1972 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 29th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 1972

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 201 ]

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 1972

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I

have the honour of representing a constituency which has three of the

outstanding municipal jurisdictions in British Columbia. One of those

jurisdictions is being represented in the House today by a visit from

the Mayor, Mr. Torn, and two aldermen, Mr. Stibbs and Mr. Boileau. I

ask the House to welcome them.

MR. R.M. STRACHAN (Cowichan-Malahat): Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is

again my opportunity of bringing joy and pleasure to your hearts by

announcing that we have in the gallery a group of students from the

Lake Cowichan High School and I would like to thank them for the

carnation which the Premier is just putting on now.

AN HON. MEMBER: Pinko!

MR. STRACHAN: They gave me the white one for purity. Why they

gave the Premier the red one, I'll never know. (Laughter). On behalf of

you, Mr. Speaker, for the flowers which were sent to your office, I'm

sure you would have asked me to express your thanks to them. Thank you.

Introduction of bills.

Orders of the day.

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable lady Minister without Portfolio.

HON. G. McCARTHY (Minister without Portfolio): Thank you very

much Mr. Speaker. I would like the House to welcome today a member of

the board of parks and public recreation who is in the gallery, and as

I am going to be speaking considerably on parks and recreation in my

address to the throne speech I would ask the House to welcome

Commissioner Andy Livingstone of the Vancouver Parks Board.

I'm surprised, Mr. Speaker, that the recent cabinet shuffle in

Ottawa has raised so little comment in this House in the past few days.

The Prime Minister of Canada has with his actions last Friday placed

very many new Ministers over new departments or old departments in

Ottawa.

AN HON. MEMBER: It would never happen here.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: The result will be that from now on in the next

few months our country will be run by a group of civil servants while all of

the politicians are out campaigning for the obvious federal election to come.

AN HON. MEMBER: And they won't know what they are talking about…

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Not elected by the people of this country, but

of course that doesn't really seem to matter too much in Ottawa these days.

It's an obvious result of this act of desperation by the Prime Minister of

this country.

Mr. Trudeau has shuffled the cabinet deck, and really the best

interpretation the country can take from this desperate card game is

that the federal Liberals will soon be tested at the polls and the

jokes of the country will be prevented from running wild any longer in

this country.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you vote Liberal in the last federal election?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: No, I don't have that on my conscience, Mr. Leader.

A few days ago just before giving his own version of the throne speech the

leader of the Liberal Party spoke on the C.B.C. provincial affairs programme.

Anticipating the beginning of the session the Honourable, the Liberal leader

said this and I would like to quote it to this House because I think it is

very significant: "In the true spirit of liberalism we should champion

the cause of the senior citizens. The Liberal Party will be taking up their

cause."

Mr. Speaker, somebody should warn the senior citizens of this province…

AN HON. MEMBER: They know, they know already…

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: … if they didn't hear that programme someone

should tell the senior citizens of this province that the Liberals have pledged

themselves to "taking up their cause". Do you remember the last time

they took up the cause for the senior citizens of this province? Can you recall?

AN HON. MEMBER: Kind of late.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Can you recall? It was April, 1971 and the Liberals

in Ottawa took up the cause of the old age pensioners of Canada. They raised

their pension by 42 cents, Mr. Speaker. This was just about the time they raised

their own pensions by several thousands of dollars. The senior citizens should

tell this little band of Liberals over here, this ageing boys' club, (Laughter),

that with friends like these they don't need enemies. Forty-two cents!

But later, the following Monday, Mr. Speaker, when the Honourable

Leader did speak in this House on this throne debate, he did enunciate

a policy that I could agree with.

In fact I had publicly stated my opinion on the subject just two

days before he did in this House, and it was this: that the total

acreage of Jericho defence lands in the city of Vancouver should be

preserved for park and recreation for all time for all the citizens of

British Columbia.

It should never have been considered in this time of environmental

enlightenment to be preserved for anything other than parkland.

The Liberal government, however, is profiteering precious potential

parkland in Vancouver to developers in blatant disregard for the

overcrowding of Stanley Park and Queen Elizabeth Park — totally

ignoring the necessities to provide recreational areas for the city

dwellers who are unable to avail themselves of the outlying open space

which is miles away from the city — those people who do not have

transportation, who do not have their own automobile, Mr. Speaker, but

need public transportation to easily-accessible park areas within the

cities.

[ Page 202 ]

I am so pleased that the Liberal leader and I can agree on that. I'm

pleased that the preservation of parklands in our now crowded lower

mainland is not decided on political expediencies. It should not and

cannot be decided as a matter of political expediency.

Yet there is another area in Vancouver that deserves the same

consideration, the same forthright stand, the vision that was portrayed

over 100 years ago by those who were able to save Stanley Park for all

people for all time — and I speak of the entrance to that very Stanley

Park known as the Four Seasons site.

The history of this land is well known, it has been a Liberal

sellout engineered by the Liberal elite in Vancouver and encouraged by

the Liberal leaders in parliament who ignored the wishes of the people

of Vancouver. It is proposed that over 4,000 people will be placed in

this small neck of land housed with tall buildings which will block out

the most magnificent sea and mountain view.

Our Vancouver traffic engineer just four years ago, in 1968, told us

that 4,130 vehicles passed Chilco and Georgia every evening just past

this site of Four Seasons park. That was just four years ago. Imagine

the traffic congestion today, and then add the automobiles and the

service vehicles that will be required to accommodate the needs of an

extra 4,000 or 5,000 people proposed for the Four Seasons development

and this little band of Liberals that sit in this House did not declare

themselves on that issue. Perhaps like the 42 cents they would rather

it not be mentioned.

Now speaking of parks, I would like to suggest a programme of

preservation of open space for the province. In some parts of the

world, notably Britain, there is a national trust that receives

donations and gifts of land and historic homes. I propose, Mr. Speaker,

that a provincial trust for British Columbia be established that would

enable the citizen to turn over his property — be it land, be it an

island, lake frontage, foreshore — which would be held in trust, and

tax free by the province to be used after his death for park and

recreational use.

The provincial trust for British Columbia could receive gifts of

money, ensuring many British Columbians that their gift, whether large

or small in amount, would be used to build a better British Columbia.

Many industries and individual citizens would appreciate an

opportunity to leave future British Columbians a legacy of open space

and park land — areas to be kept in their natural state, historical

homes such as the home of Emily Carr, and islands that are now

privately owned but could revert to the public good.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, we are in the midst of building a new

British Columbia building in the heart of Vancouver. This magnificent

building will be of great benefit to British Columbia and particularly

Vancouver. I don't plan to discuss this building at this time other

than to say that the co-operation with the British Columbia building

committee, of which I am a member, and the city is very good.

But I would like to make an observation about all buildings built by

our government and that is that a small percentage of their total

building costs should be spent on suitable and local sculpture, art

work, or paintings, so that our government will lead the way as an

example to private industry in the provision of a more attractive

landscape. There should be a contribution by governments at all levels

to the cultural growth of each community in our province and I think

the municipal and provincial governments should also take this up.

Our province is richly blessed with natural beauty. It is also

blessed with many talented artists and craftsmen who could reflect and

interpret the first decade of this second century for generations to

come.

I was pleased that the throne speech referred to the extensive study

undertaken over the past two years of family law legislation,

The fact that these amendments have not been incorporated before now

in our province in these changing times has been a real hardship on

many parents and many children.

I would like to refer to a programme that has already helped many of

our disadvantaged citizens. That is the job opportunities programme

that has been given so much attention in this House so far this session.

Centennial year will be remembered for many celebrations for the

significance of the historic anniversary, of course, but it will be

remembered by me, Mr. Speaker, as the year that the Social Credit

government launched the boldest and most innovative programme to

implement social change as has been seen on this continent in the past

25 years.

It has escaped the notice of the Hon. Members of the Opposition that

in the many years of handwringing and emotional outcries from that side

of the House about the plight of those on social assistance, that at no

time have they — whose leader is a social worker — come up with a

programme to give the welfare family back their pride — not at any time

a constructive programme.

No, they were always ready to suggest, as the Honourable Member from

Kootenay (Mr. Nimsick) annually does, to give more money to the welfare

recipients with no consideration as to how far the taxpayer can go and

how many generations of families we can actually educate to live a life

on the dole.

The job opportunities programme of British Columbia is being studied

all over North America as an exciting new programme designed to place

the onus on business, on industry, and on labour unions to provide an

opportunity for those who have been left out of the affluent society.

It has been called a "subsidy to big business" by the Opposition.

AN HON. MEMBER: How many jobs?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I will give you those figures in just a few moments. "A

subsidy to big business". Now would you tell me where would they place

the responsibility for creating jobs?

If they were in a place of responsibility, Mr. Speaker, where would

they place the onus for job production and job creation? Would they do

as our Liberal administration in Ottawa has done, funnelled millions of

tax dollars through unskilled, unproven and in very many cases

irresponsible groups with their only qualification being that they

named their organisation a kooky name to fit the Ottawa criteria for

grants?

What manner of nonsense is this when we in Canada and we in this

House start to believe that it's quite all right to let the draft

dodgers from Ottawa — or from the United States, pardon me —

AN HON. MEMBER: Trudeau was a draft dodger.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I think we may have a few in Ottawa, too, Mr. Speaker,

but that was a slip of the lip.

We start to believe that it's quite all right to let the draft

[ Page 203 ]

dodgers from the United States spend our tax

dollars and be told by Ottawa that they can create jobs with more

expertise than business, than labour unions, than industry whose very

existence is attuned to productivity and the creation of business, the

creation of contracts, the creation of a good economic climate and

ultimately the creation of jobs?

The job opportunities programme is a success and it is the first

programme of significance of its kind in North America that addresses

itself to turning around the spiral of welfare. It's the first

programme that says we are no longer going to accept the philosophy

that whole families must be written off once they are caught in the

vice of the welfare milieu.

I am very impressed by the response from the business community who

have responded positively to the job opportunities programme. Let's not

forget this, as we're talking about big business, establishments and

industry that so often has such a bad name in this House by members of

the Opposition and given a bad name. In spite of the 50 per cent

government subsidy paid to the employer for a period of six months, the

employer takes a risk and has an investment of time to train and

sometimes rehabilitate these people who often are ill confident and

whose work habits leave much to be desired.

It is a new approach to job finding, aimed at offering something

meaningful to help individual people. To help these individuals to make

their own way and to avoid plunging them into the paternalistic trap of

government handouts and government-created jobs, which has been an easy

and all-too-commonplace pattern.

There is really only one effective way to get people off the social

assistance rolls, and that's one at a time, individually, recognising

that each person's abilities, attitudes and aspirations are different.

There is no blanket solution to helping these people break out of the

social assistance cycle. The job opportunities programme is oriented

toward this individual approach.

Before dealing with the programme itself, I would like to put the

statistics in their proper perspective. The figure of 361 jobs has been

bandied about. We know that in fact there are well over 500 jobs filled

throughout the province, not counting January placements. In Vancouver

city alone, we know of 321 jobs that have been taken and another 65

that are listed and waiting to be filled. The programme is not yet four

months old.

We have no record of the placements in January. And no record of

what we understand are a number of placements in December. The employer

claim forms in these cases have not yet been received.

Social welfare administrators from around the province report that

possession of a certificate of opportunity has motivated a significant

number of certificate holders — exactly how many is impossible to

determine — to find work under other federal or provincial job

programmes, or, more importantly, to find jobs on their own,

independent of any government programmes.

