[ Page 165 ]

MONDAY, JANUARY 31, 1972

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Delta.

MR. R. WENMAN (Delta): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the House to join in welcoming today a group of students from North Delta Secondary School. North Delta is well known because it is the home of the boys' basketball champions and hopefully again this year.

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

MR. D.A. MARSHALL (South Peace River): Mr. Speaker, in the Speaker's Gallery today from British Columbia's northern heartland, I'd like to introduce the Mayor of Dawson Creek and he is accompanied by Mr. Lewyn, the City Solicitor, Dawson Creek's own Attorney General. I would ask the House to join me in welcoming them today.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition.

MR. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, it is an unusual occasion in that I too would like to welcome the Mayor from Dawson City. He was most hospitable in my recent tour of Dawson Creek. He talked to me about incorporating not only Dawson Creek, but Dawson City as well. But it was a very very fine visit. And for Hon. Members who don't know the northern part, I invite them to accompany me on my next trip.

Introduction of bills.

Orders of the day.

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Minister without Portfolio.

HON. I.P. DAWSON (Minister without Portfolio): Mr. Speaker it is my pleasure once again to speak in this House today on behalf of that great riding, Mackenzie constituency. I was a little fearful this morning when I saw the snow coming down in Victoria that the sittings were going to be hurt. Because in talking to Powell River this morning they told me there was blue sky and that the sun was shining. And I was thinking that you know we are giving a little competition to Victoria this time and are living up to our reputation of the "Sunshine Coast."

I do want to also congratulate the mover and the seconder of the throne speech, both of whom I feel raised some very interesting points.

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

Interjection by Hon. Member.

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

This speaker gave the same speech year after year. There was very little variation in the theme. And on one occasion after his speech he met a young boy outside. "Hey sonny, how did you like my speech?" Well, the boy looked at him and he said: "My dad brings me here almost every year, and I've been coming for four years, and you know I've heard the same old story every time. Mister, you need a new needle."

You know, there is much of interest in the throne speech concerning many areas of governmental concern — programmes for people of this province. And I have been wondering if the Honourable Members opposite to me have perhaps adapted Mark Twain's famous statement: "Get your facts first, then distort them as you please."

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MRS. DAWSON: They agree with me. Isn't that fine, isn't that good. We suspected that for a long time, you know.

One of the highlights of centennial year celebrations, at least for me, was a presentation of pioneer medallions to those of our citizens who have lived in Canada and in British Columbia for 75 years or more.

I was asked to present medallions in many areas of our province, and as I travelled throughout the province to communities large and small and talked with recipients of medallions, it was increasingly brought home to me that our centennial year has indeed marked a centenary of achievements, and that our country is only as great as the people who live in it.

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

I would like to thank those in every community who took the time out to research and contact citizens who were eligible for these medallions. There was a true community spirit prevalent wherever I went, and to me this was memorable for those who received such a token from our province.

I went to such places as Dawson Creek, Williams Lake, Hedley and my own area of course. Yes indeed, even into the stamping ground of the Honourable Leader of the Opposition. And all these people wherever I went were united in a common interest, the recognition of our citizens who helped develop our land.

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

MR. BARRETT: Go ahead, go ahead.

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

Nine thousand six hundred and fifty-four medallions were presented in 1971, 2,619 of which were given to British Columbia residents. The medallions given to British Columbia residents as you are probably aware bore the dogwood crest on the ribbon.

Even greater than that, as far as I could see, is that there were 65 residents who were given special medallions because they were 100 years of age. As I travelled throughout the province last year, and the years before I became increasingly aware of the efforts that had been made by British Columbia Hydro to beautify wherever possible areas occupied by B.C. Hydro transformer stations, and similar installations. Hydro planning and design staff have been specifically instructed to

[ Page 166 ]

design attractive appearing transformer stations, to include landscaping cost in their estimates, and to give careful consideration to preserving the amenities of the areas.

Having seen the Arrow dam or the Hugh Keenlyside as it is now called, and the surrounding area during the construction period, I was delighted with the transformation of that area. Particularly around Nakusp. It is easy to see that this area has a great potential as a recreational area in the future.

It is also interesting to note that the Arrow or the Hugh Keenlyside dam in 1970 received an award for excellence from the Association of Consulting Engineers, and the magazine Canadian Consulting Engineer, as an outstanding and in one respect unique civil engineering achievement.

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

The engineering of the dam and lock and other facilities are of high order. Not only is this a handsome engineering and sound functional solution, but it has contributed greatly to the entire region surrounding the artificial lake… It has created a regional recreation facility in the lake and brought life back to the whole community up and down the lake.

The panel of judges represented the American Institute of Planners, the American Society of Landscape Architects and the American Society of Civil Engineers.

I was also very impressed with the fact that underground wiring has been made possible in some areas, and while I am sure all of us realise that underground wiring is costly and a monumental undertaking, I look forward to the time when this can be accomplished to an even greater scale, particularly at the community levels.

Mr. Speaker, I have with me here today some pictures on some of these points I've mentioned in regard to the underground wiring in the Nakusp area, and also the recreational facilities now being provided throughout the Arrow dam area. And maybe you'd like to pass these along, so you take a quick look at them.

There has been much said and written concerning the natural gas pipeline which would service Vancouver Island and communities en route to the island. Such a development would be of great benefit to my area, in particular — and especially to Powell River where it would afford an alternative source of power, and where it is essential for future development of that area.

It is my hope that, whatever company is given the contract, the Williams Lake – Powell River route will be chosen. Powell River area residents are fully aware of the importance of such a development, and Powell River will have a strong voice in presenting their proposals to the hearings.

Since most of my work in the province concerns the welfare of our senior citizens, I am pleased to see in the throne speech, mention of the housing and special care programmes for our senior citizens.

We have now what you would call a five-point acute care programme for our elderly citizens. First of all there is an acute care hospital programme which provides hospital care at $1 a day.

In the Province of British Columbia we have at the present time 123 hospitals, broken down to 95 acute, 7 Red Cross outposts, 6 rehabilitation hospitals, 7 extended-care hospitals, 1 private company hospital and 4 federal hospitals.

The total number of beds in British Columbia in hospitals is 13,834. While the total number of hospital beds includes acute, rehabilitative, and extended-care hospitals, senior citizens may avail themselves of any of these services as they require them.

