refers to the residential supervisors, and

it states that they are important, they act as substitute parents for

some of these children for 10 months of the year, from anywhere from

the ages of five to twenty, and this is their home. Some of these

supervisors, the majority, cannot communicate with the deaf due to

their inability to understand sign language, and this is a substitute,

or supposed to be the substitute, for the child's home. Now I'm not

intending to deal with the report at length. I might say in passing

that there are, and I will be the first to admit and have admitted,

that there are one or two discrepancies in the report as presented to

the Ministers and those have been acknowledged that they are

discrepancies. However, they are minor discrepancies and really take

nothing away from the report as such.

There are a number of other small points that I don't intend to deal

with which may seem small from this position — looking from the outside

in — but when you're living in this school for, as I mentioned, most of

your childhood life, these irritants become major problems. I would

suggest that the basic problems in the school are first of all a

failure to provide a home or a substitute home for the children who are

living there. The residences are barracks-style, with four to six

students head to head in cubicles, three-sided cubicles, and privacy is

practically non-existent. There's a lack of communication, as

mentioned, so there's very little after school activities. There's

Guides and Scouts and things of that sort but these are not frequently

held, they may be once a week, and as a result there's a great amount

of time on these children's hands and they are unable to amuse

themselves for such great lengths of time.

Some of the equipment, when I went through the school, was very

inadequate at the time, the chairs and so on. The number of people

trying to watch a T-V set with very few chairs for them to sit on, most

of them standing up, and most of the programmes, or a great number of

the programmes, poorly prepare the children to live among the world of

the sight and of the hearing. A number of them, when they leave the

facility, are ill-equipped to take jobs, and as a result find

themselves living off their parents at home or on the welfare roll. As

the Vancouver senior psychologist states in his report, this is a

situation that promotes not mental health but mental illness, and I

suggest that we have certainly by-passed these people. The Province

with the good life, I think, has failed to meet their obligations in

this area. I feel also that the Government has known of these

shortcomings for a great number of years and I believe that it's

certainly incumbent upon them now to do something about the situation

at Jericho.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to note that the Speech from the

Throne refers to the construction of a new motor-vehicle testing

station in Burnaby. We are very pleased to hear of this and it is my

belief that this programme, and I suppose it is, will be carried on to

all the major centres in the Province.

Now, the Honourable the Attorney-General has been in the news lately

with reference to the removal of the Clydesdales from Oakalla — now

these Clydesdales, of course, are in my riding and I'm very partial to

them, and I would

[ Page 67 ]

hate to see….

AN HON. MEMBER: ….horses on the voters' lists….

MR. LORIMER: ….I'd hate to see those horses disbanded and

removed. Now one story stated that the Honourable Attorney-General said

that he was going to phase out Oakalla and, as a result, they couldn't

have the horses in Oakalla any more, and they were going to be removed

to Prince George and Kamloops and Colquitz. Now I think there are two

issues here, one is the future of Oakalla and the other is the future

of the horses (laughter) and I certainly do not criticize the

Attorney-General if he's going to phase out Oakalla. I approve of that

100 per cent. I'm afraid that Oakalla will be there long after the

horses.

AN HON. MEMBER: The sentence is ten years.

MR. LORIMER: But we've had these promises of phasing out of

Oakalla for about twelve years now and, well, I was hoping that that

issue in the paper might be a referral from you that we were going to

phase it out. Now in any event, what I was going to say is that I hope

that the phasing out isn't going to begin with the Clydesdales and end

with the Clydesdales, but, from the remarks I gather that is what is

going to happen. Now as far as the Clydesdales are concerned,

seriously, I certainly think that they should be left as a unit. I

realize it costs money, but I think that these horses should be on

display at the Fall Fairs and Exhibitions throughout the Province. I

think it's a well worthwhile effort for the Provincial Government to

keep these animals for this purpose. I think it may be necessary to

have a little money spent on it, but I think that the benefits to the

people of the Province would more than cover the expense.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's for Government caucus meeting.

MR. LORIMER: Now I want to say a few words about our

Centennial year that's coming up. I know that everyone is getting ready

for great plans in their cities and so on, but I would like to make a

suggestion that the Provincial Government, as it has in the past, have

a function or a Centennial project as a Government project. Now in the

previous Centennial there was the construction of the museum complex in

Victoria, and I'm suggesting that the thing to do this time would be to

put in a project in the lower mainland this year, suggesting, and this

suggestion has been made before, that the project be the development of

Burnaby Lake for a recreational centre. Now this lake has had a

considerable amount of use in the past. It was involved in

international regattas in 1930 and 1931, and in 1935 the water level

was lowered for drainage purposes and as a result it is now full of

lily pads. However, this level could be quite readily raised again. 395

acres is the size of the lake, and the municipal government has the

ownership of 320 acres around the perimeter, making a total

recreational area of some 700 acres. Now I suggest that this facility

would be of great recreational value for not only the people of

Vancouver and Burnaby but, being adjacent to the freeway, it would be

of great benefit to all the people in the lower mainland from Hope

west, which covers probably over half the population of this Province,

and I think the Province should consider that centennial project which

would be most fitting, and should be placed on the lower mainland.

Now I note in the Colonist

of January the 23rd there is a statement, "Big Swedish Ferry sold to

the Province", and subsequently a report from the Premier that

negotiations were not completed, but that he said, as I understand it

"we may buy it". Now I certainly object to the purchase of a ferry from

Sweden when our shipyards are practically non-existent any more. They

have no work, no order, or very few orders, and I think that it's only

reasonable to encourage these shipyards and give them contracts. Even

though the ship may be purchased from Sweden at a reduced price, a

second-hand ferry, I think it is much more important and of much more

benefit directly and indirectly for the Government, if they need a new

ferry, to award the contract for the construction of the ferry at a

local port.

MR. BARRETT: What's the good of a ferry if you can't pay to get on?

MR. LORIMER: I think the increase in employment would be of

great benefit. Get the shipyard workers off the unemployment insurance

and the welfare roll, and let's get the secondary industry in B.C.

moving. Also, I think the Provincial Government should be fighting and

be more active in fighting for the Federal subsidy which is available

for the Province for the shipyard business.

Now I understand that the Department of Public Works is considering

charging parking rates at the Vocational School. Now this I understand,

of course, is a very small matter to the Department of Public Works,

but it's not that small a matter to the people who are going to the

Vocational School. Those involved in the Vocational School basically

are being subsized by Canada Manpower, and the school is situated in a

fairly remote area as far as bus transportation is concerned. It's true

that a bus does go by, but it's a half-hour service, generally an hour

service, and to get the connections it would be a very circuitous route

to take a bus, so that it's almost essential that these people go by

motor vehicle. Now I feel that most of them are on subsidies from

Canada Manpower, they haven't funds, readily available to pay parking.

It's a small matter, and those others who are not under the subsidy of

Manpower are paying their own fees, and as a result have very little

money left to pay parking assessments. I would certainly suggest to the

Minister that the profits made from parking will not be worth the

hardship caused to these individuals concerned. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Second Member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. EVAN WOLFE (2nd-Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask your permission to speak very briefly today.

MR. SPEAKER: Permission is granted.