The important word here is "motivation". The emphasis is on

individual initiative, with government support. This new motivation of

people, many of whom had given up hope, is a vital aspect of the job

opportunities programme and the results cannot be recorded

statistically.

The job opportunities programme represents a fresh approach to job

finding. The jobs that have resulted are not phoney, are not

artificially based make-work propositions, the only purpose of which is

to take people off the unemployment rolls for a short period of time.

They are real working situation, legitimate jobs, giving the

employee the opportunity to work in the real market place, in a normal

situation. The job holder is an active member of the labour force,

rubbing shoulders with people who have been on the job for years. He is

not working in a vacuum with people in the same situation as himself.

In many cases, the employee is receiving invaluable on-the-job

training, in preparation for permanent employment. But even if the job

is only temporary, the experience in a real work situation is an asset

when seeking future employment. A current job reference is of real

benefit.

Most people who begin to collect social assistance have been out of

the labour force for three months or more. They then have to wait three

more months before being eligible for a certificate. This means that

most of these people who are employed under the job opportunities

programme have been out of the mainstream for at least six months.

Getting a job gives them a real boost. It gets them back into the

labour force and earns them a current reference.

As we all know, you're in a much stronger position to get a job if

you come from another job, than if you are out of the mainstream on

social assistance. And an employer reference holds much more weight

than a report that you have been employed by the government on winter

works.

There is no doubt the job opportunities programme has been the

vehicle through which a lot of families have broken out of the

depressing social assistance rut.

I wish that the hundreds of members of these families were in the

galleries and the halls here to listen to these members of the

Opposition who pronounce this programme a failure. They certainly

wouldn't believe it. And you couldn't tell them it was a failure, Mr.

Speaker, because they know what it's like to be on social assistance

and out of work.

When you're assessing this programme listen to the social workers

who have been involved with it. We have had enthusiastic response from

social workers throughout the province who say the job opportunities

programme is a refreshing, positive, realistic approach aimed at

returning to the social assistance recipient his self-confidence and

returning to him his dignity. Free of paternalism. These social workers

have urged us to continue job opportunities.

Those who want some statistics might be interested in the fact that

every 100 persons employed under the job opportunities programme and

taken off social assistance represented a total investment over the

months of some $186,000 in provincial payments.

We know at least 500 people who have received nearly $1 million in

direct payments. For each month these 500 people were to continue on

social assistance, the province would pay out $66,000. So in financial

terms alone, this programme has saved the taxpayers a significant

amount of money.

The Leader of the Opposition was critical of the cost of the job

opportunities to date. The figures I have just given you will prove

that already that investment will be returned by the elimination of

social assistance. Once again, Mr. Speaker, the Opposition leader has

missed the point, what price a man's life or that of his family? If,

through the job opportunities programme, we alter the course of one

family, just one family or one individual, we give that one family a

just reason for pride, a motivation to control their own destiny, their

own economic control within the framework of their own family budget — don't we then take the family out of the position of being subservient

to the state, and pawns in the welfare system?

We on the Social Credit side of this House believe in a

[ Page 204 ]

man's individual freedom and opportunity. Any investment in giving a man and his family that opportunity is money well spent.

I've been very pleased to have been associated with the job

opportunities programme, and I would appeal to the finance Minister and

Premier of our province to continue this programme beyond the April 30

deadline and incorporate this most imaginative social improvement into

definite and long-term government policy, for the people of British

Columbia.

Now, I would like to address my remarks to the ever present problem of the non-medical use of drugs in our province.

Parent groups such as Parents Anonymous have seen with their own

eyes the damage that drugs can do. The story of a child losing his

ability to learn at school, deteriorating into sloppyness, in personal

habits or losing ambition or his goals in life and alienating himself

from society and his community is a shocking, personal experience for

these parents.

They are not scientists but they know something more than the personal choice of the child is involved.

I want to bring to this House some recent information which shows

that these parents haven't been wrong after all in this non-scientific

assessment — that marijuana and the non-medical use of drugs is wrong

and they have been right. Now they are being given some of the

scientific explanations as to why these drugs including marijuana are a

plague on our society.

I would like to relate some recent exciting developments in the

field of drug research that has been taking place in our very own

province.

This follows reports in the respected medical journal, The Lancet ,

where the findings of four British doctors reported on the effects of

marijuana in a series of young people who had used the drug for a

period of from three to 11 years. They had sought medical attention

because they had trouble learning or even remembering events. They

showed lack of energy and they were unable to work.

When the doctors took X-rays of the brain, they found the kind of

dilated ventricles that are seen with the destruction of tissue. This

was the first definite report of permanent damage to the human brain as

a result of marijuana and hashish.

Recorded earlier in the Journal of the American Medical Association

was the experience of Philadelphia psychiatrists who examined chronic

marijuana users who had sworn off the drug or the use of drugs. They

have found they could not regain their ability to learn and to pursue

university studies. Again irreversible brain damage was suspected. At

least four scientific groups have found that marijuana-treated animals

are unable to learn or to remember as well as their non-treated mates.

Evidence is growing steadily that from a scientific and medical

point of view, and stripped of the emotional and philosophical

arguments surrounding the marijuana controversy, the drug is dangerous

to the human body.

Now to return to the British Columbia research. Here I would ask

that this government consider helping in some bold new experiments

being done at the University of British Columbia. I am told that two

brillant U.B.C. scientists, one originally from Czechoslovakia and the

other from Japan, have recently found further evidence of harmful

effects of marijuana on the brain tissue in animals. Their research

thus far will be published soon in international scientific journals.

What is needed now at the laboratory of the university is an electron

microscope which would cost approximately $35,000 to enable these

researchers to find further proof relating to the human mind. I would

ask Mr. Speaker, that the drug and alcohol fund set up in the last

session of this Legislature give this financial aid for continued

research.

As I have said in this House before on the subject of non-medical

use of drugs, in addition to a good education programme the way to

counteract the non-medical use of drugs in this country is not by

continual soul-searching and self analysis by the LeDain commission but

by reliable scientific and medical information which can be given to

the young people of our country as factual information. I hope the

government will spend the $35,000 that I asked of the drug and alcohol

committee.

But I do say again, that this government is doing more in the way of

drug education and research and rehabilitation than any province in

this country. It is leading the way in this country as well they should

with the problem that we have.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I do want to say a word or two about housing,

because it is of such real concern to many British Columbians today.

In the past few months the responsibility for housing has been put

under the jurisdiction of the regional districts. This is a sensible

idea, designed to speed up application for public housing, to

distribute more equitably housing for senior citizens and, above all,

to prevent the burden of housing to be carried by just one area.

Now these are all very good objectives, but I would question the

need for building a bureaucracy to do what has been done efficiently

and economically in the past few years. We see an example of

bureaucracy gone rampant in the Ontario Housing Corporation where 100

employees are involved in simply the administration of senior citizen

housing, as opposed to our Senior Citizens' Housing Act

which has built over 10,000 senior citizens' units and has only one

employee in Victoria looking after all applications and administration.

Our home-owner grant legislation is an ingenious piece of

legislation that is administered by one employee in Victoria, with the

onus placed on the recipient of the grant to fill out the application

prior to receipt of the tax subsidy.

What could be simplier? Just one person in Victoria to assist in the

administration. The provincial economic review of last July tells us

that $102 million have been expended by this government on outright

grants and second mortgages. No doubt by this time, although we don't

have the figures, that figure must exceed over $130 million and when

one considers the minimum administrative expense used to process those

thousands of applications for home-owner grants and home acquisition

grants and loans, we must give credit for one of the most efficient

multi-million dollar businesses in existence.

My warning today to the regional district, with its new plans and

ideas for housing, is that its emphasis should be on continuation of

this efficiency, and to get on with the challenge of building homes,

not offices to house a new level of bureaucrats.

Today I'm pleased to announce the publication of a new housing

booklet which has been produced through the Department of Municipal

Affairs. This is the second publication of its kind, the first was

distributed about two years ago and many thousands of copies were

requested by citizens of our province. It emphasises the need for

co-operation from such groups as the construction industry, labour

unions and municipal leaders. It answers questions about the most

aggressive home-owner programme in North America, the

[ Page 205 ]

home-owner's grant, the home acquisition grant, the

government second mortgage programme and it explains new programmes to

provide hope and to provide assistance to those on low or moderate

income who would like to have home ownership, but feel it impossible in

this inflationary situation.

I feel optimistic about the opportunities for housing low income

people in their own homes since I began to assemble material for this

book, for I did find that there were many examples of modern housing

throughout the province today that could not be found just two years

ago when we designed the first book.

I believe this housing book should be given wide circulation by Hon.

Members on both sides of the House. For there is no programme in the

world to duplicate the housing opportunities described in the pages of

this book. It demonstrates actual on-site programmes that are facts of

life, Mr. Speaker, not dreams.

In reference to housing in British Columbia today, it shows the many

ways that this government is prepared to consider innovation — new

ideas in housing to the benefit of the citizens we serve. One of these

innovative programmes is a first for Canada and I'd like to tell you

about it.

It's a group of individual homes which are being built in Chetwynd,

British Columbia — completely planned, completely constructed, by 20

Indian families. My good member who's been involved in the north with

this Indian group will know how important it is to those families.

Before our involvement, those families were living in tar-paper huts

at the edge of town, without electric light and without water

facilities. With the co-operation of Central Mortgage and Housing, a

progressive city council — an unbelievable city council — and our

home-owner assistance plan these Indian families are building a

community that has so far never been duplicated in Canada.

I can tell you now, Mr. Speaker, that the Chetwynd experiment is

being greeted across this nation with enthusiasm and excitement. I feel

sure it will lead to a new national philosophy for housing for our

first citizens.

Last session, I expressed the disappointment of many British

Columbians in the result of the decision by the International Olympic

Committee at Amsterdam to choose Denver, Colorado, over Vancouver as

the site for 1976 Winter Games. The outcome 18 months ago at Amsterdam

was one which was influenced more by the ambivalence of our federal

government than by weighing the merits of the sites offered.

Canada's chances to obtain either the Summer or the Winter Games

were excellent by virtue of our Whistler-Garibaldi site. It was

admittedly the finest site offered and supported without hesitation

over all others by the individual winter sports federations. In spite

of the fact that Montreal has not proven financial responsibility in

its handling of the World's Fair and in spite of the fact that Montreal

claims — and still does — that the summer Olympics will not cost the

Canadian taxpayer a cent, and I would question that, Mr. Speaker,

because it cost the Mexican Government over $500 million in 1968, but

in spite of the fact, the federal government of this country and their

preoccupation with vote getting and fence sitting offer two sites to

the International Olympic Committee — and Vancouver lost out when the

summer bid was voted on over the winter bids.

However, that is all behind us now and today our athletes are in

Sapporo, Japan, on the eve of the opening of the 1972 Winter Olympics

and they're off to a stormy start.

In a few moments, I would like to refer to the tourist potential of

our province and in line with that I would like to mention again the

benefits the Olympic Games could bring to our province.

I have a newspaper report from the London Times ,

December 15, 1971. The story originated in Geneva. The headline reads

"Vancouver Should Apply to Stage 1976 Games." and I quote the article:

Beyond the mountains of Sapporo there looms a still

more forbidding peak: the suitability or otherwise of Denver for the

games of 1976. It may be recalled that the International Olympic

Committee at their recent meeting in Luxembourg, referred the matter

back to the next congress at Sapporo next month.