For senior citizens requiring medical attention but not requiring acute type care, extended-care facilities fill an important role. This programme is expanding rapidly, and in addition to the seven extended-care hospitals I've mentioned already there are in addition 28 extended care units attached to acute hospitals throughout the province. In 1971 major projects completed involved a total of 772 beds, of which 221 were for extended care. In addition 1,799 beds were under construction at the end of 1971 with 1,054 of these being allocated for extended care. As of today, January 31, 1972 there are 3,228 beds in the planning stage with 1,300 of this number being scheduled for extended care.

Development of a third programme — the special-care programme administered under the Elderly Citizens Housing Act has long been an interest of mine. I was indeed pleased with the Premier's announcement of the programme last June. Before the programme was instituted special care facilities had been considered by some to be the "grey area" in service to our senior citizens.

Before implementation of a special-care service senior citizens have had only one choice. That of residing in a private nursing home or rest home. Now they will have an alternative.

As many of us are aware it takes as long to design a building as it does to construct it. Nevertheless we have already received working drawings and specifications required for construction of special-care homes and we feel extremely confident that by the end of the calendar year we shall have in operation at least a dozen major homes of this type, for the benefit of all citizens who require such a service.

Special care embraces those who require personal attention, but not 24-hour medical attention. For example, those who require assistance in washing, bathing, shaving, dressing, eating, people who are sometimes confined to bed or to a wheelchair but who normally see their own doctors for medical attention. In most such homes, a registered nurse will be on staff and will be qualified to give medication et cetera as required.

Should a resident of this type of home become ill, he or she would go to an acute hospital or an extended-care hospital for attention.

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

A copy of the regulations pertaining to special-care homes has been placed on Hon. Members' desks for their information today. In addition to these regulations it is important to emphasise that no means test is necessary for entry into special-care homes. I would like to point out that the provincial grant of 35 per cent for construction of such homes is an outright grant and for those citizens in need of this type of housing welfare payments have been adjusted to take care of their needs.

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

First there are the partial conversions. Three such examples at the present time are Glacier View in the Comox-Courtenay Valley, Olive Devaud Home in Powell River, and the German-Canadian Benevolent Society Home in Vancouver.

Glacier View is a permanent partial conversion home while the Powell River and Vancouver homes will be permitted to operate as temporary partial conversion areas

[ Page 167 ]

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

Second, new special-care homes in varying stages of development. Ten of these special-care homes are being developed, of which four are already operating elderly citizens' homes.

Number three, firm inquiries. Four firm inquiries have been received for such homes. They are from the Danish Home Society, the Port Moody Senior Citizens' Homes Society, the Calling Foundation and the Columbus Charities.

In the fourth category we have what you call a general inquiry. General inquiries have been received from 14 groups, nine of which are already operating senior citizens homes.

Thus to this date a total of 30 projects and inquiries are under way. Looking at the overall picture I will predict that within a year or two at most this programme would be equal to if not be even larger than the present construction programmes for elderly citizens' housing. It is proving very popular indeed and I cannot say too much in recommending this programme to Hon. Members of this House.

The fourth programme available to senior citizens under the Elderly Citizens' Housing Act is provision of boarding homes or resident type accommodations. This type of care provides for the person who wishes meal service in addition to accommodations. There are a number of these facilities throughout the province. Here again I would predict that some of these accommodations will in the future be coming up for consideration as partial conversions for special-care homes.

The fifth programme under the Act is the non-profit self-contained unit. I'm sure most of you are quite well aware of this programme. With still three months to go, as of December 31, 1971, 1,426 housing units have been completed under the Act and this total, I might say, is the largest for any one year since the programme was first announced. The cost of these units represents a total expenditure close to the $4 million mark.

As mentioned in the throne speech, at mid-year the total housing in this province under these programmes had passed the 10,000 unit mark. This is indeed an outstanding accomplishment on the part of our government for the well-being of our senior citizens.

In addition to these programmes, we have the "555 Plan" designed for pensioners who have a small amount of assets in the one form or another, who may or may not qualify for the other types of housing under the Elderly Citizens' Housing Act, but who nevertheless find it difficult to meet the current market prices for housing.

The essence of this programme is that using a small amount of the pensioner's assets as equity towards the purchase of the unit in a multiple project under the Strata Titles Act, the monthly amortisation costs plus the monthly assessments for operations, taxes and insurance reduces the total to an amount substantially below what the same units would cost or rent under ordinary circumstances.

Furthermore, this stabilises the amount so the cost will not increase abnormally under inflationary conditions. This is one of the benefits of the "555 Plan."

While proportions might be altered somewhat, the "555 Plan" implies that the pensioner would use $5,000 of his own assets, obtain $5,000 of first mortgage from Central Mortgage and Housing and $5,000 for a second mortgage from the province. Thus the pensioner would have a title to his unit and would qualify for the home-owner's grant in respect to property taxes. Roughly on a $15,000 unit financed as I have explained you would have a total monthly payment outlay of approximately $100.

In December, 1971, I had the privilege of opening the first project completed under this plan — a condominium-type building containing 14 units when the senior citizens themselves played an active part in the planning stages and in which they had taken note of management and in maintenance of the unit. They have formed their own management board and I would recommend that any member of this House interested in such accommodations visit the newly-completed project in the 1300 block of Seaton Street, Victoria.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I'm sending a card around a little later on for they have invited us to come and visit their project on Wednesday, February 9, at 11:00 and I would like to see as many members of this House visit this home next Wednesday, the 9th.

One of the things, Mr. Speaker, of which I am proud is that fact that I'm an honorary member of two Indian bands of this province. I was first given the name of Pudlass by the Kingcome band and then received the name Anasuplanamlich by the Bella Coola band. To have earned the respect of these two groups of people and to be received into their bands has a deep significance for me personally.

Over the years the Indian has not had much respect for the promises of politicians and others who administer his affairs. Too often, for the sake of a vote politicians go among people promising them a sudden Utopian existence if elected.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MRS. DAWSON: I'm telling those fellows. They know. They don't have to hold their heads up either, Mr. Speaker, the fellows across the way. They don't have to hold their heads up.

Politicians go among them and promise them sudden Utopian existence if elected, and then are never seen of or heard of again — until the next election comes up. The first citizens feel that it is a case of words, words, words.