MR. WOLFE: Thank you, Sir. I would like to particularly

welcome the new members to this House — by new members I mean those

that have not been here before — and in so doing to take note of the

fact that most of them represent more of the major metropolitan areas

in the Province. For instance New Westminster, Nanaimo — he's out of

the House just now — and of course Victoria and several new members

from Vancouver. I think this is significant in view of the increased

importance of urban area problems in Canada, so I think we should

stress this. I would also like to welcome the new Leader of the

Opposition — should I say this year's Leader or the new Leader, I

guess, of the Opposition, and just express the hope that in his

new-found duties he doesn't neglect the Public Accounts Committee

(laughter) — thank you. I noticed,

[ Page 68 ]

incidentally, that he's already purchased his new

licence plates with the three letter prefix. Perhaps you hadn't noticed

them, they read NDP012, and I was going to suggest to him that he

should now put in his order for 1975 plates, and perhaps they should

read NDP006, and at the same time he might order his 1980 plates which

might read NDP000, and I'd like to offer the services of the members of

this side of the House in writing letters of endorsement or assisting

with this request, so feel free to take advantage of this, and at the

same time I'm looking at the chair of the Liberal leader….

AN HON. MEMBER: I think he's disappeared….

MR. WOLFE: I did want to say that I was impressed with his

speech the other day and his beautiful coloform since the House opened

this year.

Mr. Speaker, very seriously, I would like at this time to pay

tribute to Mr. Alec Matthew. I doubt if new members would realize that

Alec Matthew was a twelve-year veteran of this House and he died very

recently, within the past year, at a very ripe age, and it's certainly

fair to say that he had an extremely productive life and gave many

years to the public life of this Province and to the people in his own

constituency.

Now just a brief word about this matter of hydro rates. Both of the

Opposition leaders dwelt on this at great length in the first day and

were very critical of announcements recently made regarding the

possibility of increase in hydro rates. I think we're all in this House

very concerned about this possibility, but what strikes me is the fact

that for six years the Hydro has been operated without any increase in

rates, and I would have to think that in my own business, if I were to

attempt to operate it without the benefit of any price increase and

consideration of wage and other costs increasing annually, I would have

been broke at least two or three years ago. Furthermore, I think that

we should look at the financial statistics on the Hydro in commenting

on this. In the 1969 fiscal year, the Hydro showed a net income of

$9,300,000 on revenues of $221,000,000. Mr. Speaker, that is a return

of only 4 per cent. It's fair to say from statements recently made by

their Chairman, Dr. Shrum, that there will be very little profits shown

— next to none — for the fiscal year 1970. Now according to the Public

Utilities Commission manual on public utilities rate increases, a

public utility is permitted a return of 81/2 per cent on their revenue,

and there is increased pressure today to increase this 81/2 per cent

with a view to current interest rates. So I'm not saying that there

should be an increase, but we should be fair and realize if there has

to be one, we have to go along with it, because otherwise we're saying

that we should be subsidizing the cost of power in this Province, and I

say what fairer way is there to pay for the cost of our power than to

charge the users, otherwise you are asking some other person to assist

in the payment of your own bill.

Now there's been talk of a 15 per cent increase. I have no idea what

amount of increase might be contemplated, but if you were to imagine a

15 percent increase in the rates of Hydro, what you're talking about is

an increase of $35,000,000 in their revenue. If we are concerned with

people on limited income having to face increases in their hydro bills,

pensioners, people on welfare, and so on, it seems to me that we should

face the fact that Hydro should not be subsidized, and that perhaps

these people should request and should require greater allowances to

compensate. So don't let us let Hydro be a drag on the general revenue

of the Province.

In my opinion it should stand on its own feet. I believe the leader

of the Opposition made a statement that Vancouver hydro rates for 500

kw per month were the highest in Canada. Of course, this is not

correct, I wouldn't say that they are low, but they are not the highest

in Canada. There are four other cities which are higher than the City

of Vancouver and I think it is understandable that hydro rates in

British Columbia, a new Province with this fantastic development, would

be expected to be rather high. We don't enjoy Federally assisted dams.

For instance, let us compare hydro rates here with the Maritimes. The

Maritimes have the lowest wage rates, the lowest per capita income in

Canada, and the highest hydro rates in Canada. British Columbia has the

highest wages in Canada, and of course the highest per capita income.

I'm not saying that we should be proud of the amount of our hydro

rates, but hydro rates are a very complicated issue and the important

thing is that I believe that hydro should be operated on a

pay-as-you-go basis.

I would like now to turn to a new subject, Mr. Speaker, which is

seldom spoken of these days, and that's the matter of pollution. You

know we have so many different kinds of pollution — we have water

pollution, we have air pollution, we have noise pollution which is very

important, and of course now we have cracked glass pollution. In any

event, the problem that I wish to talk about today is the matter of

automobile pollution. Smog-control equipment, many people do not

realize, has been available for automobiles in North America for about

three years, and the impetus for this control has come from California,

where authorities have rules that all new cars operating in that State

must be equipped with mechanical devices to reduce emissions. Experts

in pollution control in California say that a car properly equipped

would discharge 80 per cent less hydrocarbons than cars not so

equipped. One expert recently said that a 1960 automobile without

emission controls emits more hydro-carbons than five 1970 automobiles.

That is how far improvements in this field have gone in the last three

years. Unfortunately, the efficiency of these devices falls off as the

automobile ages. The control apparatus and the car need regular

maintenance to attain the proper standard of control.

I think the time has come when we must insist that emission control

devices be mandatory on all new automobiles, I say all new automobiles

sold in this Province, together with the proper maintenance of those

automobiles and devices, to make sure they are working at their maximum

capacity. So accordingly, I am calling for legislation in British

Columbia to do just that. You may ask why the B.C. Government should

assume this responsibility. Well, it appears that is the only way we

can get quick action on this important problem. Although there is

legislation now in the United States and Ontario, the Canadian

Government has not acted on a national basis, and I don't think British

Columbia can afford to wait any longer for a national code. Equipment

is available for installation on all new cars right now during their

manufacture, and now is the time to start enforcing this clean air

policy.

Since these devices require maintenance to ensure that they function

properly, I would also ask that it be made compulsory that they be

tested regularly. We now test cars for mechanical defects at stations

in Vancouver, Victoria and Richmond, and there will soon be a station

in Burnaby, and it would be simple enough to add one more check, to

make sure that smog control devices are operating efficiently. Also, a

simple testing machine is available, by which a policeman

[ Page 69 ]

can spot-check automobile exhaust emissions in a

matter of minutes, and this machine can be set up at any point as a

mobile testing station.

AN HON. MEMBER: A breathalizer for automobiles.

MR. WOLFE: Right now, in the State of California, automobiles

that show evidence of excessive exhaust pollution are stopped by police

and given a simple exhaust analysis. If this spot check indicates that

the car is abusing the atmosphere, the owner is required to have his

engine tuned or his emission device repaired, so that his exhaust

analysis conforms to the regulations. Mr. Ed Cole, the president of

General Motors Corporation, says that with our present yearly

improvements in emmission control devices, and with further refinements

in combustion fuel, he can foresee by the year 1980 they will be

producing automobiles with internal combustion engines which will be

100 per cent emission free.

It seems to me that in the Vancouver and lower mainland area, we

have a condition similar to that in the Los Angeles basin. No one

living here would care to see this become another Los Angeles as far as

air pollution is concerned. However, Los Angeles has made considerable

improvements in the last few years through some very tough regulations.

In the Vancouver area we are still not in serious trouble, we still

have time to act, to prepare for our rapid growth in population. If we

in British Columbia would install exhaust pollution regulations similar

to the State of California right now, at this Session of the

Legislature, we would take a major step towards improving our air

pollution problem. In fact, I would predict that within ten years,

notwithstanding the potential growth in car population, that we can

have even then much cleaner, smog-free air than we breathe right now.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I'm sure you would be very surprised if I didn't

draw your attention to some matters concerning my own constituency.