No doubt the compromise of a tobaggan run capable of

accommodating a two-man bob will be raised at Sapporo. Doubts have been

growing about the skiing events, too — indeed about the whole Denver

concept, and there must be a strong possibility that the Sapporo

meeting will reverse the decision in Denver's favour, made in Amsterdam

18 months ago.

Vancouver offered a perfect setting at Garibaldi, a

setting, moreover, where a bob run would be welcomed rather than miles

of white elephant. I beg them to renew their petition.

I have read you a columnist's report from Geneva and he seems to

think, with his background of sports and the knowledge of the sporting

community, that they will ask to have the petition renewed from

Vancouver.

If the International Olympic Committee reverses their decision, it

should not be very difficult really to get the federal government to

support and re-enter Vancouver.

For according to federal ministers and the Prime Minister himself,

they only supported Montreal's bid because Montreal vowed to refrain

from asking the federal government for any financing at all for the

Summer Olympics. So that should leave, Mr. Speaker, the federal

government completely free and certainly willing to support British

Columbia and Vancouver in the event of the decision for Denver to be

withdrawn.

I urge, Mr. Speaker, that we in British Columbia be ready and

willing to host the 1976 Olympics if the invitation is extended to us

once again.

Now I do wish to say a little on the subject of tourism and its

potential for our province. Of the $473 million gained by the province

through tourism in 1970, 60 per cent of the total was spent in the

lower mainland and greater Vancouver realised $236 million of this

total.

The Canadian Tourist Association study suggested that the tourist

industry becomes more important as leisure time increases and work

weeks decline. We go back to 1920 when the average work week was 50

hours — today it is 40 hours. Predictions point to an average of 35.4

hours by 1976 and 30.7 hours by the year 2000. Obviously, shorter work

weeks will be accompanied by longer vacations and greater tourist

potential. The tourist market is usually dependent upon the amount of

discretionary income available. At the present time, 25 million

American families — that is 40 per cent of all the families in the

U.S.A. — have an income of at least $7,500 and at this level research

tells us that a large proportion of this income will become

discretionary. Despite slow-down in the economy of the U.S. this

proportion of families with discretionary income available is expected

to grow rapidly.

I understand the Hon. Member from Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Merilees), who is so well versed in the problems of

[ Page 206 ]

tourism and has contributed so much to the City of

Vancouver in the handling of the tourist business there, gave mention

of the Japanese tourist market in his address to the House last night.

I would like to just emphasise that the future importance of the

Japanese tourist market really appears staggering, when we consider

that their Gross National Product is growing at twice the rate of that

of the United States and that this country which was bankrupt in 1945

is now the third largest manufacturing nation in the world after U.S.A.

and Russia.

Over the last five years Japanese tourism to all countries has been

increasing at a rate of 25 per cent every year. However from 1968 to

1970 — the last two years — Japanese tourism to Canada increased by a

startling 70 per cent. At the present rate of growth the Japanese

tourist will be as important to world tourism as the American is today.

In view of these facts industry and government should work together

for a larger share of this increasing market for British Columbia.

Then we can look at the U.S. market which has always been one of the

areas that we look to for our tourist potential. The new aerospace

contracts let in the United States of America totalled $2.5 billion

with the bulk of the contracts awarded to Boeing and Douglas Aircraft.

So just think what this will mean to the north west — to Seattle and

California who will be the prime beneficiaries of these contracts. Just

think of what a boom this will create for us in the north west and

particularily for British Columbia.

In 1968 people from the City of Toronto alone made 900,000 trips

outside of that city, which points out the potential of the domestic

tourist market.

I would like to speak a little about the importance of conventions:

The most important part of the travel market to British Columbia, and

more so Greater Vancouver, is conventions. They are big business. The

convention delegate averages his spending at $55 to $60 a day,

whereas

the tourist will only spend approximately $10 on rooms, meals and

entertainment.

In 1972 over 170 conventions with 80,000 convention delegates will spend an estimated $15 million in the Greater Vancouver area.

The City of San Diego, a city of comparable size and attractions, is

hosting 287 conventions with 189,000 delegates during 1972, which will

bring $38 million of revenue.

Because conventions are big business it is now an increasingly

competitive business. Cities from all over the world fly to North

American conventions, which number about 25,000 each year. With so much

competition it is extremely important that Vancouver have an active

convention bureau that can ensure that the City of Vancouver remains a

must destination.

With the increasingly competitive nature of the convention industry

it has become imperative that we use a very aggressive sales approach

in the convention marketing place.

A successful convention is worth more in advertising to a community than television and radio and newspaper coverage.

Vancouver has a record of service to people. In 1972 Greater Vancouver

had over 7,800 hotel and motel rooms available with 1,000 scheduled to

be completed before the end of 1972 — just this year. Vancouver in

particular, with its increase in new hotel rooms and convention

facilities and those planned in the very near future, will be able to

accommodate most major North American conventions.

By bringing this additional business to the province not only does

the hotel industry gain, and allied industries, but the labour force of

all industries, small businesses — which include airlines,

transportation, retail stores, service stations et cetera. There should

be more promotion from within the province. In inviting these national

and international associations to come to our province, this type of

business invariably brings repeat business and also brings the tourists

at a later date.

Perhaps the Province of British Columbia should follow the example

of that established by the Government of Quebec this past year, when,

together with the City of Montreal, they headed a committee to Sydney,

Australia, to invite the American Society of Travel Agents convention

to meet in Montreal in 1974.

They were very successful and they obtained this convention of 3,000

delegates which will in turn focus attention of all travel agents,

airline carriers, convention decision makers and others, on the City of

Montreal.

The Provincial Government of British Columbia, should, as it has in

the past, be very active in such conventions as the Association of

Executive Secretaries, the International Association of Executive

Secretaries, and attend each of these conventions as a provincial body,

with the support of the local industry.

We should increase this promotion of convention business

dramatically to compete with other convention cities. As we presently

lack much in the way of secondary industry, as is often said in this

House, convention and tourist business can very easily become the major

secondary industry and ultimately No. 1 in this province in the

beginning of our second century. I am very disappointed that cities

such as Victoria and Vancouver have failed to use that portion of the

per capita grant designated for tourism. Perhaps that part of the five

per cent tax that we are now gathering from all hotels in the province

as a room tax, can be used by the provincial government in the

promotion of convention and tourist business.

The increase in the convention and tourist business would increase

the volume of tax collected by the provincial government, which would

more than take up the slack in additional spending by the provincial

government.

A centennial idea that inspired much business and added to the

tourist dollars last year was the invitation extended to major Canadian

corporations to hold their board meetings in the province during the

centennial year. I would like to see this invitation extended to like

organisations throughout the world, Mr. Speaker. We don't need a

centennial celebration as an excuse — the beauty and economic potential

of our fine province are reason enough to extend such an invitation and

to ask boards of directors of major corporations within our borders.

I would like to quote a letter sent to the Premier which expresses appreciation to the government for this idea:

Your foresight and fine efforts in this respect have

resulted in substantial benefits to the travel and hospitality

industries and have contributed to the economic wefare of the community.

I may say that the hotel that expressed these thoughts to the

government was able to "sell" three large conventions because of the

exposure they had to the boards of directors that held centennial

meetings in their hotel.

Again, on the subject of tourism, I feel a study should be

[ Page 207 ]

undertaken to see how feasible it would be to

provide a group of interpreters, perhaps university students, with the

major tourist areas of the province. Certainly those who have

experienced travel in Europe must have been very impressed with the

many interpreters provided to give every nationality a feeling of

welcome.

Surely the Stanley Park tour or our world famous aquarium and

Butchart Gardens must be exciting to any tourist, but would they not be

more so to the Asian or European traveller if the explanation and

historical background were given in his own language?

Government should lead the way in providing such a service within

our own tourist attractions such as the Parliament Buildings and

Barkerville, and after proper study, it should not be unreasonable to

expect free enterprise to respond positively by providing translators

on city bus tours, wax museums and privately-operated gardens.

Finally, on the subject of tourism, I would hope that our government

will initiate discussions with the port of Vancouver with an eye to

recognising the tourist potential of that great natural harbour. The

1971 figures of the busiest port in North America tells us that the

port of Vancouver handled a record 35.3 million tons of cargo. This was

up 30 per cent over the 27.1 million tons handled in 1970. Mr. Speaker,

that in itself is a remarkable statistic, and a great credit to the

National Harbour Board administration and staff — but unsaid and unseen

in that figure of 35 million tons of cargo is the excitement and

romance of a busy and thriving seaport, the majestic ships, the smell

of the sea, the pulse of commerce, the stench of the fishpackers, the

fishing vessels themselves, the beauty of the world's most beautiful

harbour at sunrise or sunset, sheltered by the mountains, and creating

minute by minute unforgettable scenes of colour, beauty and drama.

A cleanup of Vancouver harbour is needed, a concerted effort to rid

the water of debris and garbage should be made, and no effort spared to

make this harbour the cleanest, as well as the busiest one, in North

America.

And I have support from the Honourable Member from Vancouver Centre

in that regard, but I would like to say that dirty as Vancouver Harbour

may be it isn't half as dirty as Victoria's harbour and that could use

a clean up too. Although the port of Vancouver is administered by

Ottawa, perhaps an appeal from this government for the port of

Vancouver will start some planning which will see an imaginative

fishermen's wharf, good sea food restaurants, well-organised water

sewage, and safe access for tourists to view one of the world's finest

attractions.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: We have, we just need more of them, Mr. Member.

I wish to note reference within the throne speech to Her Majesty's visit in

centennial year, and the co-operation of the British Columbia communities in

the celebration of this 100th anniversary. I would like to congratulate the

deputy Provincial Secretary for his outstanding contribution as centennial

chairman last year.

We may have closed the book on the first 100 years in confederation,

Mr. Speaker, but as we contemplate our place in Canada and in this

second century, it should be obvious to British Columbians that the

latter one-fifth of that 100 years was the most progressive ever for

our province.

Probably the most miraculous achievement of all is that this

Province of British Columbia unlike any other can look to the second

century armed with a sound economic base, strong and practical

leadership and fully confident in the bright future that is ours.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Cowichan-Malahat.

MR. R.M. STRACHAN (Cowichan-Malahat): The Honourable Member

for Cowichan-Malahat reporting himself present and ready for duty.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for recognising me. It's a pleasure

once again to take my place in this traditional debate. I want to start

off by congratulating the mover and the seconder of the motion we're

now debating.

The mover of the motion wondered why he had been picked for this

particular job, in view of his self-admitted record. I think the mover

and the seconder should view their selection for that job as a measure

of the importance the Premier puts on the Speech from the Throne.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. STRACHAN: Oh no, that was a serious remark. I know what he says, but that's more than you can say my friend.

Mr. Speaker, an interesting year since last we met here. My wife and

I and our little trailer travelled all across Canada. I thought it was

time I saw our country. The Minister says "another one of those

Capitalists." How he must suffer when he sits in that humble dwelling

of his, up in Savona in front of his $5,000 fireplace. How he must feel

humble and really suffer for the people.

AN HON. MEMBER: How do you get those steel bars? Steel bars and dams.

AN HON. MEMBER: No wonder he takes the name of welfare.