Many of our first citizens are perfectly capable of having a say in the administration of their own affairs and the time for promises is past.

The people feel that it is evident that the administration of their affairs is top-heavy. They complained that they had not enough to do with the administration of their affairs. The complaint was repeated to me so often, that I became curious enough to check the number of people employed in British Columbia — and I'll include the Yukon regions. I have found that 995 people are employed as full-time or casual employees and it is interesting to note that of this total number of employees only 281 are Indian people.

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

HON. MRS. DAWSON: Yes, this was the federal government. Since there are approximately 36,000 Indian people living on reserves this figure means that there is about one Indian Affairs employee to 36 Indian people. Surely this proportion could be lessened and more Indian people placed in decision-making positions wherever possible. It is my feeling again, as I said, that the Indian people should be given a greater responsibility in the management of their own affairs.

The people further complain to me that not only is the

[ Page 168 ]

administration of their affairs top-heavy but that the paper work is made as difficult as possible for the band administrators. Again this is from the Indian Affairs department.

Comments are often made concerning paper work in provincial government, but let me tell you I have here in my hand a set of forms which are required to be turned in to the Indian Affairs department complete with the original and seven copies.

One copy is to be retained, I hope for the band's files, and the other seven copies are to be mailed to the Indian Affairs department. These forms represent operating and maintenance for one year. Imagine, having to make out eight copies.

I was shown three other sets of forms. Also required to be prepared with an original and seven copies and these forms were for projects for a five-year period.

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

Another matter which was brought to my attention was the fact that it has been the usual procedure to have Indian children go home for Christmas. These are the children who are attending school elsewhere than in their own reserves.

The children travelling to their own homes are placed usually in the custody of the Department of Indian Affairs while they are in transit to their homes.

It would appear that this past Christmas season funds for travel for these children had not been budgeted for by the Department of Indian Affairs. As a result a great deal of confusion ensued and I had a number of calls from parents of Indian children concerning the oversight.

Fortunately after a great deal of confusion the situation was remedied and funds were made available for these children to go home during the Christmas holiday season.

However, due to the lateness of the arrangements being made and as a result of prevailing weather conditions at the time I found that a number of the children were shuttled back and forth — some children in my area in particular being in transit between December 20 and December 28, without proper chaperoning. Of a total of 93 students travelling 54 were shunted back and forth between Port Hardy and Vancouver in the care of a P.W.A. pilot.

The parents of the stranded children had not been notified that their children were stranded and that they would not be home for Christmas. The parents could have been informed through the means of the Indians' radio communications, the "Raven" system, for although they said that the other lines were down, this system was functioning during this season and it could have been used to let the parents know where their children were.

In Klemtu in particular, the whereabouts of two children was not known and their parents were very concerned as to where they might be. I can only speak for my area but I am wondering if similar situations occurred in other parts of the province.

Just don't take this from me, I have a copy of a letter here that was sent from a lady in the Indians. A copy of this was sent to all the chiefs in my area, to myself, to Paul St. Pierre and to Senator Guy Williams.

I think this is deplorable and I think that better arrangements must be made by the Indian Affairs department when these children haven't even been sent home for Christmas.

It's not good enough. It's not good that when children 12 years old are left in the hands of just one person, a pilot, chaperoning should not be provided for them. We can't account for weather. Everyone understands that, but I feel these children should be given better attention than that. Incidently, for those who may not know about it, I mentioned the Raven communication programme. "Raven" is a communication programme facility for Indians. It is developing over the years and I think that in the future it is going to be a tremendous help to the Indian people, especially in the isolated area. Not only in the way of getting messages but through educational programmes for video tape and many other ways. I think it's going to be a great help to these people.

For your information here, this communication programme has received from the federal government through the Secretary of State, $25,000. However, the first citizens' fund has given a $105,000, and I was told by my good colleague, the Hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs, that a further $30,000 was programmed to them two or three days ago, making a total of $135,000 for this most essential communication programme.

Up to the end of March this year also, the provincial government through the first citizens' fund were given an additional $2,000. What was it for? Federal licensing fees for the Raven programme. By the end of February, some 20,000 people will be served in scattered and isolated areas by means of this communication system.

While housing is going ahead in many areas, among the Indians, there are still aspects of the programme which leave a lot to be desired. For example, the person or family who are to live in the home are not brought into the picture enough. Indeed, the individual Indian is given very little say in the planning and choosing of their home or scheme of the colours.

The homes tend to be stereotyped in some areas and not always is due regard given to the size of the family. In many instances the homes, while completed on the outside, are not properly finished on the inside. People have told me that very often the contractor is the building inspector, and others told me that the building inspector very seldom visited their building project. They have also said in some instances that the contractor has been paid before the homes were completed, and that they had no redress for incomplete workmanship.

In addition, while an Indian could be employed in building homes, in many areas, this is by no means the rule. Indeed, it has been known in some places that I have visited that Indian people who have been building homes on the reserves were put out of work when contractors employed help from outside the reserve area.

I think it might be worthwhile for the Indian people to look into the possibility of establishing their own plant or mill for the construction of pre-fab type of homes for their own people. A training programme could be set up whereby training could be given on site, under the present Manpower-sponsored training programmes for vocational skills.

Thus, not only would a training facility be provided, but also, the Indian people so trained would have acquired a skill which would make them employable in construction under the Manpower mobility programme.

During the past year, I have continued my visiting of our first citizens throughout the province and possibly one of the most rewarding visits I had was made at the request of the homemakers and other Indian groups to the Ingenika people.

The directions I had for finding this place were quite sketchy. I had been told that they were at Fort Ware, a community some 200 miles up-river from Fort McLeod.

[ Page 169 ]

There was no means of transportation to this area, other than by barge from Mackenzie or by flying in when the mail went in on Thursdays.

To reach Fort Ware, one must go by Williston Lake for some miles. I must say how I enjoyed the scenery. It's a real rugged country and just beautiful to see.

Upon arrival at Fort Ware, I discovered that the band I wanted to see was another 60 or 70 miles away. However, the people at Fort Ware were very pleased to find someone who was going to visit the Ingenika people and immediately requested that I take letters and other articles to their relations at Ingenika. The people at Fort Ware are in a reserve. I found that they have a well-designed village, built mainly of logs that have been stripped. They have a post-office and a store. They use river boats for transportation along the swift-flowing river. There's your answer. They have a health centre of which they are very proud. A nurse visits the village quite regularly.