Vancouver Centre is the heart of the business and commercial activity

in British Columbia, and it is also the home of the skid-row derelicts.

Last year in this House I mentioned a need for a detoxification clinic

in the Vancouver area and, as a temporary measure, the City of

Vancouver decided to implement

section 64A of theSummary Convictions Act

, under which it would be possible to detain chronic alcoholics. The

City allocated the top floor of the present gaol as a receiving clinic

for this purpose. Now except for a very short period, this is obviously

not a very satisfactory place. Negotiations have been under way for

months now between our Health Department and a committee from the City

of Vancouver under the chairmanship of Alderman Halford Wilson. By-laws

have now been drafted for the new Hospital Society, which would

organize this detoxification clinic and establish its Board of

Governors. However, a problem has developed. For this unit to be

operated by our Hospital Insurance Service, and thereby attract Federal

cost-sharing of its operation, it would have to be constructed as a

full-fledged hospital, rather than a clinic. If it is to be built as a

simple clinic, it then would not qualify under the B.C.H.I.S. and would

not get Federal assistance. A simple clinic would cost us only roughly

$5,000 a bed to construct,

whereas a new hospital runs about $50,000 a

bed. Obviously it would be ridiculous to consider anything but a clinic.

At present, none of our Vancouver hospitals will consider accepting

such a detoxification centre as part of their responsibility.

Therefore, the present plan is to build a small alcoholic hospital with

a detoxification clinic in an adjoining wing of the hospital. The

hospital portion would be operated under B.C.H.I.S. and the operation

of the detoxification clinic would be shared 80 per cent by the

province and 20 percent by the City of Vancouver, similar to the

welfare costs of the City. I understand that Vancouver City Council

have now agreed to this cost-sharing proposal, and I hope this means

that our Government will approve its 80 per cent share of the annual

operating cost. Vancouver is a major city with a mild climate and it

has a special problem with skid-road alcoholics, one that extends far

beyond civic responsibility. Therefore, the cost of a new

detoxification clinic should be shared by all three levels of

government. All have a responsibility. However, as far as the

Provincial Government is concerned, this cost should become a joint

responsibility of the Social Welfare Department, the Health Department

and the Attorney-General's Department. I would therefore urge the

Ministers in charge of these three Departments to take on the joint

responsibility of bringing this agreement to a conclusion.

Let's cut through the time-consuming red tape, Mr. Speaker, and set

an objective of having this clinic completed within the coming year.

This is one of the first things we should do, even before passing any

new liquor laws. By saying that, I do not oppose changes in liquor laws, but I do want to emphasize the urgency with regard to this clinic.

I would also like to urge our Minister of Municipal Affairs to speed

the approval of plans for the proposed 7.8 million dollar new community

centre and senior citizens' high-rise apartment in Vancouver's west

end. We are all aware of the great need for low-cost accommodations for

senior citizens and, since the closing of Gordon Neighbourhood House,

Vancouver west end also needs a community centre. The recent growth in

apartment living has made this situation even more acute. At the moment

there is a hold-up over the amount of underground parking required.

Although the Provincial Government is only sharing, of course, in the

cost of the housing project itself, and therefore does not feel obliged

to provide very much parking, the community centre will require

adequate parking. I see no reason why our Government should not also

share some obligation in assisting in the recreation facilities and

therefore also with the additional parking requirements. We can't build

any building in Vancouver today without considering parking as a part

of the project. It has now been over a year since the money by-law for

this centre was approved, and there is still much to be done before

construction can start, and I would urge the Minister to do what he can

to speed things along. Of course, with the present high interest rates

and tight money, we have an obligation to control our expenditures as

much as possible. At the same time, I did mention the need for such a

centre in Vancouver's west end three years ago in this House, and

although the by-law has been passed the City is still not at the stage

of drawing or asking for detailed plans. Even if we could arrive at an

agreement on who pays for what on this project within the next 30 days,

it is doubtful if it would require expenditures of Provincial

Government funds for at least a year or two.

One further Vancouver-Centre matter. I would like to see an early

start on the long-talked about Britannia School Community Complex in

Vancouver west end. This school will have a number of combined

facilities in a community centre, including a library and a health

unit, that would benefit all residents in that area. The Britannia

Community Complex is estimated to cost seven and one half million

[ Page 70 ]

dollars and was originally part of Scheme 3 of

Vancouver's urban renewal plan. Since the Federal Government cancelled

its urban renewal policy last year, meetings have been held between the

City and the Federal Minister, Mr. Andras, regarding the future of the

Britannia complex. Mr. Andras has indicated that, in this opinion, the

Britannia complex will fit in with Federal Government's revised policy

on urban renewals and, therefore, receive their approval. However,

since that meeting, the Federal Minister has indicated that they will

spend only 31/2 million dollars in 1970 on urban renewal in all of

British Columbia. Of this, one million is allocated to New Westminster

which leaves 21/2 million for the Strathcona area of Vancouver. The

question is, how much does this leave as a Federal Government

contribution toward the Britannia Community Complex? Mr. Speaker, what

is required at this time is a statement from the City, and from our

Provincial Government, indicating that this project has a top priority.

I would urge our Government to give this commitment without delay, and

I say this notwithstanding the present tight-money situation, since it

will not require expenditure of funds for some years. The Britannia

Complex is supported by several responsible community organizations,

such as the Strathcona Property Owners and Tenants Association, and the

associations tackle adverse conditions. It has been proposed for some

years now, and it is badly needed in the Britannia area, which is

densely populated and adjacent to the New Raymer Housing Project.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make one final point. In British

Columbia we have an excellent Civil Service and, in my three years as a

member of this House, I have found most Government employees that I

have met to be intelligent, dedicated people. I say that very

sincerely, and as a business-man I previously held the popular view

that people sought jobs in the Civil Service, at every level of

government, primarily for security, and that they normally put less

effort into their jobs than employees in private industry. Needless to

say, I no longer hold that view, and much of the credit for the high

calibre of our present Provincial Government employees, obviously, is

due to the hiring and employment policies of our Civil Service

Commission. Nevertheless it has now been about 20 years since we have

had a comprehensive study on the efficiency of services that we perform

in Government Departments. With payroll consuming over 50 per cent of

our budget in all Departments, we should always keep a careful watch on

whether the services performed are required, whether a job could be

handled in another way, whether it could be more efficiently executed,

and so on. I am talking about procedure rather than people. I am saying

that it is quite possible that we could find more efficient work

procedures, that would cut costs, that we should conduct an efficiency

survey through all Departments to find out what might be done. I will

be very much surprised if there were not several functions now being

performed that couldn't be changed or removed. This has certainly

proved true in my own business, which is not very big, for I employ

some 135 people. Two years ago we decided to check all the forms which

our employees had to use regularly in our business and we concluded we

could dispense with several different forms and procedures that had

formerly been used. Because these procedures had become a habit,

everyone thought we could not do without them. But, I can safely say

that we really didn't require them and, since then, have been able to

make more efficient use of our man hours. I see no reason why this

principle should not apply to government.

So, Mr. Speaker, I am asking our Government to appoint, if you like,

an Efficiency Task Force to make a study of all Departments. This study

should not be undertaken in my view by a consulting firm, but by a

specially appointed committee of three. The members could be the

chairman of the Civil Service Commission, plus an economist and a

chartered accountant. The Civil Service chairman will provide the

in-service knowledge of present staff functions and the economist and

accountant from outside the Government service will provide the

impartiality and qualified opinions from a broad-based business

background. This committee should do an organizational survey of each

Department, with the primary object of streamlining functions to make

them easier to perform and eliminating those functions that are

outmoded.