MR STRACHAN: Anyway I thought it was time we had another look at our country. It was an interesting trip. I talked to people…

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. STRACHAN: I sat in the Quebec, what they call the

National Assembly, that unhappy day when they heard Mr. Bourassa reject

the Victoria proposals for the constitution.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR STRACHAN: No it wasn't. It was a very upsetting day for me

as I sat in that legislative gallery and heard Mr. Bourassa make his

official statement.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR STRACHAN: Pardon? No I didn't. I was sitting in the

galleries, I wasn't on the floor. But let me tell you quite frankly

every speaker in that House from every party applauded him when he

walked into that House. And they applauded him when he made his speech.

That was one of the experiences that I had.

I visited a number of other legislative assemblies. I talked to people in the camp sites of every kind. I'm afraid I must

[ Page 208 ]

apologise to the Hon. Attorney-General, I hope he

won't stamp his foot. I crossed the border into the United States and

talked to people there too. I came right back across the United States,

saw the tremendous agricultural area, corn 10 feet high, acre after

acre. Then I saw the pollution hanging heavy over the industrial cities.

I talked to university professors, workers from the mills,

carpenters in construction and retired people who had retired from

industries, and it was a most interesting and informative and education

trip. I was away about six weeks. A little over six weeks. I went to

New Brunswick, I went to the capital of New Brunswick, I travelled down

that Gaspe Coast, had some beautiful lobster, and made a special trip

to Fredericton to see the legislative assembly there.

AN HON. MEMBER: Buy any dulce?

MR. STRACHAN: Yes I bought some dulce and so on. I was proud of Canada when I went across the country.

As always, Mr. Speaker, the first thing I do when I rise in the

House is to give you a summation of the need of the constituency I

represent — that's just north of here about 30 miles. The very heart

and core, the hub of British Columbia.

Well, the Premier says the needs are getting less and less and it is

true that we're getting there slow but sure. But, I have to put my

claim before the House. We need more help from the province for

municipalities to provide sewage disposal, adequate garbage facilities,

and social welfare costs. The village of Lake Cowichan has tried twice

now, to put a sewage bylaw before the people. It's been defeated both

times because of the tremendously high initial cost. Just far too much

for that small village to bear.

I think as we drive up and down the Island Highway we must have the

junk yards along our highways cleaned up one way or the other. One way

or the other we must get those junk yards cleaned up. I think we should

have an expansion of the camp site facilities. I think we must open up

the access roads to the lakes and the sea frontage, because, you know,

we have access roads gazetted, and they're not opened up. They're

fenced off in some cases. Private owners have built property on them,

and time after time the people can't get access and there is a demand

more and more for them.

And I don't want it referred to the regional district as their

responsibility. I think it's a public highway gazetted and I think the

government should do it.

You know the Hon. Member from Nanaimo the other day talked about a

bicycle path up and down the Island. Well we have one but we call it

the Island Highway. (Laughter).

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. STRACHAN: Well, it's even worse … no question, no

question. But I want a four-lane highway with underpasses and

overpasses where needed. Because there are many areas on that highway

where it's positively dangerous for the young people to have to cross

it. I want a new Crofton Road, I want the Cedar Road resurfaced, I want

the road from Lake Cowichan to Honeymoon Bay rebuilt. Because that's

the road that leads to logging roads that takes all our tourists out to

the west coast of the Island on that circle tour. And it is a pretty

dangerous road for campers and so on, and that should definitely have a

priority.

Vancouver Island people must have a ferry with car landing facilities at Kuper Island.

I want continued extension of the mental health services that are

coming in the district and I appreciate the fact that in Duncan we got

that clinic opened last year. I want some form of service extended to

Lake Cowichan and Ladysmith.

We still need more public health inspectors. I want an evaluation

and survey of pollution causes the whole length of the coast of the

island in the Malahat-Cowichan constituency.

I want a definite programme for protection and recovery of the

Ladysmith harbour as a recreational area. We have some industry there

but that kind of industry can be clean.

I think the Minister's going to have to re-examine his leasing

programme with regard to that area though, because as the increase in

booming leases is given, then it blocks off more and more of the

harbour and creates more and more of a pollution programme.

I want the regional college finance formula changed because it's

creating problems in the constituency and I want educational costs

removed from the land.

As the session progresses I will enlarge on each and every one of these at the appropriate time of the session.

But things happen in Cowichan-Malahat during the year. The federal

government, that nasty federal government through the Canada Telstat

announced that the anchor station on the west coast will be built in

Lake Cowichan. The tender was awarded, it was awarded to a local

contractor, $472,000 of employment and jobs for the people of the area.

Then, of course, we had the visit from the Royal Family referred to

in the Speech from the Throne. And with everyone else I was happy to

see them looking so well and I hope they did enjoy their trip and I

agree that the deputy provincial secretary did a fine job.

But you know when the Queen and Prince Philip came to Duncan, and we

were standing waiting in a row to meet them, Prince Philip walked up to

where I was and said: "By the way, what was that awful smell you could

notice as you came into Duncan?"

So we told them, we told them it was the pulp mill. "Well", he said,

"aren't you doing anything about it?" And we said: "Well, we're trying

to." And his last words before he left were: "Are you going to make

them put a sock in?" And I said: "Well, we're going to try it."

So I'm asking the Hon. Minister, I'm passing on a message from

Prince Philip: "Will you get them to put a sock in it?" As the Speech

from the Throne was being read I was sitting about here somewhere and

the Ministers were all across the way — A whole long row of 16 of them

all down the front there, and as the Speech from the Throne was being

read by His Honour — a very difficult job, reading that terrible speech

— I went down them one by one and looked at their faces.

Every single Minister, including the Premier, had the glummest look

in their faces I have ever seen. Even they were disappointed and

unhappy with it. Even the Premier. There wasn't a single one of them

with a smile on their face. Glum and dejected because of that

particular speech.

AN HON. MEMBER: They were looking at you.

MR. STRACHAN: Oh no, they were looking at His Honour,

listening to the speech that was being read. But, Mr. Speaker, the last

10 days I have been listening to the speeches coming from the Ministers

across the way. And you know, over the years there's an observable

formula that can be applied to the Minister's speeches and debate. And

the formula is this. A measure of the election proximity is in direct

ratio to the vitriolic strength, the tonal height, the

[ Page 209 ]

decibel count and the stridency level of the Minister's speech. And

in this last week, and especially this last night, they were all

registering pretty high on the election scale.

MR. BARRETT: Low in content.

MR STRACHAN: Oh, low in content. Well, that's another matter.

I listened to the Hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs and he was giving

us that dance of his — dancing all over the place, waving papers, airy

fairy planners, inputs and outputs, deadputs and all the rest of it.

And he made his usual offer to resign "if we haven't got the best

municipal formula in Canada."

The Minister says "the municipalities are happy, they're doing great

under this little government." We've just been told that, this Minister

over here just told us that the Municipal Department put out some books

on housing. Why didn't he publish this booklet? This report here on the

state of municipal finances in British Columbia?

AN HON. MEMBER: It's not worth the paper it's written on.

MR STRACHAN: Pardon? Not worth the paper it's written on?

That's your opinion. But let's see what it says. It's not worth the

paper it's written on because it exposes you.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. STRACHAN: And it shows the degeneration that has taken place from the days when we had a Minister of Municipal Affairs. What does it say?

The principal source of revenue available to municipal governments

were only able to retain for their own responsibilities 45 cents of

every $1 they collected in 1968 and 54 cents must be turned over for

the support of education, a service for which municipalities have no

responsibility and for which they merely act as a tax collecting agency.

That's what it says a result of that survey. This is the point of

the report U.B.C.M. had prepared — a two-year study of municipal

finances all over the province.

What did it say about the net municipal expenditure for welfare?

"Net municipal expenditure for social welfare has increased over the

years." Now, in 1961 when we had a Minister of Municipal Affairs the

percentage paid of social welfare costs, paid by the municipalities was

19.7 per cent. By 1969 when the Minister was the Minister against

municipalities the municipalities are paying 31.4 per cent of social

welfare costs in the Province of British Columbia. That's progress.

Always he stands up and attacks "the airy fairy planners," When he,

the Minister against municipal affairs has this record that he would

like to dispose of.

Then they go on to say …

MR BARRETT: Why don't you resign?

MR STRACHAN: … in terms of the capacity to support expanding

municipal needs municipal governments in British Columbia in 1968 were

in a much worse position then they were in 1957. A much worse position.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear. Resign!

MR STRACHAN: What else does it say? It talks about the trend

and what is required. "Following course of action: Absorption of the

province of a greater proportion of the costs of education, thereby

improving the productivity of the properties tax for municipal

purposes, and assumption by the province of the total cost of social

welfare."

What else does it say?

Municipal government has always had an important role to play as an

institution that is responsible and accountable to the citizens it

serves. It cannot play this role effectively if it does not control a

significant proportion of its revenue sources. If the trend toward

increasing provincial control over the allocation of its revenues

continues municipal government will lose its capacity for being

responsible and accountable.

The papers have been referring to the Hon. Minister as a super

Mayor. It's obviously the trend that he wants to see developed — "take

away the local economy." Look at the levy for education as a proportion

of the total property taxation in 1957 when we had a Minister of

Municipal Affairs. We find in 1957, 61 per cent of the total — in North

Cowichan this is — for education. Now it is up to 83 per cent of the

total levy of the municipal affairs in North Cowichan.

What else does it say about North Cowichan? Social welfare costs — in 1961 when we had a Minister of Municipal Affairs $29,000; 1969

$114,000. On a percentage basis in North Cowichan — as I say when we

had a Minister of Municipal Affairs in 1961, 31 per cent; 1969 47 per

cent of the social welfare costs are being paid by the North Cowichan

municipality. Then we look at the province as a whole: 1961 the

municipalities as a whole were paying 19.43 per cent of social welfare

cost, by 1968 that was up to 28 per cent of the total social welfare

costs in their municipalities.

Why didn't he talk about these things the other night when he put on

that song and dance act? Why didn't he face up to his responsibility

and talk about these figures, the Minister against the Municipalities

of the Province of British Columbia?

You know, Mr. Speaker, as I listen to the — it's just an old story. That's the story that is in there.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR STRACHAN: Look, if these figures are wrong why didn't the Minister get up and give us his opinion?

HON. D.R.J. CAMPBELL (Minister of Municipal Affairs): I will…

MR STRACHAN: You will?

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: I'm telling you right now.

MR STRACHAN: You helped collect these figures …

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: I did not.

MR STRACHAN: Your department did…

MR SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR STRACHAN: As I've listened this last 10 days, Mr. Speaker,

two thoughts began to come into my mind. One was expressed by an

American artist who once said that the new is not revealed to those

whose eyes are fastened in worship of

[ Page 210 ]

the old.

And the second thought that came into my mind applied to this

government was that this government operates from memory instead of

vision.

That was why the throne speech was full of memories but no vision,

no vision. As I have listened these last 10 days I have heard this

continual reference to the free enterprise system. The Attorney General

talked about it as a system that gives a better way of life under the

free enterprise system.

You know, there are people in history who would agree with him. Some

people in history would agree with him. Here's one quote: "This

American system of ours — call it capitalism if you will — gives to

each and everyone of us a great opportunity if we only seize it with

both hands and make the most of it."

Who said that? AI Capone… Al Capone. (Laughter). Sure. "Gives a

great opportunity if only we seize it with both hands and make the most

of it." Alright.