I spent some time with the Fort Ware people and found that they were concerned about the lack of supplies getting up to Ingenika.

The Ingenika band has been discussed on radio and television and other media as they moved to a new location when the W.A.C. Bennett dam was being constructed.

At the time of my visit they were just getting settled in. There was no place to land the plane that I was riding in — as a matter of fact a boat couldn't land there very well. The only way to gain the shore was to tie up to the largest floating log possible, then scramble over brush and stumps for some 50 or 60 yards.

Once ashore, I was met by Francis Issac who is the band counsellor for his people. The chief of the band when I was there did not live on the reserve.

The people were busily engaged in constructing houses made from logs, but they were very frustrated in their efforts to complete the houses due to the lack of delivery of plywood, windows, doors, nails and heaters which had been promised by the Department of Indian Affairs.

What was more shocking was the fact that they had no deliveries of medical supplies of any kind whatsoever and two of the children on the site were quite ill from a form of 'flu.'

The people were sleeping in tents while engaged in constructing their homes. Their cooking facilities consisted of open fires with metal grills and stands made from wood, or metal hooks were used to hang the pots.

The day before my arrival, Francis had shot a moose and the meat had been prepared and was already hanging out to dry. Some had been smoked over an open fire. Some of the women were rendering down bear fat and there was one lady who had just finished making a large pot of moose-meat soup.

The people had no refrigeration other than the cold water from the river. This they used, keeping perishable foods from spoiling by this means.

The people are still hunters to some extent. However, their arrangements might have been all right for summer camp, but certainly not for the approaching winter, which comes early in that part of the country. There were a number of children in the camp when I was there and Francis Issac told me that they would be leaving in a week or so's time for school.

The people of the camp were very pleased to have someone come in to visit them and I was invited to share their meal, with much apologising on their part for lack of facilities. I found the moose meat delicious and since it had almost taken me all day to get there, I very much enjoyed a nice cup of coffee, brewed over an open fire and having a distinct tang of the woods about it.

Francis showed me a number of sites for homes and introduced me to several of the men who were busy cutting logs and stripping them for building. All about the site was a hive of activity and it was evident that here was a people who were industriously engaged in trying to set up decent homes for themselves and to establish a village literally out of the virgin territory. Francis remarked that moose were plentiful and that he had been very pleased to get three of them in a short space of time.

The people were very thrilled to get messages from the folks in Fort Ware and two of them gave me letters to drop off when I got off to Fort McLeod.

I learned from Francis and others there that although they had their problems in the new location and that even yet it may not yet become a permanent location for them, all they were really concerned about was that they desperately needed material to finish their homes and that they were unable to reach anyone who had the authority to get such material to them.

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

Leaving the village, I was shown a gasoline-powered washing machine, the only one in the village. The machine was by the river bank and the people told me that it was out of order because a small part had broken down and they were still waiting three months at this time for the part to come.

Getting away from the village was an experience in itself, quite unique for me. Due to the swift current in the river and to the lack of a boat ramp of any kind, I could not leave by my original landing place and the people had to ferry me out by canoe. I went down the river and the canoe developed a leak and we had to bail like mad to keep afloat.

Because of the swift current and a strong wind, we had difficulty in keeping on course. It's quite an experience climbing up on the pontoons in the middle of the swift-flowing river and climbing into the plane. It is quite an experience.

However, as soon as I reached Fort McLeod, I telephoned Victoria to find out why the supplies had not reached these people. My only concern at that time was that regardless of whose responsibility it might properly have been, the supplies should be sent to the area as quickly as possible.

Thanks to the good offices of my colleagues, the Hon. Minister of Lands and Forests, the Hon. Minister of Health and the Hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs, all of whom were quick to initiate action on behalf of the Ingenika people with the Department of Indian Affairs…

Interjection by Hon. Member.

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

Medical supplies were sent in almost immediately and the building supplies necessary to complete the homes were subsequently delivered.

As of October 28, 1971, I was very pleased to have a report from the zone director of health services in the Indian Affairs. He informed me that most of the houses had been completed and were occupied. In addition, a clinic has been established and a third-year medical student presently living in the area is in charge of dispensing medical supplies.

[ Page 170 ]

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

I am going to read you a part of it because I thought, I appreciated getting this letter from him. "We are all very grateful for what you have done on our behalf. We got all the supplies for the housing which is very important to us under the circumstances."

I appreciated getting a letter from Francis Issac.

One amusing incident in the report from the zone director, was the request from Francis Issac that a padlock be placed on the door of the health clinic privy. He said this was to prevent children falling in the 10-foot hole under the privy, dug by Francis. I couldn't help thinking that without the padlock he could well have had a problem on his hands, especially if the part for the washing machine had still not arrived.

While I was in the northern area of British Columbia, I also visited reserves in the Fort St. James, Fraser Lake, Vanderhoof and Stony Creek Area. At Stony Creek the chief is a lady and she and I had a long and interesting chat over a cup of coffee.

The chief, Mrs. Sophie Thomas, mentioned that apart from normal administration problems, she was finding it difficult to get roadwork and sewer and water projects completed on her reserve. She was working on a very excellent programme for bringing home management courses into her village.

One thing that occurred to me that was brought to my attention by those who were on the reserve as well, was that the medical clinics established in the reserves are only used for a very short period of time. It seems to me that as these buildings are heated and are usually serviced, they could be put to more practical service, to multiple use, for example, for Red Cross home nursing courses and such like, that the women would enjoy right there on the reserve.

In addition to bailing out a canoe, I had another experience which was to me was a real ego booster. Visiting a reserve quite early one Saturday morning, I was meeting with a group of people in a house, and while we were discussing their affairs, people kept wandering in and out of the house. One of the visitors looked me over two or three times and then asked me: "How much would it cost to keep you for a year, missus?" I replied that it would be plenty as I had a good appetite and he said: "Well, you look as if you could work hard and it might be worth it." I'll tell you the rest some other time.

During 1971, the All Native Children's Tattoo added its colourful and interesting contribution to our centennial year celebration. The group travelled to 12 communities throughout our province and comprised about 360 native children and supervisors. All participants on the floor, and those whose charges were lighting and decoration, were young people between the age of eight and 18. They brought enjoyment and appreciation of Indian culture to many thousands of people attending their performances throughout British Columbia.