AN HON. MEMBER: …. including the Oppositions'.

MR. WOLFE: I think so, we should. (laughter)

AN HON. MEMBER: If you include the Opposition, you'll wipe them out altogether.

MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, this committee should report directly

to the Minister of Finance or to the Treasury Board rather than to the

Minister of the Department involved. Allow me to explain this point. I

am told that in previous studies of this kind, reports have been

submitted to an individual department head, either to the Minister or

the Deputy involved, and the result quite often is no action. Now I'm

not saying that such reports require action on every recommendation,

but many good things resulting from these studies are recommended and

result in being buried in some file, so my recommendation is that their

reporting should be directly to the Minister of Finance or the Treasury

Board. The study could be started at any time, preferably right away,

by conducting a trial study of just one Department.

Mr. Speaker, this is not meant as a criticism of our present

Government operation, nor as a suggestion that our present services are

inefficient. I would make the same recommendation of any Government.

Nevertheless, our obligation to the taxpayer is to give him the best

value for his dollar, and the time for this type of study will never be

more opportune than right now. The inflation steamroller is the most

pressing problem in Canada today, and our Government is being asked

from all sides to cut down on spending. Our payroll represents the

biggest part of our expenditures. We should make sure that the

productivity is there and the most efficient procedures are being used.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for North Vancouver–Seymour.

MR. B.A. CLARK (North Vancouver–Seymour): Thank you, Mr.

Speaker. I would like to join with those who have issued a welcome to

those new members of this Assembly, and I am sure they are going to

contribute greatly to its debates. In all honesty, Mr. Speaker, I am

one of those who is highly impressed with those new members who have

spoken thus far in the Throne Speech Debate.

I am sorry the Minister of Public Works is not in his seat at the

moment because I wanted to congratulate him on the installation of the

new sound system, and to also offer my congratulations on his efforts

which I understand are responsible for shedding light on the

well-rounded beauty of the ceiling, which I think adds greatly to the

aesthetics of this

[ Page 71 ]

Chamber. I also understand it adds to the lighting. At any rate, we'll accept it.

Mr. Speaker, the Government, rightly so, is proud of its new and

increased majority. Lest they think all went their way, and on behalf

of those who worked so hard in my riding, I would just like to point

out that in North Vancouver–Seymour they got fewer votes than at any

time since the present member from Vancouver Centre tried his hand in

my riding. (laughter) All did not go well despite the visit from the

Premier.

AN HON. MEMBER: In your riding we won!

MR.CLARK: ….That's right. In your riding — in my riding — when you ran you got more votes than any other party. You've never done

as well since….

Mr. Speaker, this was the first election that I have been in that

resulted in some bitterness. That was a new experience for me, and, I

must say quite frankly, I did not enjoy that particular aspect of the

election. I make specific reference to the fact that at one point the

president of the B.C. Social Credit League wrote to the Chairman of the

Canadian Radio and Television Commission to endeavor to get me off my

radio programme. That was awful. The suggestion was made that equal

time should be offered, and in point of fact equal time was offered to

the party concerned, but lo and behold by that time they decided they

didn't want it.

Be that as it may, Mr. Speaker, I was happy to devote more time to

the election campaign. There was, seriously, a lot of correspondence

that went back and forth between the Radio and Television Commission,

and various people concerning the definition of candidate, and I hope

that as a result of this unfortunate incident that we will straighten

out matters pertaining to my industry running in an election, because

it is rather confused, and there were six members of my industry in the

election this last time, and I am very proud of that. I am sorry more

of them didn't get elected, more of them ran for our party. Mr.

Speaker, I also wanted to congratulate the Minister of Public Works for

his new lighting because I'm quite sure that with this new lighting

there is no chance of any shadows lurking in the galleries or is that

too subtle? It's alright, it's a local joke.

I did have the privilege, Mr. Speaker, shortly after the election to

spend some time, a few days, in Denmark, and I wish to relate some of

the experiences I had there, Mr. Speaker, because I am sure members of

this Assembly would be genuinely interested.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, tell us all….

Well, I spent most of my time in the Justice Ministry, so it's not

going to be as exciting as some of you might have thought. I was

spending some time in an effort to try and determine, seriously, what

was the mood behind the radical change in laws relating to social

problems that was taking place in Denmark. I was impressed, as I think

many members of this House are impressed, with the changes that are

taking place there. Amongst those changes are some interesting things

happening in their Assembly. I think the Danish parliamentary system,

Mr. Speaker, is one of the few systems in the world that was founded

after a team of well-known and responsible citizens journeyed to

several democratic institutions, and then tried to come up with a

system which involved the best of several, and there are some features

that I think we very well might copy. For example, Mr. Speaker, there

is a time limit on debate in the Danish Parliament, and I am sure you

would appreciate one particular device that as soon as a member rises

to speak, a time clock is automatically begun in the basement, and when

his time limit is up the microphone goes off. (applause) I offer that

as just one suggestion. There is a speaker's podium, Mr. Speaker, that

is occupied by the person addressing the Chamber.

They do not have the seating arrangement we have in this House. They

did not adopt the traditional two sword lengths. The reason for not

doing this was because they felt, after looking at the British system

and several others, that the seating arrangement in such a Chamber in

fact prompted a political debate. Be that as it may, their Chamber, I

think, is a pretty good example of debates taking place on a principle

basis rather than on politics. I was very impressed with it.

Another point I thought the members might be interested in was the

recent redistribution of seats in Denmark. The Committee that set up

the redistribution gave three seats to three major universities, and

the university students had an opportunity of electing their own

members of Parliament, with the result that the student body of Denmark

has a voice in their Parliament. Now, I didn't get a chance to meet the

students, but I understand that views are slightly left of now, but

needless to say they now have their place in that Assembly and the

executive assistant to the Minister of Justice told me that they credit

the redistribution with the fact that they are having relatively little

problem with the student unrest at the Universities, because they feel

that the students do have a say in the Assembly. It's an interesting

concept.

Also, in the Danish Parliament, Mr. Speaker, the members of the

Press Gallery are provided with the most sumptuous appointments I have

ever seen anywhere. Private suites, a large meeting room, library, even

a bar. (applause) I am sure if the Press Gallery members could applaud,

they would.

AN HON. MEMBER: There's a bar right there.

MR. CLARK: ….Of course, they also have another feature, Mr.

Speaker, namely complete access to radio and television coverage of

that Assembly. The television cameras and microphones are at the

complete disposal of any member of the press.

I recount some of these Danish traditions, Mr. Speaker, as an

introduction to a specific proposal that I wish to make to the

Government. With such an obvious majority, surely the Government now

can have no objection to doing what many members in this House have

requested since I have had a seat here. That is that we strike a

Committee of this House whose sole purpose is designed to take a look

at our rules and procedures. I would propose, Mr. Speaker, that this

Committee have the broadest terms of reference possible, simply to be

empowered to examine our rules, to examine the rules of any other

democratic institution, and to report back to this House next year

their recommendations. Certainly, the Government can have no fear that

the Opposition will steamroller some of their pet projects into these

recommendations, because there is no doubt that the Government would

have a majority on that Committee. Mr. Speaker, seriously, while I pay

tribute to the traditions of this House, I don't think that there is

any member here who would say that the rules and procedures of this

House are perfect. In point of fact, when we adopted the British

Parliamentary Rules we gave them very little change. Since that time

the British House of Commons has changed its rules in several important

ways, and in point of fact the British House of Commons now has rules

that are far more efficient

[ Page 72 ]

than our own in many specific categories.