AN HON. MEMBER: Got a copy?

MR. STRACHAN: Another quote: "We shall protect free

enterprise as the most expedient or rather the sole economic order."

Who said that? Adolph Hitler… you are in great company. (Laughter).

In reality, this government doesn't know what it believes in, it

doesn't know what it believes in. It's a government of chaos, confusion

and contradiction. An old government that has lost its way but hasn't

yet lost its cunning…and that's the question we have to ask

ourselves. You have lost your way but you haven't lost your cunning.

And that's what all the furor is about, all the turmoil, all the

confrontations that are being deliberately promoted to misdirect the

attention away from the people, of the real facts that this is a

government of memory and no vision, a government of chaos, confusion

and contradiction.

Here we are attacking Ottawa all over the place, and that awful

Liberal government, and I hear that one of their Members over there is

going around the ethnic groups in Vancouver telling them to vote Social

Credit provincially but vote Liberal federally. Sure…

AN HON. MEMBER: Cry-baby Campbell.

MR. STRACHAN: Then we had that display the other day of an

attack on that awful Liberal government in Ottawa because they granted

permits for oil drilling. Oh, that awful Liberal government in Ottawa,

whereas what happened, of course, was that the Minister over here is

quite prepared to grant permits for exploration anywhere — Strait of

Georgia, Queen Charlotte Islands, anywhere else. Contradiction…

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. STRACHAN: They don't know where they're going. They're

lost. Then, of course, there's that famous episode between the Minister

of Municipal Affairs and the Minister of Rehabilitation — the one told

the other to "check up on your own chaos."

AN HON. MEMBER: I was getting worried…

MR. STRACHAN: "Look after your own chaos." Contradiction, lost your way, don't know where you're going.

Then there was the Moran dam situation, the Moran dam. You know,

November the Minister of Lands and Forests and Water Resources, he said

"it is utterly stupid to discuss the Moran dam issue now because the

government is not even considering it at this point." Not even

considering it at this point. That was November 1 – nobody's doing

anything with it and if there was ever wasted time and confusion with

people this has to be it.

"Williston said that anyone bringing the subject up

now is doing so for political reasons because it is almost guaranteed

to get them a headline in the newspaper." Now there was a headline in

the newspaper just a month before that. October 1, just exactly a month

before, the same year, last year. "Kiernan Backs Fraser Dam."

AN HON. MEMBER: Headline seeker!

MR. STRACHAN: "Recreation Minister Ken Kiernan indicated

Thursday that he wants a dam built on the Fraser River, more to control

flooding in the lower Fraser valley than to generate power. And he says

no matter what the Energy Board says he wants the dam." No matter what

the Energy Board says he wants the dam. Confusion, contradiction,

chaos. There of course…

AN HON. MEMBER: Mr. Speaker, here comes some more chaos.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, order please! What is the Hon. Minister standing on?

HON. W.K. KIERNAN (Minister of Recreation and Conservation):

Point of order, Mr. Speaker…the question of deliberate

misinformation knowingly by that Member. I ask that he withdraw the

statement, because even the Press stuff that he is reading doesn't

confirm what he's saying and he knows it. That is a point of order.

MR. STRACHAN: I will quote your exact words as were quoted in the paper.

HON. MR. KIERNAN: I don't guarantee any accuracy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. STRACHAN: "Kiernan says that he doesn't have to be told

about ecological dangers of the dam when social disruption downstream

could be caused by flooding." Then in direct quotes it says: "He was

asked if he was saying that the Moran dam should be built to control

flooding downstream even if it is found unfeasible by the Energy Board

as a source of power generation, and he said: 'Not necessarily, but I

am saying that flood control is being repeatedly ignored by many

people."' A clear indication, clear indication.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. KIERNAN: That's entirely different…

[ Page 211 ]

MR STRACHAN: What? Well where are you going to build the dam on the Fraser? Where do you want the dam on the Fraser built?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, tell us now…

MR. STRACHAN: Tell us now, where do you want the dam on the Fraser built?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. STRACHAN: No matter what the energy board says. Alright, you do that, you do that.

AN HON. MEMBER: He asked you about the Moran, is that your answer?

MR. STRACHAN: But as I say confusion, contradiction, chaos…

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR STRACHAN: You know last October there was a news report

about the Minister of Public Works and the headline was "Government

Spurns Award."

A beautification award for the provincial government buildings in

Quesnel has been rejected by the government because it comes from Park

and Tilford Distilleries. Works Minister W.N. Chant said Monday he felt

acceptance would conflict with government policy banning liquor

advertising and open the government to public criticism. "We didn't

want to be accused of being hypocritical," said Chant.

"We didn't want to be accused of being hypocritical,"

but I pick up his annual report which came the other day and in the

opening page I find a paragraph there referring to the situation. It

says:

During the year part of our recently-constructed

buildings have been nominated by chambers of commerce and other bodies

for awards. These were the law courts building in Quesnel and Duncan.

The one in Quesnel won the award. The residences, British Columbia

Vocational School, Terrace

so on. "The Quesnel government building won

an award for having made the most significant contribution to

beautification in its zone."

Interjection by Hon. Member.

MR. STRACHAN: Suitable, suitable. I wish we had won the

award. But this is hypocritical, to accept the awards when you consider

who the judges were. Who were the judges? Let's see… Here's a picture

of them looking at the Duncan building. Let's see who they are. A Mr.

Fred C. Hollingsworth, president of the Architectural Institute of

B.C., a professor — oh, one of these experts, one of these planners,

you know —

AN HON. MEMBER: Airy fairy!

MR STRACHAN: Professor Samuel Lipson, president of Professional Engineers'

Association of B.C. and a very gracious picture — no pun intended — of

the Honourable Grace McCarthy, Minister without Portfolio.

You said it would be hypocrisy to accept the award, yet a member of

the same government is out judging it on behalf of Park and Tilford.

As I say, they don't know where they are going. Then of course there is the matter of…

AN HON. MEMBER: You're wrong and you're going to admit it…

MR STRACHAN: There was that terrible situation with regard to

pollution the Kaiser Resources were having down in the interior, and

that incredible situation where no charge could be laid against the

Kaiser people for causing pollution because we hadn't issued them a

permit to cause pollution. You know.

One of the newspapers in eastern Canada, The Toronto Daily Star made

a series of awards and they awarded the Minister of Lands and Forests

the Supreme Smelly of The Year is what they called it and there is a

picture of it — Supreme Smelly of The Year.

Then of course we had that very emotional speech at the Social

Credit convention by Mr. Dreidiger the president of the Social Credit

League. That very uptight emotional speech here where he talked about

these terrible Marxists and Socialists and agitators that were getting

these young people on the street to protest the Amchitka blast. There

he was, emotional appeal. These awful pinkos, these Marxists… And what

happens? He forgot that just a week before that Premier Bennett had

been asked for an opinion on the Amchitka blast and the Premier took

exactly the same position that I had taken, to regret the blast not

only there but everywhere else. There is another heading: "Bennett

Joins In Protest Against Amchitka Go-ahead."

AN HON. MEMBER: He wants to make his own.

MR. STRACHAN: Bennett regrets go-ahead on Amchitka. So as I

say the president of their association gets up and calls all these

people Marxists, Socialists, hippies, long-hairs, draft dodgers. What

is the Premier? What's the Premier? Then, of course, there was the

Premier's statement about the economic union with the United States.

Canada needs a bigger market, he says. The Premier came out in favour

of this economic union with the United States, and I have to admit that

he had some company, he had some support, because a few days later the

Hon. Member from Saanich, John Tisdalle, backed the idea of economic

union with United States. Now there is a real team in there fighting

for it. (Laughter). There's a real team. The Premier and John Tisdalle

in there punching for Canada and economic union with the United States.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's your one-two punch.

MR STRACHAN: There is a real team for you, boy. But of course again contradiction. They don't know where they are going.

Some years ago the then Minister of Trade and Industry, he is now

Minister

of Health, (Hon. Mr. Loffmark) made this statement: "That

across-the-board approach to economic union or free trade was

impractical." But even more recently was this, just about this time the

Premier was making this statement about economic union with the United

States and free trade the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Shelford)

[ Page 212 ]

was asking that B.C. take steps to protect B.C. agriculture, one way or another, by closing the border.

Then of course the Minister went on to talk. The Minister said that

the Canadian farmer, trade unions and the people may have to accept a

new philosophy, that desirable projects and national programmes will

have to be considered.

I listened to the speech by the Minister of Lands and Forests the

other day. He enunciated a policy in which he indicated that we're

going to continue to develop the economy of British Columbia in the

same way as we have in the past and I refer you to, I think it's page

4, page 2 of his speech. He talked about direct employment providing

jobs for so many and the salaries and wages, so much money, and so on

within the forestry industry and we, intend to keep on going only more

so. And yet this Minister of Agriculture, he says: "We must develop the

job intensive industries". The Minister of Trade and Industry has

appointed a new man and they say: "We're going after secondary

industry, service industry and tertiary industry to create jobs".

One Minister says one thing, two others say something else. They

don't know where they're going. They are just completely contradicting

each other right up and right down the line.

Well, Tisdalle going along with the Premier, it's a great team. Real help.

I was interested in the job creation statements in the Speech from

the Throne. I was interested in the reference to the fact that the

reason the unemployment figures are as high as they are is because

people keep coming to British Columbia.

The Premier is on record, in an interview in Executive magazine, not

too long ago, where he says that this is the real thrust to a greater

British Columbia, by attracting more people to the province. You don't

have to bother about creating jobs or anything else. Just attract more

people.

Then he complains about the social welfare costs and making the

municipalities carry the load. Why are people coming to British

Columbia? I mentioned last year that the government spent public money

putting ads in all the papers across Canada. They put ads in papers all

across Canada advertising the budget and all the rest of it.

But when I travelled across the country I picked up the local papers

and I found advertisements right across the country, from business

concerns in this province advertising for workers for British Columbia.

Here is one in the Saskatchewan paper, I think it was. "Attention,

graduate nurses. Registered nursing staff required for new 150-bed.

hospital. Prince Rupert Regional Hospital Board".

What's the matter with our schools, what's the matter with our

Minister of Education, what's the matter with direction when we haven't

been producing the nurses we need and we have to advertise in

Saskatchewan, where we have young people out of work in this province?

There's the measure of the failure of the government's policy. What

other ads are there? Here's one. This is in the Halifax paper.

"Electricians required by Alcan in Kitimat". Where are our trade

schools? Where's the Minister of Education's programme when they have

to advertise in Halifax for electricians in Kitimat? When we have the

unemployed we have here in this province.

"Recreation director required for the City of Trail."

This is in the Regina Leader-Post . Then down below it. "Heavy-duty

mechanic bulldozer operators required for southern B.C. Applicants must

be qualified. Operating experience on D-8, D-9, crawler tractors," and so on. "Apply to personnel

department, Caminco Limited, in Saskatchewan." Right for southern B.C.

Where's our training programme, when we have to do this? You know, we

have unemployed people in this province who are willing to go anywhere

and do this work.

You know, a remark was made just a couple of months ago, by someone

who's in the business of requiring heavy duty mechanics-operators, and

he said, he likes it this way. He likes it this way. Because he can go

out anytime he wants and get a first class operator. He liked the

surplus labour market. These are words heard all across the country.

Naturally, bring people to this province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not many people would say that.