During the entire tour I travelled with these young people and earned nothing but the highest praise for them not only for their behaviour while travelling and staying in hotels and motels where they were allocated but also for the excellence of the standard of their performance, the esprit de corps and the cooperation of the supervisors and instructors was tremendous.

Now, Mr. Speaker, in case Hon. Members would like I have some pictures of the tattoo that they might like to see. I also have pictures of the Ingenika band and the changes as of October. You can see the construction of these log cabins. Hon. Members might like to see these. Please let me have them back because one of the albums was loaned to me.

All the technological wonders of this age with the power to change our whole environment and the environment of our children and their children may make for changes to better our world. Nevertheless, in passing on the advances of our age to our future generations and in giving these generations the impetus to change their whole environment, we must be fully aware that in so doing we also pass to them a set of values which they take from our lives and from our examples.

Children in their formative years spend much time in the home and they are influenced by what they see and hear in their home environment. Schools, too, play an important role and in these early school years the children acquire the discipline of good work habits and have application to the task at hand which paves the way for successful adulthood.

While both home and school environments affect the child so profoundly in his formative years, the youngster who is exposed to the teachings basic to our society — the code for behaviour of man among his fellow men as set forth in the ancient behavioural code the 10 commandments — is indeed fortunate.

From history's earliest recorded time, man has shared his strength with other men, in the effort for survival. He has been obliged to dwell in communities. From the uniting of his strength and survival instinct with other men, he found it necessary to observe a code of living so that survival of his species is assured.

There can be no doubt that the Hebraic-Christian tradition, with its emphasis on the sanctity of each human soul, was one of the mainsprings of the development of democracy in this land of pioneers. The moral basis of our very culture rests on the dual postulate of the sacrosanct nature of the individual and the duty of each person to do unto others as he would have others do unto him.

Up to a point, a satisfactory system of ethics can be derived solely from the consideration of the welfare of the community and the definitions of right and wrong can be formulated in terms of social consequence of the individual's needs.

Is it not true that all but a very small number of honest and intelligent people of all ages of this nation will affirm that the universe and the order of things in it is such that a sane individual's acts are subject to moral judgments under all circumstances and under all conditions? We are united by an affirmation of the common basis of our many faiths. While we ourselves may not understand, or indeed be interested in the beliefs of others around us, we must acknowledge the common denominator present — that of the existence of a universal set of laws for living.

A nation, a community, or an individual pays a price when the basic code is abandoned or ignored, and again in ancient history we have a number of examples of such events.

The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah is one of the earliest recorded punishments meted out to a people who had offended the basic code of living. There's a record of Abraham having interceded with God for the people of these cities, people who had been given a chance to improve their conditions and their behaviour, but had not taken advantage of the offer. As a result, their cities were destroyed.

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

[ Page 171 ]

and sulphurous character of the country surrounding the area and the cities, great as Abraham's faith had been, his intercession had been based on an insufficient principle.

Abraham thought in terms of communities while according to translations that I was reading, God thought in terms of the individual.

The behaviour of the individuals in these two cities had remained unchanged, despite a number of warnings, and the people there had made no attempt to restrain nor to disguise their offences against the law. The eventual destruction of the two cities and the fate that befell Lot's wife, who was covered with the heaving and violently-disturbed rock salt found in that area, points out that there is a moral demand as well as a physical demand in this story.

For 1,000 years, the builders of the Roman Empire laboured diligently and effectively to bring light, freedom and justice into a world which had been barren of such things.

Their armies and their navy welded into the Roman Empire the major part of the known world and brought peace and law and order to its peoples. Commerce reached the highest degree of development ever known and brought to Romans a standard of living not to be approached for another 1,000 years. With the raising of living standards came a generous measure of leisure and culture.

Then the sun began to set on Rome. Slowly but steadily the tide of the Empire ebbed and the glory and the power that once was Rome faded and died. The barbarians stormed her gates and the light which Rome had brought to the world dimmed and died. Not for another 1,000 years was the world to know anything but chaos and fear and suffering and ignorance.

Why did Rome fall? Rome fell because the nation collapsed morally and spiritually; because a hardy race thrifty and industrious gave way to corruption and waste and indolence; because the nation bartered its ancient heritage of hard-won freedom for the specious ease and false security of an indolent and easy way of life.

We like to think that our society has come a long way since the time of Sodom and Gomorrah and Roman times. We like to think of our society as civilised. But do we really realise that civilisation is a recent phenomenon in human history.

For all practical purposes, the material of human nature within our civilisation is the same as that with which the Stone-age men and women had to work.

Our environment is different, granted, but basically we are primitive people in a modern world. It is dangerous as well as advantageous to be heirs of all that has passed insofar as material things are concerned and to carry with us still urges and impulses of ancient days.

There are three things we can do with our instincts in trying to conform to the requirements of civilisation: we could follow our primal impulses, we can deny their existence, or we use them for ends which are in harmony with our most ardent wishes.

The third, of course, is the most desirable. It's the outcome of self-control and, says George Bernard Shaw: "The survival of the fittest means finally the survival of the self-controlled, because they alone can adapt themselves to the perpetual shifting of conditions."

If we recognise the need of self-control in our lives and the need to regulate our instincts and emotions by self-discipline we have passed the first hurdle. But there is more to it than that.

Children may take life as frankly beyond them. They do not feel the need to fit their environment or the things in it that happen to them into patterns of our living. But adults govern their lives by reason, at least I hope, and the fuel behind reason for effective reasoning is knowledge.

We have to school ourselves to think things out in their relations to other things; we have to train ourselves to look at all sides of the question. A well-disciplined person must use reason before he can judge what is right or what is wrong, what is good for him, or what may be harmful to him, what is a wise or unwise course of action either mentally or physically. And in addition he must not only reason selfishly for himself, he must take into consideration the results of his actions from those within his home environment, his family circle, those in his community, and indeed more broadly speaking society as a whole.

Within his home environment the parent must be ever-conscious of his responsibility for inculcating in his children a fundamental respect for universal laws of living, laws which were basic to man's first attempts at civilisation and laws which have throughout the centuries remained unchanged. Times change and behavioural patterns tend to swing with the changing times. However, the fundamental principles applying to man's co-existence with his fellow man must remain the same.