Now, having mentioned Denmark, I am sure some of the members are

fully aware that one of the things that is happening in Denmark is some

rather radical changes to their laws pertaining to pornography. Many

countries are watching Denmark to see what effect this is having on the

population. I am aware this is a matter of Federal jurisdiction, but I

am sure the members in this House would be interested to know that

there are now statistics available as to some of the effects of the

approach of the Danish parliamentary system. Quite simply, what they

did in their Criminal Code some years ago, they removed all reference

to pornography. They simply omitted it from the Criminal Code. What has

this done, or resulted in? It was a long and complicated road dated

from about 1964, December of that year. The Justice Ministry in Denmark

was gracious enough to provide me with a precis of the thinking that

led to their present law, and I have made copies of this and I am quite

prepared to make them available to any member of the House who would

like to have them. It's an interesting story.

However, what I think is most pertinent to this Assembly is the fact

that for some reason or other there is a dramatic decline in certain

categories of crime in Denmark, and that this dramatic decline in crime

is by coincidence, at least, connected with these changes in law. In

point, again very simply, what has happened is that crimes involving

sexual offences have been cut in half, and the most dramatic aspect of

these statistics, the most important one to me, is that crime involving

sexual assault on children under 15 has been reduced by as much as

two-thirds. Now, while no one I talked to suggested that this decline

in this type of crime was due solely to their changes in pornography

laws, the Chief of Police and the spokesman from the Justice Ministry

clearly indicated to me that the change in the law had an effect on the

whole sociological environment in Denmark the result of which is seen

in the statistics of the Police Chief of Copenhagen, just released in

Denmark, which show a further dramatic reduction in this type of crime

in Denmark.

I raise this, Mr. Speaker, for this House to consider, because I

think it is important to try and see that side of it as well as the

moral side that is obviously involved with this question. There is a

lot of opposition to changes in pornography legislation, and I can

understand that from a moral point of view, but I think as legislators,

all countries in the world should be taking a serious look at what is

happening in Denmark.

On another subject, Mr. Speaker, it has been expressed in this side

of the House several times already that there is very little in the

Throne Speech to get excited about. Well, that's not very new. However,

there's one exception to me and that's the single sentence that reads

that you will be asked to give consideration to the introduction under

the jurisdiction of the Honourable the Speaker, of a system of

recordings of proceedings of this House." I am quite sure some members

of the House expected me to speak on this.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is it really necessary?

MR. CLARK: Yes, it's necessary. I think it's desirable, I

think I've got some important points I'd just like to mention, and you

can decide for yourselves. I am going to have more to say about it, Mr.

Speaker, no doubt when the specific resolution is in front of us but I

would like to make a couple of points at this time.

Everything I have heard in this House in the past four Sessions pertaining to a Hansard

or a system of recording of debates, has been the potential effect of

such a system on those of us in this Chamber, and to me that is

completely irrelevant. The importance of a Hansard

or a recording of the debates of this House, is the effect it would

have on the citizens of this Province, not on the people who happen to

be elected to this Chamber. The fact that we may benefit from it is

secondary, the fact that such a Hansard

may change our ways, may force some of us to change our habits in this

Assembly, in my opinion, is just too darned bad. That's one of the side

effects, perhaps, of such a system. I maintain that the people of this

Province have a right to a recording of the debates of this House.

With regard to the system of tape recording I see presently

installed in this Chamber, I would point out from experience that tape

recording, while an excellent record, is an extremely inefficient

reference. Extremely so. It is very easy to take a tape from this

Chamber and file it away somewhere and say you have a recording of the

debates of this Assembly. I wonder how many of you have ever had

occasion to take an hour reel, or what I refer to as an hour reel, the

size that we are using here, although it is recording far more than one

hour on it, and find a specific spot in that tape. There are members in

the Gallery, I am sure, who have been faced with that problem. But it

is a long task, and in many cases, virtually impossible to find that

place you are looking for. It just is not an efficient point of

reference. Incidentally, in the method of tape recording we have

installed in the Chamber at the present time, there is no way any

single member of this House could play it, because the tape recording

method that is being used, is playable only on certain specific

equipment, and that equipment is extremely expensive and available, to

my knowledge, only in radio or television studios. There we could play

it.

Regarding tapes being filed, Mr. Speaker, I point out that they can

be erased with ease and by accident. Sometimes the very simplest action

of an innocent party can erase a whole bank of tapes, and I'm a witness

to that from personal experience. Many things set up a magnetic field

which will erase tapes. Tapes can be broken, they can be shattered into

thousands of pieces, which I am sure will occur one day in this House,

when they are being re-wound. This happens in the best of tape

equipment. When we are looking at the tape recordings in this debate in

terms of Provincial archives which is one purpose of having these

records, a feature of tape known as "print through" becomes rather

pertinent, and this is where tape becomes brittle and will transpose

from one tape onto the tape lying beside it, its recorded word, and you

end up after a number of years with nothing but a jumble. In short, a

recording of the debates of this House, unless transcribed some time

after the recording, in my opinion is completely useless. I will leave

for a later debate, questions as to who should have access to the tape

recordings we are making here.

Mr. Speaker, I note that in the Speech from the Throne mention of

further assistance to those senior citizens on pension, both in the

form of financial assistance and in the provision of low-rental housing

and I welcome that mention. But conspicuous by its absence, Mr.

Speaker, is any mention at all of further assistance or any assistance

to those senior citizens of our Province requiring chronic care,

there's no mention. I said in this House in my first Session, and I

think in every Session, that in my riding senior citizens are being

faced with rates as high as four and five hundred dollars a

[ Page 73 ]

month to receive chronic care. That's the situation that exists in British Columbia, that's the situation that is not even mentioned in this Throne Speech.

There is also no mention of specific assistance to the senior

citizens who are striving to maintain their existence in a home that

they have saved for, have bought and paid for years ago, but are now

threatening to lose because of increased municipal property taxes.

There is not a mention in the Throne Speech about that person, and I

note the first item of importance that many of the Mayors of this

Province picked out of the Throne Speech, was this omission. Saanich

Mayor Hugh Curtis said, "I have particular concern for the retired

fixed income home-owners, who, because of rising property taxes, have

reached the point where they have to sell their homes. They can no

longer afford to live in them." So, Mr. Speaker, for the fourth year in

this Chamber, I ask the Government to consider some form of tax relief

for the pensioned home-owners. Every senior citizen who manages to

maintain residence in his own home, is a senior citizen that this

Government does not have to provide accommodation for.

Further, Mr. Speaker, every senior citizen who maintains residence

in his own home, is a stabilizing voice in our communities. I believe

one of the worst things we have done in our society today is to collect

elderly people together into neat little ghettos. What a sterile

society it is that sees every house in every street containing a family

of identical age and income. The song, Mr. Speaker, says "Where have

all the flowers gone?" Where have all the senior citizens of this

Province gone? They have gone to nursing-homes, cold, one-room flats,

and neat tiny little cubicles. This Government has it within its power

right now to alleviate the situation.

I proposed one method in the past, namely that legislation be

introduced to allow municipalities to take a covenant on such

properties so that municipal taxes do not have to be paid until such

time as that pensioner is either deceased or disposes of that property.