MR. STRACHAN: It's true. If I was unemployed and I talked to

unemployed people who were travelling the country looking for jobs too,

and you see an ad like that and you pick up this paper and that paper

well: "things must be great out there, let's go out there and look for

work." That's right.

This is what attracts them, industry itself. There was an ad in one

of the papers for a sawmill outside Kamloops. Wanting all kinds of

people. In the Edmonton paper I think it was.

All the time. This is what brings them in. This is why we have the

large social welfare rolls we have. They aren't all American deserters,

not all of them. A lot of them are Canadians who see these ads and

think: "Well, things must be blooming out there."

I suggest that there's a lack of co-operation, a lack of planning

somewhere along the line in this government, that these businesses in

this province have to advertise all across the country when we have

this unemployment right in this province.

Like every other Member of this House, I'm concerned about the

future of this province, this country and the people in it. That's a

general statement. To follow through we have to look at the specifics.

This is not the time for frantic boasts like we've been getting from

across the way, with 6.9 per cent of the work force unemployed, with a

job opportunity programme which, despite its build-up hasn't worked,

I'm quite sure, the way the Ministers hoped it would, with a cabinet

bickering and divided, with the Premier saying love Ottawa or "Hate

Ottawa and love the United States, love Washington and hate Ottawa."

The Premier calling for a common market when the predictions of this

government are that Japan will by 1988 be our largest customer.

Think of the predictions out of the Department of Industrial — whatever it is they call it, by 1980. J.B. Cline saying the U.S. is our

greatest market, but he's developing new plants in the United Kingdom,

Holland, Belgium, Spain and now South East Asia

You're opening the door wider and wider for foreign ownership,

saying we need the capital. Ignoring the fact completely, that we are

supplying most of the capital for this foreign ownership of our natural

resources.

Last year the Leader of the Opposition recounted the situation with

regard to the Kaiser development. $35 million came as a loan from a

Canadian bank out of the savings of the Canadian people. What do you

mean we haven't got the capital? We look at the Lornex mine, we find

that the 1970 financing represented $21 million by Rio Algom, a

Canadian company, out of profits earned in Canada, $2.3 million from

Yukon Consolidated, $26 million by a consortium of

[ Page 213 ]

Japanese smelters and trading companies, $60 million under a

Canadian bank loan and $40 million from the Central Mortgage and

Housing.

More than 50 per cent of the total financing came right from

Canadian banks. Almost all of the rest came from earned industry

profits in Canada.

What do you mean we have to give it away? We're financing ourselves,

we're financing our own takeover and later on in the session, in the

budget debate, I will have a little more to say about that aspect of it

too.

I agree that here in B.C. there's a high degree of vulnerability to

the U.S. economic actions. But instead of continually moving to make us

even more vulnerable, the duty of every leader in this country is to

make us less vulnerable to what happens to the U.S. economy. Make us

more masters of our own destiny.

We need somebody to speak for Canada. The Premier says that's

anti-American. But you know, just last year the Minister of Labour,

when he was protesting that Kootenay and Elk Valley railway thing, said

it's the export of jobs, the construction of that railroad. Is that

anti-American?

Interjection by Hon. Member.

MR. STRACHAN: The Minister of Agriculture, he attacked the

U.S. D.I.S.C. plan. He said industry here is in danger. Is that

anti-American? The Premier says if you're critical at all of wanting to

change things that's anti-American. It's time the Premier of this

province was pro-Canadian, not anti-Canadian.

The Minister of Agriculture said the U.S. Domestic International

Sales Corporation posed a far worse threat to Canada, with more

devastating, long-term effects than the current year's import surcharge

and I agree with him. I agree with him. Again I say, contradiction over

there. One Minister saying one thing and another saying something else.

Economic union, free trade, the Minister of Agriculture again: "Save

Food Supply from U.S. Conquests, Shelford Urges." Free trade? Save food

supply from U.S. conquests. That of course…

AN HON. MEMBER: He's an economic nationalist.

MR. STRACHAN: Just a few years ago, the then Attorney General

of this province gave a speech. What did he say? He said: "Canada must

free itself from the tight money grip caused by the United States

syphoning Canadian dollars to help pay for the escalating Vietnamese

war." That's what the Attorney General said. Not this Attorney General.

He said: "We must seek to displace our dependence on New York, with a

Canadian bond market and a Canadian equity market of truly major

proportions." Is that anti-American? Is the former Attorney General

anti-American? I don't think so. I think that makes good economic

sense. Because I think that…

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR STRACHAN: You know, last fall the Minister of Health went

on a trip too — not to Japan, not to Austria — but into northern

British Columbia, along with the U.S. Ambassador, and the U.S. Consul.

Here's the Minister of Agriculture saying we have to protect ourselves

and the former Attorney General saying "we Canadians this," and the

Minister of Industrial Relations saying we have to develop secondary

and tertiary industry and here's this Minister up north showing the

wonderful natural resources that we're prepared to give to them.

AN HON. MEMBER: Come and get it!

MR. STRACHAN: But whatever it is, there's no money in the

treasury. They looked at the rivers up there and the water supply and

all the rest of it. I don't know where these people are hiding their

heads these last few years. I don't think they have ever heard of the

President's report on energy, his message to the senate.

I don't think they've heard of the Schultz report on the energy

needs of the United States or the remarks that are made in it or the

realisation that as far as the United States are now concerned, this is

one continent. They now speak about common ownership of the resources

of this continent. They've used up theirs and squandered them. We have

some left. They now talk about "common ownership" and "continentalism."

Now, what is continentalism? I can buy internationalism as a belief

because we're citizens of the world. But continentalism means that a

country of 200 million people, with no resources, wants to be friendly

with a country with lots of resources and only 20 million people.

AN HON. MEMBER: What's yours is mine and what's mine is my own.

MR. STRACHAN: Brice O'Brian, the president of the U.S.

National Coal Association, while testifying before the U.S. Senate

hearing on energy resources, said, that the U.S. considers "Canada our

own for energy purposes."

The Minister takes the consul and the ambassador up north to let them see our energy resources.

AN HON. MEMBER: Come and get it!

MR STRACHAN: Come and get it, that's right! The following

month, President Nixon in a statement on U.S. energy, indicated that

the major solution to the crises that the U.S. was facing lay in the

vast importation of Canadian resources — oil, natural gas, coal, hydro

power and water — which have come to be known in the U.S. as

continental resources, under a common ownership. They have used their

own resources in a wasteful way and now ours are under common

ownership. That's what it's all about.

Negotiations are now going on in Washington between Canada and the

United States, the common ownership of our resources is the lever.

That's what they're after. That's the club. The common ownership of our

resources.

Unfortunately our Premier has said and done nothing that would tend

to strengthen the backbone of the Canadian negotiations — all his

policies are designed to weaken Canada's position in negotiating with

the United States for any trade agreement. Instead he has sided with

the United States against Canadian interests — his hatred for the

Ottawa government has weakened Ottawa's bargaining power with the

United States. The Schultz report, this is Honourablp George P.

Schultz, the Secretary of Labour in the U.S. Cabinet, recommended a

search for safe supplies of oil. It said, "the risk of political

instability or animosity is generally considered to be very low in

Canada." We're suckers.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't stir up the Indians.

MR. STRACHAN: That's right. Don't stir up the Indians.

[ Page 214 ]

It recommended — how do you like this, this is the Schultz report,

it's beautifully worded. It recommended "common or harmonious policies

with respect to natural gas and other energy related matters."

"Common or harmonious policies." The quid pro quo was supposed to be

a relaxation of the oil restrictions then enforced. You know that

Schultz report makes it very clear that they need our oil, they need

it. And I have to admit that the Honourable Joe Greene goofed in that

speech he made in Denver in 1971, because we had already agreed to give

them — I forget, what was it — 6 trillion cubic feet of gas, or

something, the gas export has already been settled.

The 10 per cent surcharge was designed to lever Canada further along

the road to economic union or common ownership of our resources. That's

what that was all about. The attitude and the quality of this

government weakened the hand of the federal government in trying to

bargain for Canada. The Schultz report, now this is interesting, the

job of input-output money, no royalties, but pseudo royalties…you

know all the rest of it. The Schultz report also points out that for

every dollar invested in Canada to extract oil et cetera, 71 cents

would be returned to the U.S. In the first year in the form of

investment return. In the first year, that's the kind of suckers we are.

In the first year of investment. 71 cents returned in investment

returned. That's not a bad return you know, that's not a bad return.

Skimming the top off the Canadian economic production and I'm getting

into that more in the budget speech too.

Then there's the question of NAPAWA, that's North Atlantic Water.

Here's a report. North American Power and Water and Power Line. This is

what the American consul went up there looking at. The natural oil in

there. We can kid ourselves that we have been good friends with the

United States and I hope we always will be. But since our economy and

our resources are committed to the United States, they will always

leave us free to pursue our own benefits. But I ask you, can 20 million

people ever be equal partners with 200 million people?

AN HON. MEMBER: 20-to-1 odds.

MR. STRACHAN: The other day, last week, I picked up the Press

and I read a speech made by Robert W. Bonner, the vice-president of

MacMillan-Bloedel. I read the report of that speech in the Victoria

Colonist and I sat down right away and I wrote to Mr. Bonner

congratulating him on the speech.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you ever get to do that when he was in the House?

MR, STRACHAN: I congratulated him on that speech of five

years ago regarding the Canadian equity market. I congratulated him on

that speech. I agreed with him. But I sent him a letter congratulating

him and yesterday I got a copy of the speech along with a letter.

I want to draw your attention to something in the speech. Mr. Bonner

says: "Now we urgently need a scenario for the 1970's and beyond. We

are no longer viewing the non-Soviet world as one in which American

leadership is unquestioned in either a political or economic sense." Is

that anti-American?

AN HON. MEMBER: It's embarrassing.

MR. STRACHAN: Is that pinko stuff?

AN HON. MEMBER: It's embarrassing.

MR. STRACHAN: That's what we say. That's what we say.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shocking, oh!

MR. STRACHAN: "Vietnam, the dilemma of the Arab-Israeli

cockpit, American dollar devaluation, the new international payments,

the Nixon-Pompidou meeting, President Nixon's frank statement towards

the economic market in Japan — all these events and experiences attest

to the fact that while American power is foremost it is increasingly

foremost among equals."

AN HON. MEMBER: He should sign the Watkins Manifesto.

MR. STRACHAN: Then he goes on in to fine terms. He said:

Economists tended to find the post-industrial state as one in which

more members of the labour force are engaged in the performance of

services and in the production of goods. That is over-simplified, but

according to the definition, Canada and the United States have already

passed into the post-industrial era. The post-industrial state is

simply one way of describing a society that has become very complex, no

longer agrarian or based primarily on heavy industry, subject to rapid

change, subject to rapid change, depending upon extremely advanced

technology and a post-materialist value system.

That's what you haven't recognised yet. One thing: "Personally, I

await the day when Canada worries less about the presence of foreign

investment and worries more about exerting a stronger Canadian

influence abroad to international corporations encouraged, owned and

directed in Canada."

Well, he talks about the task. He says the task alone would require

public, and private planning and collaboration of a totally

unprecedented level of activity and success. "Apart from the fact that

there are no easy answers to the questions I have just raised, the most

critical comment in relation to such questions is that we seem to be

backing into the future. We are not planning to manage change. We seem

content to let it happen."

AN HON. MEMBER: Very, very flattering.