Anything which attempts to undermine these fundamental principles of co-existence, must be considered by each and every one of us in the light of reason. Governments at all levels endeavour to legislate improvements in areas of concern to all of us — concern for example for the abuse of alcohol, and the abuse of drugs and the problems arising from such abuse.

There are those in our society who are ruthlessly prepared to disregard not only the fundamental laws basic to our society as well as disregarding the laws of the land, but also have a total disregard for their fellow man for the sake of amassing a quick fortune through promoting and selling substances which interfere with our individual reasoning and which undermine the foundation of our society.

They care little, in their desire to prey upon human weaknesses for purposes of monetary gain, that those who purchase what they peddle may become broken in health and in mind and as a result become an irreparable loss to our society.

What has been said about pollution of our environment? I ask you is there perhaps a greater and more insidious pollution — a pollution of which we are less consciously aware perhaps than that of our environment?

The thinking and the reasoning adult must be increasingly conscious of drugs as pollutants of the mind. While many of us are fortunate in having enough self-discipline and knowledge of the dangers inherent in these pollutants it is our responsibility as parents to see that our children are made aware through family discussion, instruction in school, local community awareness programmes, through the news media, and indeed through any means at our disposal to make note to our children of the mental and physical dangers inherent in the use of these pollutants of the human race.

Being ever-conscious of this responsibility in the so-called "permissive" age in which we live parents can go a long way towards helping the up-coming generation step into adulthood as healthy, useful and mentally alert citizens.

While awareness of the pollutants available to ourselves and our children is essential, as parents we must recognise that while children may not consider the need to fit their

[ Page 172 ]

environment around them into patterns of meaning they do learn from their environment and they learn as they live from day to day.

It is important to bear in mind, and I would like to quote this poem I read the other day and maybe you have heard it lately too.

A child that lives with ridicule learns to be timid. A child that lives with criticism learns to condemn. A child that lives with distrust learns to be deceitful. A child that lives with antagonism learns to be hostile. A child that lives with affection learns to love. A child that lives with truth learns justice. A child that lives with praise learns to appreciate. A child that lives with sharing learns to be considerate. A child that lives with knowledge learns wisdom. A child that lives with patience learns to be tolerant and a child that lives with happiness will find love and beauty.

It's probably a tall order for us as parents to remember all these things and to practice them in our everyday lives, in our day-to-day living.

However, if we remember the basic tenets of our society and our responsibility to the generation coming after us we should not find the responsibility too heavy upon us.

If each and every one of us remembers the dual postulate of our development as a democratic country — the nature of the individual and duty of each person to do unto others as he would have others do unto him — we would be well on the way, to combatting the most vile pollutants of our society, the destruction of human minds from material gains.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Surrey.

MR. E. HALL (Surrey): Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest to the end of that speech, and I thought for a second we were getting a rallying call for the election. Sodom today, and Gomorrah tomorrow.

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

I want to say, Mr. Speaker, it's a pleasure to take part again in this debate and to bring before the government some of the areas of concern. They may want later on in the session to address themselves to these problems that we bring before them.

But first, like many others, I want to report on a couple of the things that happened since we were here together. I remember a debate about advertising and I took that to heart, Mr. Speaker, and I left here and I threw away my cigars and I haven't smoked since.

I also managed to lose some weight and if I can manage to do those two things anybody in this House can do them, I'll tell you that.

I left Victoria and I went to Ottawa just after the end of the session last year. I was sitting in the gallery of the federal House one day and I saw on the other side of the House our new Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Chabot). He was getting an on-the-job-training programme I suppose. I waved to him. I gave him the signal and congratulated him by a hand signal. (Laughter). We're not allowed to do that in this House.

But I want to say seriously that the new Minister of Labour unfortunately as his first discernible act cocked his nose at this Legislature on opening day or the day before, and I want to take back that hand signal. I'm not going to congratulate him because I think we are in worse trouble than we were before.

We also had last year, Mr. Speaker, the nuclear blast at Amchitka. We saw how thousands of young people gathered to protest that event. We saw thousands of people signing protests and I wonder how much more could have been done if this government had seized the opportunity two years earlier to do something about it. How we could have added some focus to that protest? There were opportunities given to this Legislature at that time.

I wonder, when the aftermath is examined, when the facts come from Amchitka — and it's difficult to get some of those facts, one appears to be that we've lost over 1,000 otters in that area, just one point that's filtered out — I wonder if the whole hypocritical fact of that blast being allowed on an island as part of a national wildlife refuge was going to mean anything to anybody as far as what we do from here on in.

I think the fight should still go on, Mr. Speaker, against nuclear testing no matter who does it, no matter where it comes from. And I think this government could do a lot worse than help those groups who are continuing their activity post-Amchitka, and post the mainland Chinese testing just a few weeks ago.

This government could do a lot worse as I say, to give some focus and some assistance to those groups who wish to continue to draw attention to the problems that are obviously involved in nuclear testing.

I don't suppose, Mr. Speaker, that anybody is going to be very surprised if I mention one subject today, and that's the question of glue sniffing.

Three years ago, almost to the day, I was the first M.L.A. to draw the attention of the Legislature to the problems of adolescents using toxic solvents. Three years ago to the day, Mr. Speaker, on January 29, I went through a series of facts and shared some figures and some opinions with the House and for the next few weeks or there abouts this item was discussed in the newspapers and the floor of this chamber.

At the time I was attacked — I was ripped into — that's about the only expression one can use, if one looks at the papers — by one of the lady Cabinet Ministers of using this problem for political purpose. "Emotionalism", "why hadn't we reported it to the police" and so on.

I answered those questions — that it had been reported to the Attorney General, it was being done right then. It had been reported to the youth officer in a police force.

No wonder I've got the same kind of comments now. Because when we checked the record we had in those days we find out that the Minister responsible, the Attorney General promised an investigation. I quote from the Vancouver Province of January 31: "In a discussion with Dr. Mott, the deputy Medical Officer of Health in the city of Vancouver… "And later on, this time in the Vancouver Sun: "The Attorney General said Wednesday he intended to investigate reports. He didn't know what could be done". Another column is regarding the attitude of the lady Minister from Little Mountain (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy).