It's completely feasible. It could be done very simply. That's just one

method of solving this problem, or at least assisting. So the senior

citizens who have worked so hard for their homes do not have to leave

simply because of rising municipal taxation. You can take it any step

beyond that you want, all I'm asking is the first. There is no mention

of that at all in the Throne Speech this year again, Mr. Speaker.

On Sunday, November 23rd of last year, an

article appeared in the

Seattle Post-Intelligencer entitled, "Does Anyone Care About Mary?" I

don't know whether anyone of you saw that article. But the

article

represents a situation that exists in British Columbia as it exists in

Washington State and, in my opinion, there is no excuse in 1970 for a

story such as this being printed, in either our neighbouring State or

in this Province. We may not be able to do anything about the situation

in Washington State, but we can sure do something about it here. The

girl they called Mary was a small-town girl, is a small-town girl who

came to Seattle at the age of eighteen. Her mother was employed as a

cook; her father, also a cook, was unemployed. Mary had rented her

first city apartment. Following a knock on the door, she naively opened

it, whereupon a man she had never seen entered her apartment and

criminally assaulted her. As a result of that attack, Mary Smith was

rushed to the Virginia Mason Hospital, her hands slashed, her left hand

— and she was left handed — encased in a bandage hiding severed

tendons, a black eye, internal injuries and psychological damage that

anyone here can imagine.

The story is frightening enough, Mr. Speaker, up to that point, but

there is a further crime that follows. The man charged with this

assault is now supported by the State. He was married, father of three

children, and his wife and children are supported by the State. He will

be trained, given free medical care, room and board, clothes while in

prison. A programme of rehabilitation including college will be

provided for him. No one here objects to that, but what of Mary? She in

her hospital bed is faced with medical expenses resulting from this

attack. Her parents are obviously in no position to assist. It will be

some months before she can return to work. In short, she is an innocent

victim who will pay socially and financially for many, many years of

her life. The

article concludes, "Does anyone care about Mary Smith?"

Mr. Speaker, there are Mary Smiths in British Columbia that we hear

about every week. These are the innocent victims. Last year we took the

first little step, when the Government agreed to provide compensation

for people who were injured while assisting a peace officer. Let's take

the next big step and come to the assistance of the Mary Smiths of this

Province, who, through no fault of their own, have been victims of

crime…. (applause) That also wasn't mentioned in the Throne Speech,

Mr. Speaker.

From time to time in this Assembly we are asked to give official

recognition in law to certain associations who are thereupon empowered

to police their members. Examples of this are the engineering

professions, the legal profession and the medical profession, all of

whom are well represented in this Chamber. Mr. Speaker, I am becoming

concerned that as these professions police their members, they are

taking upon themselves powers that I feel are inappropriate. I

certainly acknowledge the continued need for professional association

and professional discipline. What I am concerned about is the fact that

some of these associations have chosen to take a very strict mind in

regards to the relationship between their members and the news media.

To be specific, the Medical Association in British Columbia. Its rules

and regulations prohibit a doctor from advertising. No objection from

me at all. What I do object to is that the Medical Association is

interpreting that rule to prohibit a doctor from discussing his own

business, his own point of view, with the Press, and I don't think this

association should take upon itself any such responsibility.

In my capacity as a reporter or commentator I have had occasions to

seek out doctors in an effort to get their opinion on some medical

announcement or advancement, and more and more often I am receiving the

reply that the doctor in question must first obtain permission from his

Association and more and more often I am receiving the reply that such

permission has been refused. I suggest that such action by this

professional association of doctors is in direct confrontation with the

rights of the public to know the facts.

There are doctors in this Province who are at the forefront of

medical development, some of them, yes, of a controversial nature.

Without being specific, because I don't want to get a couple of doctors

in more hot water than they are already, these medical developments are

sometimes the subject of great debate within the profession. That's

fine, I don't object to that, I hope they will continue to debate

amongst themselves. But I question the right to prevent the doctor from

communicating his ideas in regard to these developments to the public.

One specific example recently was a doctor approached by a national

media to give his views on a medical operation, his views being those

of a

[ Page 74 ]

doctor who has probably more experience in this particular operation

than any other doctor in Canada. I am informed that permission to take

part in the interview was granted on the condition that the doctor's

personal identity remain a secret. What nonsense! The national media, I

further understand, did in fact identify the doctor, which caused the

physician in question great embarrassment at a later date. In a

separate incident, a member of the broadcasting profession in the City

of Vancouver sought an interview with a medical practitioner of that

same City with regard to, again a specific medical question. The doctor

concerned replied that he was advised not to go on the radio. The

question I raise is this: While acknowledging the values of such

associations, do those associations or should those associations have

the power to restrict or prohibit the expression of free opinion by its

members to the public? I say they should have no such power….

AN HON. MEMBER: Right!

MR. CLARK: ….Another example, regardless of any member's

personal view pertaining to abortion, you must be aware that there are

countries in this world where this particular operation is legal and

allowed. You are also surely prepared to acknowledge that there are

women in this Province who will seek such an operation, be it legal or

not. Some doctors in this Province happen to support the principle that

a woman has the right to decide for herself whether or not she should

have a baby, and they have investigated the clinics and hospitals in

Japan and Britain. Yet the medical profession of this Province

prohibits those doctors from being identified.

Now in order for a conscientious woman, married or not, to gain

information as to what doctor can assist her in obtaining an abortion

in one of these countries where it is perfectly legal, she's got to go

the most circuitous route you can possibly imagine and try to find out

through some whispering campaign what doctor can help her. Again I say,

this is absolute nonsense. In my opinion a woman should have the right

to such information, and any citizen should have the right to

information regarding any medical problem or advance. If you do not

believe that this is a problem, I suggest you talk to any of the

moderators of the talk programmes in the City of Vancouver. You'll find

they face the same situation I do, that they get at least a dozen

inquiries a week as to whether or not we can identify the doctors who

will provide this advice regarding abortion or male sterilization. I

don't particularly want to be in the business of that sort of referral

service, but I have to be at the moment, and I think it's wrong!

Mr. Speaker, glancing at the clock and wanting to maintain the good

record of the previous speakers, I want to go to the final topic I wish

to deal with this afternoon. This past year in my riding, Mr. Speaker,

is a perfect example of what can happen when no one accepts the

responsibility with regard to pollution, and I make no apologies for

raising the topic again. Is there any more important subject we could

discuss from the Throne Speech this year? I see by the Throne Speech

that pollution standards may be placed in the hands of the

municipalities. With that in your minds, I ask you to follow this

story, as I feel it is a perfect example of what's happening in British

Columbia, and I lay no specific blame on any specific level of

government for what's happening.

Part of my riding includes a portion of the harbour of Vancouver,

and along that harbour are located such industries as Hooker Chemical,

Erco, The Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, Burrard Dry Dock, and Neptune

Terminals. Neptune Terminals is a relatively new industry, Mr. Speaker,

it's involved completely in bulk loading. Early last year I was advised

by the Mayor of the District of North Vancouver that he had heard, off

the record, that Neptune Terminals intended to get into the bulk

loading of coal. He further informed me that he had taken it upon

himself to relate this information to the Mayor of the City of North

Vancouver. Right away we have the first ridiculous situation, where one

Mayor has to tell the other Mayor because the first Mayor wasn't sure

it was in his jurisdiction, and the day is going to come when we have

one Mayor, Mr. Speaker. (applause) That was the first problem. But

apparently the two Mayors did get together, and they were now aware

that this industry was going to become involved in the bulk loading of

coal.