MR. STRACHAN: "At a time," and I'm still quoting…

At a time

when corporate planning must be increasingly sensitive and responsive

to external circumstances, government continues to display its

programmes in a way which is the antithesis of planning. Worse than

that, this approach to national planning is inadequate for a period

when we must expect to cope with radical change.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's talking about you.

MR. STRACHAN: He's talking about you too. You too. "Instead

of participative democracy the time calls for anticipatory democracy in

which policy is for firmly rooted and genuine national objectives

reached by prior consultation." How much prior consultation do you

have? You, you're committed to that nineteenth century give-away

[ Page 215 ]

resources policy. The whole way. "The times call for more rather than less democracy."

AN HON. MEMBER: Who's at the Minister of Finance conference now?

MR. STRACHAN: The times call for more rather than less

democracy. The times call for more not less democracy. We're faced with

the dictatorial government over here that more and more is government

by edict that more and more is undermining and denigrating the

democratic processes.

I agree with Bonner. The times call for more democracy, not less. We

need a reversal of that trend in this House. Right in this House.

Public and private planning will be of poor quality unless they're

directed to broad goals on which we can all agree.

As I say, I wrote to Bonner congratulating him on that speech. If we

had a different kind of government here that wasn't committed to the

past, that was a government of vision instead of memory, then we

wouldn't be backing into the future. But we'd be marching in there with

shoulders high.

I agree with Bonner that the time does require more planning and

more democracy. I think there's a great opportunity based on this

realisation for labour, management and government to get together, do

the planning and march into that post-material society.

I reject the economic state for other reasons too. Because there are other factors to be considered.

The U.S. has squandered its resources with an economy of waste and

built-in obsolescence. It has created its economic problems through a

wasteful and hateful war in Vietnam. This year it is committing itself

to a $75 billion budget to be squandered by its military industrial

bureaucracy for so-called defence — $75 billion. I don't want to be part

of that kind of society.

But, Mr. Speaker, while we are cousins we have a different culture.

We have a different culture. We have to remember that the American

culture is based on violence. They became a country by violence, by

revolutions. They opened up their west. Just a minute, I'm defining the

fact that we're of a different culture. We are a different culture.

AN HON. MEMBER: Culture based on violence.

MR. STRACHAN: They became a country by violence, by revolution.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

MR. STRACHAN: They opened up the west, they opened up the west with the rule that the law that came out of the end of a six-shooter.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. STRACHAN: They got themselves into the civil war. Civil war.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. STRACHAN: There was the violence within the university

area. As I say, theirs is a different kind of culture. Any culture

where there is a gun lobby, that can defeat a senator because he wants

the owners of guns to be registered is not the kind of society that I

want. When there's a gun law so powerful that when any senator wants

any person with a gun to have it registered and the attacker would get

him defeated than I have to question how close I want to be to that

kind of country and the relationship I want to have with them. We are

cousins. But we're of a different culture.

As a British Columbian, as a Canadian, as a citizen of the world I don't want my grandchildren tied to that kind of a life.

Mr. Speaker, in 1969 this government stampeded the electorate with a

phoney programme. To fulfill the bright promises of 1969 you should

have been developing job intensive industry — but you failed. We now

have almost 64,000 unemployed and more people on social welfare than

ever before. The natural resources of our province should have more

processing right here in B.C. to provide the added value that will

provide vastly-increased provincial revenues.

The government failed and the surpluses we have acquired have been

built up by refusing to meet the needs of the people. Now all we have

to do is look at the nurses' report on nursing homes in this province.

That's all we have to do to see how we've failed.

The educational system should have been restructured to produce the

management, leadership, the technicians, the skilled workmen, required

by new technical and processing industries.

The Premier says he's not interested. Again this is a quote from

Executive magazine. "The Premier says he's not interested in attracting

a research and development industry to B.C." He just wants to export

our raw materials.

The government failed to develop the educational system. But instead

they declare war on the trustees and teachers. The health services of

the province should have been expanded to meet the needs of our people.

Again surpluses have been built up while our senior citizens need

chronic care beds and extended care facilities — they declare war on

the doctors.

Who leads us, Mr. Speaker, is less important than what leads us.

This government has convinced people that profit is the touchstone of

success. This has instilled into our people the desire to get more and

more. This has become the prime motivation in our society. Someone has

said, this has been elevated from a economic principle to a principle

of life. With this as a guiding principle of your kind of society it is

any wonder we have strikes and troubles, unhappiness, inequality and

want?

The bankrupt policy of this government can only bankrupt the

province. Your policies are going to leave the provincial cupboard of

British Columbia bare. Just as the new government of Alberta's finding

right now. After 35 years of the same kind of policies from a Social

Credit government they arrive to find the cupboard bare. I just hope

that the people of British Columbia don't wait until it's too late to

get rid of that crew over there. So whoever takes over won't find the

cupboard bare, the resources gone, committed, and with no money in the

bank.

I'll bet you that now this is the story coming out of Alberta and I

challenge you to do what I did two years ago. Go into the library, get

the returns, the income returns, on oil into that province. You'll find

that in the last five years they've been going down. You go and see. I

did it. Your policy is dividing the society more and more into the

have's and the have-not's. Insiders and outsiders. Chaos, confusion and

contradiction.

The end product of 20 years of high-grading the economy

[ Page 216 ]

of the province. Twenty years of sell out. Twenty years of sell-out.

All the noise and furor, the disorder and turmoil you are now trying to

stir up before the next election and for one purpose and one purpose

only — to try and win another election before the crisis of your own

making catches up to you. B.C. deserves and must have something better.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon. second Member for Vancouver-Burrard.

MR. B. PRICE (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, once again I

take my place in this debate and in a few months it will be 20 years

since I first had the very distinct honour of representing

Vancouver-Burrard in this House.

I feel very fortunate to have as my first Member a man who has

fought a very difficult battle and I know that we're all very glad to

see him getting back on his feet. It's been mentioned before in this

House but without a doubt at least every Member in this room that

drives down our 401 and sees these daffodils coming up in the spring

they won't look at them without thinking of our first Member from

Vancouver-Burrard.

I think; Mr. Speaker that one of the most significant things in the

throne speech was in a little paragraph right almost at the end. It

said we have much to be thankful for in British Columbia and we look

forward to the coming year with renewed vigor and a sense of challenge.

I can assure you that I agree that we are very fortunate to be in

British Columbia. When we compare what's going on in Ireland at this

time and I think we indeed have a great deal to be thankful for.

Just in respect of what is going on in Ireland, Mr. Speaker, I can't

help thinking in my own little way that we are most fortunate in this

province to have a single public educational system where the children

of all ethnic groups, all religions, go to school together. They don't

care a hoot where their parents go to church on Sundays, and the result

is you've got a group of people growing up with a common sense of

attachment to each other that will never cease as long as we have our

children going to school as they are today. I indeed think we are very,

very fortunate.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PRICE: That's Bert Price — never mind somebody else. That's my own feelings and I feel that way.

Mr. Speaker, I feel disturbed at the speech made by the ex-Leader of

the Opposition (Mr. Strachan). When he points out that the U.S. is a

country based on violence it leaves me cold. I just can't see it. It

defeats my thoughts and my thinking of the United States as a country,

as a great country in the world. Here we are. One of the things that we

boast about in North America is that Canada has 3,000 miles of

undefended border. Yet this Member will get up and say that we have as

a neighbour a country which is based on violence. These two facts don't

go together.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PRICE: When he speaks about B.C. and its future and being

in financial trouble I would like to know — from anybody here — I would

like to know and so would anybody else where any jurisdiction in North

America is better off financially today than the Province of British

Columbia. There just is not one.

His statement about local money invested in British Columbia and how

it would be possible to use more British Columbia money for investment

in B.C. — he pointed out how the Kaiser Company raised $35 million out

of B.C. money and other companies of course have raised a great deal of

money here too. But I think it may be overlooked that in British

Columbia in 1971 there was $2,942.6 million invested in this country

and if you think that kind of money is available from the 2 million

people in British Columbia, you just don't know your facts. That kind

of money is not here.

Again I think that it certainly points towards the satisfaction and

the confidence that people have in this province to note that there is

nearly $3,000 million invested in public and private investment in

British Columbia during the 1971 year.

It was not my intention, Mr. Speaker, to speak about the Moran dam

but when I hear people comdemning it merely for the sake of finding

fault, I can't help thinking that the general public doesn't take that

attitude and if you asked yourself what you would think of damming this

same river if it were in California and it was necessary to save a

possible flood which could wipe out thousands of farms on the lower

Fraser Valley, I think you would look at it differently entirely.

I am quite sure that the general public, if they only knew the facts

as they should be known regarding the possibility of flooding, would

certainly be willing to agree that perhaps something is necessary to

prevent such a catastrophe in some year to come.

If I thought we were going to get another '98 flood, I'd be in

favour of it because you know very well, and I'm sure you do know, that

that flood at that time was 6 ft. above the 1948 flood and believe me

that did enough damage to people and property in this province.

Interjection by Hon. Member.

MR. PRICE: Well, let's hope not. You can't tell what's

coming. If we have a late spring that could happen, if we have an early

spring — and I think we will, I'm always a bit of an optimist — I don't

think we will have too much trouble.

I was surprised to hear our Opposition Member complaining about

companies advertising out of this province for help. Of course this is

always help that is most necessarily highly-trained. It is impossible

to get many branches of highly-skilled occupations in this province, in

spite of the unemployment of 7 per cent, they're just not available.

What do you want these companies to do, slow down their operations? Do

you want them to close up, do you want them to lay off the men they

have here now or do you want them to go outside and find them where

they are? I can't find any fault with that. I think it's a very

necessary thing.

Coming from an area with 100,000 people, we run into all the

problems of a metropolis. Fortunately we are members of the City of

Vancouver, we have an active city council which deals directly with

Victoria and as far as the civic government is concerned, they very

seldom come and ask for help of the M.L.A.'s.

One of the most important fields that I find myself contacted about

are people that require help financially. I can quite honestly say that

regarding help for people needing welfare I am nearly always able to

get them help. There has been very few cases in all the years that I've

been a member, that I haven't been able to help people when they needed

it, seriously, from the welfare department, because the welfare

[ Page 217 ]

department is always sympathetic.

Workman compensation cases are a different thing and I find them

more difficult. In some cases I've been able to help but my average is

not very high.

One of the problems which is creeping up in the city today is this

very serious situation where we have children sniffing glue and I don't

know anything which will break parents' hearts quicker than to find out

that their children are taking

part in this action.

I personally think that the problem is exaggerated. I don't think it

is nearly as widespread as people talking here would lead the general

public to believe. But even though it may not be widespread, I still

feel that control is necessary.

I have no hesitation in thinking that if a store is deliberately

selling any form of solvent which when inhaled will produce

hallucinations and also sell with it the equipment, like a plastic bag

or give with it a plastic bag so as to make it easier for the child to

use if for that purpose, to me that's contributing to juvenile

delinquency and I think these people should certainly be charged.

You know, when it comes down to control — and it doesn't matter

whether it's the control of glue sniffing, control of marijuana,

control of heroin, or any of these things — the control always seems to

be measured by dollars and cents. Even though this may be a very

necessary thing to consider, when you have something like heroin which

makes a person a slave for life, I doubt that the dollars and cents

should be considered to a great extent.