And here we are three years later and since that time Mr. Speaker, we've asked for the committee on drugs to be re-established. We've asked a report on their work, we've asked for a report from the Minister of Education on what he's done following that committee report. As you can see nothing was done Mr. Speaker — just vague and misleading promises — and three years later the Attorney-General is making the same vague and misleading promises.

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

[ Page 173 ]

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

MR. SPEAKER: I think unless the word "misleading" is prefaced by "a deliberate method" to mislead, or imputing that the Minister deliberately mislead, I could not ask for a withdrawal.

MR. HALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On this matter I feel that the attitude and the answers of the Hon. Attorney General indicate that he should move over. I think that the Hon. Attorney General should move over and let somebody do this job who has a will, who's determined to do something about it.

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

The House committee on drugs was killed — was stifled I think is the popular expression these days. Resolutions from this side of the House were ignored. And now we've got a new council on drug abuse set up last year and I'd like to know what it has done because I don't think the government really knows where to go with this problem.

They're not going to cure the drug scene by using flossy advertisements on television. And something more than long-range educational films is required.

Mr. Speaker, apart from a couple of trial programmes as well as the volunteer groups not a single person directly traceable to an action of this government has been placed on the streets to try and help solve this problem. That's where the problem will be solved — where the action is. Not in this chamber, only by finding out from the people who are part and parcel of the whole scene, can we get any forward movement in solving this problem.

But in the meantime, Mr. Speaker, we've got to start collecting those facts. We've got to start investigating. And I appeal once again of the House to meet and to work and fulfill what is now a fairly obvious duty.

Mr. Speaker this is the sixth time that I've had the pleasure of engaging in the throne debate. The attention of the politicians and the teachers, the trustees, the Press and the public will once again be diverted to the question of bricks and mortar, of dollars and cents. The bricks and mortar, dollars and cents questions of education. Once again, Mr. Speaker, the government has so arranged its affairs that no discussion is likely on other crucial aspects of education while this Legislature is sitting.

The quality of education, the whys and wherefores of education, cannot be discussed after all the decisions about plants and formula and budgets and deficits have been made.

No one, I suggest, is putting up any real argument that we should spend more than a third of our annual budget on education. What people are asked about are questions of values of direction, and about an overall plan. It becomes obvious to anyone who cares to look that no one really knows what's really going on in post-secondary education.

I ask some simple questions. Who is in charge of the game plan for post-secondary education? Who's doing the research, who's doing the decision making for the pyramid that we have in the department of education, and outside in the universities and colleges?

Who's in charge of dovetailing the problems and the answers of our college system into and as a replacement for the traditional university stream?

I just did some random surveys of university graduates in the years that this government has been in power. I took four fields of endeavour which I think we spend more than enough time talking about — doctors, social workers, dentists and lawyers.

In 1952, Mr. Speaker, 56 doctors graduated — that was actually the class of '53. So in the early part of the 50's, 56 doctors graduated, 54 social workers graduated, no dentists, and 121 lawyers.

In 1971 there were 60 doctors graduated, an increase of 6 for 20 years; 61 social workers graduated compared to the 54 I mentioned in 1952, although there has been a peak of some 90-odd in the mid 60's; 20 dentists graduated — 20 dentists for the province of British Columbia, and 186 lawyers graduated.

They are basic figures, they are raw figures. I only put them out to show you there seems to be something going wrong. Although medicare has been a factor in this province for a number of years, although our population is growing as one of the fastest rates in Canada, we produced the same number of doctors as we did 20 years ago.

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

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

MR. HALL: Not much better performance as far as social workers are concerned. A terrible performance as far as dentists are concerned, and a huge increase in the number of lawyers. And that says something of our values and our organisation of education and perhaps about our system generally.

I can only make a passing reference to education, because of the bill introduced on Friday. I will say that it's pretty obvious now that the whole education force in the province, teachers, students, trustees, could only consider the Minister in this government an educational disaster.

Mr. Speaker, any cursory or detailed analysis of the matters that are coming before us as individual M.L.A.'s and any knowledge at all of our constituencies and the province could only lead us to the view today that one of the major problems is helping young people deal with their problems.

So often they say that they are a problem themselves, and I prefer to phrase it in that way, and the problems that the young people have to contend with today are cruelly complex. And the problems of both what they are doing and, of course, the young people themselves.

A list would include matters about drugs, about unemployment — we know there's a larger percentage of young unemployed than ever before — the question of drop-outs from our public school system, the question of street people, the question of transients that many ministers gave a great deal of attention to this last summer, the difficulties in our post-secondary education, the question that I discussed with our Attorney General a year ago.

Are we going to make any contribution to a debate about young offenders? And we know what happened to the bill. I still think that this House should afford an opportunity to debate that — what kind of legislation we'd like British Columbia to suggest to the federal House.

Problems about driving, about car insurance that are associated with young people, and of course the feeling of irrelevance and what some people call the communication gap.

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

[ Page 174 ]

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

Now these remarks can't apply to every child any more than they apply to any one single child. But that's the feeling I have. And we're doing little if anything about this. Apart from making sure we're just funnelling money around. Channelling money around. And I suppose it's right to expect to debate about the value of the dollar spent. It's also valuable, I think, to get the young people's opinion of those dollars spent, and the value of the system which I maintain is less than satisfactory.

Some of the programmes this government talks about are good, but I wonder how relevant. The forestry camp programme is a good one, but how relevant is it to the people I meet in Whalley and in Cloverdale and in New Westminster? They show perhaps some of the rural bias of this government, instead of awareness of the problems of the cities, that I'm sure the Vancouver Members know about and should be talking about.

But I'd like to see a specific and a particular department, Mr. Speaker, set up to deal with the young people and their problems, and their place in today's society. I'd like to see a T.V. channel secured now before it's too late, a co-ordination of government efforts and a start made on programmes by young people themselves.

Again I say that won't be done inside this chamber. It won't be done inside a bureaucrat's office, or a departmental office. It will only be done by going both physically and mentally to where the problems are and where the people are.

I think one of our first tasks is going to be to find out who we're concerned about — an inventory of the problem and a description of the concerns and the problems. It's almost a cliche to talk about "involvement". But I can think of no other word to describe what I consider has to be done.