Neptune Terminals had intended to enter the bulk coal business from

the start, but it must be remembered that shortly after Neptune entered

North Vancouver the Roberts Bank developments were announced, and I

think it is fair to say that every citizen in North Vancouver now

believed that all bulk loading of coal would take place at Roberts

Bank. They were to be surprised. At this stage, knowledge of Neptune's

plans became public. The coal involved, incidentally, comes from Smokey

River, Alberta. The Neptune Terminals, at this time, was purchased by

Federal Grain Limited, a well known British Columbia firm, and it was

that company that made application to the City Council in North

Vancouver by way of a letter requesting the City to commit itself to a

guarantee that no delays would be placed in the way of building permits

for the construction of the facilities to load this coal.

Well, at this point the community literally went wild. Public

reaction was entirely negative. I have never seen any issue arouse the

ire of North Vancouver like this one. At this stage some City aldermen

suggested they would oppose any such building permits. Now, Neptune

Terminals countered with a public threat that they would launch suit

against the city if the building permits were refused, and at this

stage Capt. Barney Johnstone, then of the National Harbours Board,

stated publicly that he had an agreement from Neptune whereby they

would do nothing contrary to municipal bylaws.

I would like to admit very freely that at this stage public reaction

was highly emotional. Things were being said that I am sure are now

regretted by all parties. It was an emotional situation. It was their

homes that people were talking about, because Neptune Terminals is

located in a particular

section of North Vancouver in my riding on the

harbour and right above it is a prime residential area. Not a mile

away, not a half mile away, not even half a city block away, literally

just up the slope. Engineering studies were produced at this time, and

to the horror of everyone, all the studies agreed that there would be

an air pollution problem from this coal within a radius of three miles,

a potential air pollution problem, Mr. Speaker, to be fair. Well, three

miles included a lot of prime residential area. A citizens' committee

was formed under the name of the Anti-Coal Petitioners, and they

appealed to City Council to reject any building permits. The same

group, I believe, appealed to the Minister of Municipal Affairs at this

stage, who declined to intervene.

Now, at this time we managed to reach the House of Commons in Ottawa

on Neptune Coal. It's amazing how many government bodies become

involved in this story,

[ Page 75 ]

which makes the tragedy that much more bitter. The former member of

this House and the former leader of this particular group, Mr. Ray

Perrault, raised the subject of Neptune Terminals in the House of

Commons. Mr. Perrault was answered by the Hon. Donald Jamieson,

Minister of Transport, and in reading these comments I am sorry that

the member from Delta is not here because it seems to be pertinent to

his problem and I have sympathy for him. This is what the Hon. Donald

Jamieson said about Neptune Terminals and the coal pollution problem,

and I am quoting from Hansard — you note that there is a Hansard in the

House of Commons — Tuesday, May 27th, 1969. Please note how handy it

is, too, I don't have to wheel in a tape machine. "The fact of the

matter is that in cases like this — and I am thinking specifically of

the Neptune Pier — the National Harbours Board has followed the same

procedures as it adopts with regard to all these facilities throughout

Canada. Any lessee or user is required to abide by all civic by-laws

which apply in the area…." Fortunately we have a Hansard to check

the words of the Minister.

Let me continue. I need not point out to the honourable member that

regulations of this nature fall within the municipal or perhaps within

the provincial field, but to ensure that there is no flagrant disregard

of pollution devices or regulations, the Harbours Board does insist

that these local regulations be adhered to. This has been the position

in the case of Neptune. It was so during the whole of the construction

period as far as I am aware, and the Neptune Company was so advised, as

was the City Council. They worked in concert during that period, and to

my knowledge no objections were raised at that time, however, I

appreciate that all this may be regarded as constituting an evasion of

the actual facts of the case. There is no point trying to tell

residents who are threatened by pollution that it is all being done in

the proper constitutional manner. I am well aware of this and I want to

assure the honourable member that as far as the Harbours Board is

concerned, we shall insure that the local by-laws are adhered to.

Now, at this stage things were really hot. City Council chambers in

North Vancouver were anything but calm, and the poor Mayor one night

even arranged to have plain clothes policemen seated in the galleries.

That was bad enough. She ordered the gallery cleared at one stage, too,

by these same officers. This community was really aroused. Well, to

make a long story short, the building permits were granted. Mr.

Speaker, I think the vote was five to two.

At this stage the Provincial election intervened. Needless to say

the question of Neptune Terminals became a pretty hot election issue.

The Social Credit candidate announced that if elected he would see that

his voice would be heard here and something would be done, without

being specific. But, he was obviously unaware of what the Minister of

Municipal Affairs had said when he indicated to the local press that he

wouldn't intervene. The New Democratic candidate, I am sorry to say,

got himself in quite a pickle because he went around saying that he was

going to correct it all if he was elected, and the people were well

enough aware of the rules of this House to know that was going to be

pretty difficult, but to make matters even worse, his running mate in

Capilano came out in favour of the companies. I, personally, already

was associated with those opposed to the installation of Neptune

obviously. The Provincial election really served only to stir up the

coal dust and accomplish absolutely nothing.

The next move in relation to North Vancouver was a public relations

firm, they always enter the scene at some stage. In comes the public

relations firm, armed with money and a beautiful brochure appears on

the doorstep of every North Vancouver home saying how much we are going

to love coal. It was beautiful. It just happened to coincide with the

municipal election campaign. The Provincial election was over and the

municipal election was upon us, and here was this lovely brochure

"Isn't Coal Wonderful." Now, the next step was that one of the aldermen

who had led the opposition to this coal was running for mayor, and two

of the executive of the anti-coal petitioners were running for

aldermen. Oh, this was a wild one.

It's really a tragedy, it's really not funny in the least, because

here's the real tragic part of the story. It was after the election

now. I'm not about to throw all sorts of bricks at you people. After

the election the man who had led the fight on Council against the coal

was elected mayor. The president of the anti-coal petitioners was

elected alderman, and with those who had already opposed the

installation of the coal. The tragedy is that if the vote on building

permits was taken today I dare say we would not have coal in North

Vancouver, but the election was six months too late.

What's the moral of the story? Well, to me the moral of the story is

that because there is absolutely no co-ordination between any level of

Government when it comes to pollution, in point of fact, nothing is

being done, nothing.

In this one, in this story, Mr. Speaker, I lay the blame on the

Federal Government for ever allowing one of its bodies, the National

Harbours Board, to enter into an agreement to instal bulk loading of

coal facilities within a municipality without any consultation at all

with the municipality, none at all. I blame the National Harbours Board

and its officials for sanctioning such an agreement without ever

informing the two municipalities involved as to what was going on. I

blame the Provincial Government for not having air pollution standards

in the Province, for not having pollution guidelines. I think you are

equally guilty, and I blame the local municipal council who, in my

opinion, just didn't stand up against it long enough.

But the tragedy is that there are no pollution standards in British

Columbia to bring all these powers together. I have no truck for

anybody who is going to say well it's that government's fault more than

it's that one. The public doesn't give a hoot whose fault it is. The

people of North Vancouver are just asking themselves, how in the name

of creation did we get coal on the Vancouver waterfront?

HON. R.R. LOFFMARK (Vancouver South): They've got Perrault over there — that's their problem.

MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, I challenge the Honourable Minister

of Health, when he takes his place in this debate, to justify the words

he just gave us in this Chamber as any sort of excuse for the people of

North Vancouver. (applause) And, if your air standards are so cotton

pickin' good how come we got coal in North Vancouver?

MR. LOFFMARK: You have Liberals over there — that's your problem.

MR. CLARK: You mean your air standards don't apply to us?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Order, please. Would the Honourable Minister restrain himself and then give up the

[ Page 76 ]

floor.

MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, I attempted to relate the story only

in an effort to portray the tragedy that had occurred in this category

of events. The fact that the Minister of Health doesn't choose to take

the story seriously is no surprise to me and that, too, is an

additional tragedy. (applause)

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable First Member for Vancouver Burrard.

MR. H.J. MERILEES (1st-Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker,

honourable members of the Legislature, as I take my place in this

Assembly, along with my sterling colleague, representing the over

100,000 citizens of Vancouver-Burrard, I am very conscious of the high

honour and the responsibility that has been placed upon me.

Vancouver-Burrard is one of the most interesting constituencies in

Canada representing, as it does, the many social, economic, financial,

industrial and ethnic groups that go to make up our great nation.

Before I give my maiden speech I have an apology to the members and

to the citizens of Victoria. I have been here now for close to a week,

and I regret to say that I have yet to get the weather situation under

control.

Vancouver-Burrard should be viewed from the waterfront, in other

words from the north looking south because that is the way the

constituency grew, and if you do, the southern boundary is 16th Ave.

which used to mark the old municipal boundary between South Vancouver

and City of Vancouver, and I hope that in the 1970's that many of these

senseless, uneconomic municipal boundaries will disappear, too. On the

west it is bounded by Collingwood, on the east by Fraser St. and on the

north by the ten thousand coloform count waters, which should please

the honourable leader of the Liberal party, the ten thousand or more

coloform count polluted waters of False Creek.

In addition to over 100,000 fine citizens, Vancouver-Burrard

contains the head offices of over 48 of the organized labour unions in

British Columbia, including the powerful Trades and Labour Council and

the B.C. Federation of Labour. Also within the boundaries of Burrard as

well — over to the left, of course — on Broadway, are the provincial

headquarters of the New Democratic Party, and would you believe that on

Broadway, also in Burrard, are the headquarters of the Provincial

Social Credit League, but they are well over to the right on Burrard.

Another interesting head office in Burrard is that of the B.C.

Teachers' Federation, who occupy a very handsome structure at the comer

of Burrard and 8th. On 8th Ave., across the street from the B.C.

Teachers' Federation, in a not-so-handsome structure, is the hippie

hangout known as Cool-Aide. I don't know if there is any parallel there

or not.

Also on Burrard — the honourable member for Vancouver Centre was

justly bragging about the financial headquarters of our Province in

Vancouver Centre — in Burrard there are the headquarters for many

social welfare organizations, as well as labour unions and the

Teacher's Federation, and others. I won't name them all, but the

Community Chest which serves the whole of the area — the honourable

Leader of the Opposition has probably visited that Head Office too — Alexandra House. I don't know whether he's familiar with the

commendable and famous, and to be more famous, activator unit in

Vancouver-Burrard, the X kalay Society, and many others indeed.

One of the finest and largest healing institutions in the world

today, certainly in Canada, the giant Vancouver General Hospital is

gallantly working to attempt to cope with the needs of Greater

Vancouver, and in many cases, the needs of the whole of the Province of

British Columbia. Also nearby is Vancouver's seat of government,

Vancouver City Hall, and the head office, would you believe it or not — and the honourable member for Kamloops referred to this organization

before — the giant Pacific Press which publishes the Province in the

morning and makes the Sun shine at night — right in the middle

of Burrard. Burrard was the original home of the University of British

Columbia which graduated some of this Province's most distinguished

citizens before it moved to its very handsome campus in Point Grey. The

late great Brigadier Sherwood Lett graduated from the Fairview campus

in 1916, and Dr. Hugh Keenleyside was a graduate in 1920, and many,

many others.

False Creek, which our City is now very wisely turning from a sow's

ear into a silk purse, since 1886 has produced hundreds of millions of

dollars in jobs and in produce. A fine contribution to the world's

shipping are the warships of Canada's two great efforts in the two

world wars. But the die has been cast and industry is being phased out,

it is moving to other locations gradually so as not to dislocate

workers and industry, but moving it is, and exciting new marina and

dwelling projects are on the drawing boards. The City's health

department today, which may come as some surprise to some people in

this House, is well on its five-year programme of pinpointing all

sources of sewage and other pollution of False Creek to the day in the

near future when I will be able to invite the honourable leader of the

Liberal Party to go with me for a swim.

Already some of the finest historic and tourist attractions are in

Burrard at Kitsilano. The latest gem to be added was the famous H.R.

MacMillan Planetarium and Museum complex. Alongside is the historic

North Vancouver–built Saint Roche — the famous schooner, first and

only vessel to make the East-West and West to East crossing of the

Arctic Ocean and at the same time circumnavigate the North American

continent. Alongside Saint Roche

is Vancouver's contribution to the

1958 observation of British Columbia's Centennial — a maritime museum

with the twin to the totem presented by the Province to Her Majesty the

Queen in that year, and both of which were carved by the late great

Kwakuitl Carver in Victoria, Mungo Martin. Close by, the historic

Canadian Pacific Railway locomotive No. 374, which hauled the first

trans-continental train into Vancouver and which was, of course, a part

of the bargain that brought this Province into Confederation. During

1971, in recognition of the hundredth anniversary of this historic

occasion, our Government and every community will be embarked on gala

projects.

The statue of Captain George Vancouver stands in gold above these

buildings, and he was a navigator whose charts are still helping to

guide traffic on the exciting coast of British Columbia. This great

British captain first sighted Vancouver in 1792 and he named Vancouver

Harbour after his friend Sir Harry Burrard. Today, the port of

Vancouver handles more freight than does the ports of Seattle, San

Francisco and Los Angeles combined. Tomorrow, at Roberts Bank, close by

the waters where Vancouver met those gallant Spanish captains, Roberts

Bank will come into production, handling the giant bulk freighters of

today that will make the Lower Mainland of this Province the greatest

shipping point in all of Canada, and one of the great freight shipping

and handling points in the whole of the World. (applause)

[ Page 77 ]

Not too many people realize that George Vancouver was of Dutch

descent and when his early ancestor came to Britain the name was

Vancouverdom, later contracted to Vancouver, and those who have read

carefully Vancouver's voyages and his history will realize that he

placed excellence, accuracy and duty before all other things, thereby

living up to that famous old Dutch motto "Verbeter de Wereld, Begin By

Uzelf" which translated means "to better the world — begin with

yourself". This is a motto that all of us in British Columbia, I think,

could do very well to live up to in the 1970's both as individuals, as

organizations, and as well as communities and corporations.

A continuing review and recog nition of our own personal

responsibilities would be especially applicable when we become

exercised about other people's pollution and other people's ugly

dwellings and projects and urban sprawl. In this connection I suggest

that we set up a Provincial advisory board on excellence of design,

colour and quality. British Columbia is fortunate indeed to have some

of the finest architects, artists, and designers that there are in this

country. I'm quite sure that such a Board, when it is set up, would

quickly come forward with a set of specifications that would be of

extreme assistance in giving us standards of excellence for all the

communities of British Columbia. I think these could deal with

construction, colour and design. The Government could make the services

of this Board freely available to all cities and municipalities. The

standards would not of necessity be compulsory, of course, but they

could act as an inspiration to all parts of our Province, advising

colours of buildings to blend with the Cariboo, with the coastal areas,

with the Kootenays and with every geographic region.

I suggest that we build, design, and colour during the 1970's so

that the rest of the world will say that they truly have men to match

their mountains. Let us pledge ourselves an end to ugly, jerry-built

structures. Marbl