In the case of glue sniffing, I'm rather surprised that the parents

don't step in and close these stores up, that are selling these. If the

problem gets bad enough, I'm quite confident that, in my own mind, that

sooner or later parents will take this matter into their own hands and

they will close these stores or wreck them.

In another area too, in this respect, I don't know why the

authorities, which of course has to be the police, don't use parent

groups or volunteers or organisations like the Canadian Legion. Well,

I'm confident in my own mind they would be tickled to death to step in

and try and get volunteers from among their members to try and help

police these offenders. I'm quite sure that it could be done and on a

much bigger scale than it is today and I have every confidence.

This is something that I would leave with the Attorney General

because I think there is room for it and I think there is great benefit

to be derived from it.

Of course we have the problem of pensioners in our riding and these

things are very important to a certain group of people. You take the

municipal pensioners that went on pension prior to 1957, and the

workmen's compensation pensions who have been on pension for 25 years

or 30 years. These people are not in a very happy position today.

I notice in one of our publications that, I guess it was the throne

speech, where this year there is going to be $2 million extended to

8,400 pensioners in this province which means an average of $20 a month.

It wouldn't be so bad if it's $20 but these people who have been on

pension for a long time, their little bit extra is infinitesimal and it

doesn't mean too much. I noticed that workmen's compensation widows

have had a 26 per cent increase since 1966. Well, if you can consider,

had their husbands been living and working in almost any kind of

industry, that they would have had a great deal more than a 26 per cent

increase in their wages.

I think this is important to consider. When these old pensioners see

our school boards grant teachers a 9.8 per cent increase and when they

realise and read that the teachers are getting an average of $11,000 a

year, you know it must make them wonder just where do they stand in

their life's work.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think the Honourable Member is fringing on anticipation of the bill before the House.

AN HON. MEMBER: No he's not.

MR. PRICE: Well, when we consider these wages that are or

salaries that are being paid to the professional groups today and the

highly unionised groups, I can't help feeling that somehow or other we

need a big change in our minimum wage.

The reason I say that is because today, many people are offered jobs

that are on welfare, but they find out and the social workers very

advisedly told them on paper, that they are far better off to stay on

welfare.

I don't think you can blame the social worker for saying that

because it's his duty to tell a person what is best for him and there

is nothing wrong with that. I do find fault with the fact that minimum

wages are so low that they are actually lower than you can earn on

welfare. This doesn't make sense.

I listened to a radio by chance this morning and I heard Canada

Manpower offering jobs for hairdressers in Victoria, for $1.95 an hour.

I am quite convinced that when a woman goes and gets her hair done,

that what she pays is certainly enough to give more than $1.95 an hour

to the operator. Anybody who has a wife who gets her hair done, I don't

think has any argument with that standpoint.

There is a need to increase these minimum wages. They are just not

high enough. I know that if you ask any of these pensioners any opinion

on it, they have no hesitation in supporting that opinion.

Housing is another thing, Mr. Speaker, which is a most serious thing

in the area of Vancouver-Burrard and I think it will continue to be a

problem for a long time.

In the city now there are no lots and no opportunity to build small

homes or homes of any kind on lots. The only thing we can build now are

apartment buildings and high-rises. This is one of the things that is

causing the extreme shortage of places to live.

The older homes, where you could acquire three rooms maybe for $75 a

month — and there have been lots of them — they have been torn down to

make room for new buildings. When they build the new buildings the

suites in them are worth anywhere from a minimum of about $140 a month.

There's a great number of people that just can't afford to go into

quarters of that kind.

I think that the government should be commended very highly for the

home acquisition grants that they make available in this province — the

only province in Canada — and I'm told that 2,500 people a month are

inquiring about the possibility of trying to get a home with the help

of these home acquisition grants.

It has been stated here earlier today, that the fund now invested in

this home acquisition fund is close to $120 million. I am told by

people that should know, that when this reaches $250 million it will be

self-supporting, because the money coming in will be equivalent to the

money going out and the fund will keep rolling over without any further

investment by this province. I think it is an indication of the far

thinking that's been done in putting these plans into operation.

[ Page 218 ]

The only thing that we can do, in an area like Vancouver-Burrard, Mr.

Speaker, to alleviate the housing situation is subsidise housing. I

can't say that I'm in favour of public subsidies for anything, but what

are you going to do when you have people unable to get homes and

they're living now by virtue of force in places that are not good

habitation? There's a great need for better housing and the only thing

we can do is to help these people get into better quarters even if it

means carrying part of their costs.

I believe that it is much better to help families when their

children are young than to wait until those children become rebels and

we have to keep them in jail at a later age. This is what is happening.

You only have to look at areas in the United States to see very

definite evidence of this sort of thing. Our cities here are not old

enough to reach the degree of degradation that you find in lots of the

eastern cities of the United States, but nevertheless, they have

approached a point where it is not fit, I don't think, for what can be

called modern housing.

I only hope that the province will be very willing to give great

support to the greater Vancouver regional district in their effort to

build 1,000 home sites this year. Whether they will be able to do that

or not is going to be dependent almost entirely on the support that

they get from the provincial and federal governments.

The first Member from Burrard (Mr. Merilees) and myself very

recently discussed this matter with Mr. Kesson, the new man that has

been taken on the Greater Vancouver Regional District, to take care and

advise on housing.

He maintains that certain plans that are available to the province

through the federal government take three-and-a-half years to get off

the ground. This is something which is very, very discouraging. When

you see the need and recognise that the need is today for housing, when

you are faced with the fact that you can't get federal help for

three-and-a-half years, it changes the picture entirely.

I would like to go a little further in regard to housing, Mr.

Speaker, and this doesn't apply to the City of Vancouver for the simple

reason that this is too late. The cost of lots today on which to build

a home, is reaching a point where it's so high that it makes it

impossible for many thousands of people to take advantage of the home

acquisition grants.

I am told that 27 per cent of the people in this province do not

qualify for national housing mortgages. This is a very large amount. A

home today is reaching $26,000 for the home plus the lot and lots today

in Burnaby are worth $15,000 and up. If you go onto the north shore,

they don't even get down to $15,000 and the result is that people are

being forced to go out onto the Delta land to get home sites where land

is much cheaper and this is the worst thing that can happen because you

are using up agricultural land which just cannot be replaced.

I think it is time for municipalities, perhaps with the government's

help, to look into the question of forming land banks and also instead

of selling these lots as home building lots, they should lease them on

long-term leases, perhaps for 50 or 65 years which is the maximum life

of a home.

If they could lease these lots and reduce the cost to a home builder

by the $15,000 cost, I am convinced that it would pave the way for many

thousands of people to get into a home that they could call their own.

There would be no loss to a municipality because it would gather its

taxes, the acquisition value of the property is continuing and will

continue throughout our lifetime and much longer for the simple reason

that, as the population increases, the demand for property is going to

increase along with it and they are just not making any more land.

Two areas in the province are now working towards leasing lots, Port

Moody and Coquitlam, and I think that this is something which should be

watched very closely because I am convinced in my own mind that if

people could lease these lots, on a long term, it would help to

preserve the agriculture of the Delta land and it would be a great boon

to the people that want to try and build a home with the help of the

acquisition grant.

When we are talking about agricultural land, Mr. Speaker, I once

again want to point out the terrific volume of fruits and vegetables

which we import into this province. Most of them come from the U.S. and

Mexico.

If you go into a supermarket to buy potatoes, the chances are 4 to 1

that you are going to buy imported potatoes. If you buy canned foods

it's worse still because at least 90 per cent of them are going to be

foreign-grown and even those that are canned in this province are

usually canned by industries which are controlled outside of Canada.

Which I suppose leads to another question because if the United States

puts the D.I.S.C. programme into effect — "Domestic International Sales

Corporation" — to reduce tax benefits to companies now producing or

manufacturing outside of the United States proper, if they will return

to the United States they'll get considerable tax benefits, if this

happened we will no doubt be faced with the necessity to subsidise our

processing plants here. There would be no choice because there wouldn't

be any here.

I listened to the Minister of Agriculture for Canada a few weeks

ago. And when he was questioned about the need to protect the growers

in the lower mainland and in the rest of B.C. he sat on the fact that

as far as Canada is concerned, in agricultural products there's about

43 per cent imported, but there's also 43 per cent exported.

Of course, he's thinking on a Canada-wide basis, and on the prairies of course it's nearly all export.

This is all very well, maybe, for Canada as a whole, but it

certainly doesn't tell a proper picture for British Columbia. And here

we are relying almost totally for our food supply from other countries,

and I think this is wrong. There's no doubt about it that the market is

here, and that's the most important thing when it comes down to

producing anything, is to have a market.

I would only hope that somehow or other the federal government would

offer some protection in the way of getting the American producers to

exercise some quotas on what they send to this country, and also help

from the federal government in making sure that they're enforced.

I would just like to say about expropriation — and I'm glad to see

in the throne speech that there's going to be a study of this made this

year — there is one fundamental thing which I think is necessary to

expropriation by a government and that is to make sure they are giving

a person a replacement value.

This is something which does not seem to have very much value when

it comes down to dealing with people that they are going to

expropriate. They may give them what they think is the value for the

property. But as far as a replacement value this is something entirely

outside of it, and I think there is a need to give consideration to the

actual replacement value.

The lower mainland is facing a crisis — if you want to call it that

— with regard to being plugged up with automobiles in the city centre.

The question of how to overcome it seems to

[ Page 219 ]

be accepted in two words, rapid transit. Now, there's no doubt that

the problem has been created by the automobile, but I'll say this Mr.

Speaker, and I speak with some judgment on this, I think, because I've

spent my life there.

I think the problem is also created by poor service, by our buses.

And this shouldn't be taken lightly. Because 35 years ago when there

was only a small percentage of the automobiles around, there was just

as many people carried from specific areas, as are being carried today.

The only thing today is that there are more areas.

But they were carried very satisfactorily on streetcars and later on

by buses, but the buses ran faster and they gave a much better service.

If we only had one-car families today like they had in those days, the

wives and families would be up against a very serious problem because

you just rely on buses to get you back and forth to town these days,

it's impossible.

The problem of getting back and forth by automobile I think maybe a

little bit exaggerated because people still get to work, and they still

get home, and I think that an economic situation would solve the

problem. Because if parking cost becomes too high people leave their

cars farther away.

But I would say this, that I think the regional district council

deserves a great deal of credit for their effort to try and come up

with a solution to what is a real problem of transporting people, and I

think that the work that's been done by the chairman of that committee,

Mr. Allan C. Kelly should have a great deal of commendation because

he's put in hundreds and hundreds of hours in going and telling people,

and trying to tell them what is possible and what the committee is

recommending.

Their recommendation today, of course, is an improved bus service.

Mr. Speaker, I am heartily in agreement to that. And if they can only

get going on it right now they could have it in operation in 1972.

But of course the regional district can't do this alone. The only

way they could possibly function is to a very sizable subsidy from

somewhere, presumbly Hydro or from the B.C. Government. And I would

say, Mr. Speaker, quite frankly that the lower mainland has a right to

a subsidy, and anybody that knows anything about it knows why. It's

because the lower mainland is largely responsible for Hydro being able

to have a postage stamp rate throughout this province.

It doesn't require very much imagination to see that somebody in

using power in Golden or Prince George or any of these towns outside

they just don't have the volume of use to warrant the same kind of a

cost per kilowatt as they have in the lower mainland, and yet they're

getting it.

Of course, the reason for it is