I listen to some of the speakers who go on tour and some very sincere and worthwhile people in our own civil service on some of these programmes. But I am convinced in my own mind that the days of thinking that these problems can be solved by some up-to-date pro-rec programme or by simply the provision of playing fields or by the building of community centres, they've surely gone. We've gone past that. I suggest that while those schemes are important, in the main they are dealing with the non-problem people.

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

I mentioned unemployment. That's serious. I want to suggest why I think it is more serious than enough and how I think this government has got a larger role to play than that which it is prepared to admit.

Because, Mr. Speaker, here in British Columbia it is now very obvious we're just simply an outpost for the North American industrial system — a corporate system, a system in private hands.

It's also a closed system, Mr. Speaker. It's a system that's designed to serve the North American industrial machine and throughout the history of this province and during the whole of the Bennett years — as we now hear them called — we in British Columbia have been a store-house of energy, a store-house of resources for the North American machine.

That's why, Mr. Speaker, under the Social Credit administration we remained a province entirely dependent on the export of natural resources.

We have seen the resources slipping out of our control so that when we find our oil and our gas is owned by U.S. interests we're surprised. We find our minerals are owned by U.S. and Japanese interests and our forest industry is being gobbled up by multi-national corporations.

It's increasing our dependence on our natural resource industries and it's a limiting factor in the growth and development of secondary industry in this province.

An economy as dependent as ours on natural resources is an economy that is subject to the buffeting of world demand for those self-same resources. A natural resource economy is one that will never provide enough jobs simply because our natural resource industries are not labour intensive. We must develop a sophisticated and diversified manufacturing industry and it's quite clear that the government — and this was re-echoed by a government member the other day — is not able to develop such a programme.

It has no policy for the development of resources worthy of the name. Its only policy, Mr. Speaker, has been "come and get it." That's why we are hit by unemployment. That's the responsibility that this government cannot shift to Ottawa.

You can talk all you like about Gross National Product. Talk all you like about Trudeau's policies. Valid comments have been made by some of the Ministers in the debate last year and already this year. But that dependence that I've illustrated is the one responsibility you can't shift to Ottawa.

That's why our leader talks about Socred waste and welfare. That's why there's no place in our system for thousands of people. There's no place for the old age pensioner, no place for the people on welfare, no place for the unemployed, no place for the working poor, and certainly no place for the native Indian.

All these people live outside your corporate system. The system doesn't require them as workers and it doesn't particularly require them any more as consumers.

We as legislators and as concerned people provide a patchwork quilt of welfare measures to solve our collective consciences. But the real tragedy is that 20 per cent of our people are deprived of the opportunity to play a constructive part in the life and work of the province. And that's waste. That's again the waste of welfare that my leader talks about.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. HALL: I'm talking about this province here and now. The statistics and raw facts given to us in the throne speech — and they'll be repeated by the new Minister of Labour until we're sick of hearing them — aren't good enough. About how "the graph has gone up here" and how "there's more people working".

I'm talking about the fact that 20 per cent of the people are not — and I repeat not — part of the system. Two years ago and again last year I asked for real figures and I challenge the new Minister to tell us who is unemployed, what skills are unemployed and under-employed, what mismatching of skills are there? Who is taking count? Who is doing the research?

AN HON. MEMBER: He just left.

MR. HALL: A whole range of facts should be made available to us and if not to us, to the department to find out what kind of unemployment. Then something can be done following modern analysis.

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

[ Page 175 ]

set free.

AN HON. MEMBER: Retired!

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. HALL: He can change the buttons on the computer now, and he can stop studying fertility rates — one of the last reports I got. He could start to investigate the immediate problems of the unemployed. Let him put his machinery to work. I join with the Hon. Member down the row here who said that it is now almost impossible to discern any movement at all in that ministry.

Mr. Speaker, I have a lot more to say about this particular item of unemployment and the working poor during estimates in the budget debate. But let me conclude by saying on this subject that unless we establish this kind of information, unless we establish a B.C. Planning and Development Council that could make an intensive and continuing review of the industrial scene to chart a course for the growth and expansion of secondary industry in the province, we're all going to fail. We will all fail.

The council could be empowered to survey investment patterns and requirements and would be required to lay plans before the cabinet because the cabinet and ultimately the Legislature must be responsible for the planning of economic future.

The council would concern itself with the total picture, not just with the luring of investment in the province, no matter what kind of investment it is or where it comes from.

The council and the cabinet would then be committed to a policy of full employment, a policy designed to end the cyclical and seasonal recessions that deprive so many people of the opportunity I mentioned — The opportunity, Mr. Speaker, of doing some useful work. We could stop depriving our economy of the services of those people.

The government is fond of saying that its massive expenditures on dam construction are the essential foundation of future prosperity in the province. But what they don't seem to realise, Mr. Speaker, what the government obviously fails to realise is that unless you've got a highly-skilled and a well-educated people there will be no economic future at all for this province and the prosperity is meaningless if only a few people share in it. It's no good having prosperity, it's no good showing graphs if only a few people are sharing in that kind of prosperity.

I point out that our system is cruel because it excludes so many people from a life of reward and of recognition and consigns them to idleness and unemployment or at the very best unsteady, patchy work on the fringe of this North American industrial machine. Mr. Speaker, I said "our system" and I really want to amend that. It's their system over there, not our system over here.

Mr. Speaker, I talked about welfare and I want to conclude by bringing the attention of the House to the question of welfare in Surrey. We've seen a lot of statements in the Press.

I've been uttering warnings about social welfare in Surrey for these last six years. Headline grabbers on the municipal council have come out with all sorts of absurd suggestions. The problems facing Surrey find no solution, no immediate solution in the Speech from the Throne, but I suppose it would be too much to expect that. They may in the legislation that's hinted on but unless there are some solutions on welfare costs, on housing and flooding, the majority of my constituents will again be both disgruntled and disappointed with the government's performance.

I'm going to present Surrey's case on welfare at the appropriate time during estimates. But I do want to read some sections of the report that the people of Surrey are faced with — simply that the council in the municipality of Surrey is requesting that cost-sharing on welfare be changed so that 100 per cent of the costs are borne by the senior government.

Council is also concerned — and this is contained in the regulations — that some municipalities with a population of over 15,000 are still only paying a per-capita fee to the province, whereas my municipality is required to administer its own welfare department at a cost of $2 per capita, as against the 60 cents that's being provided by some municipalities. We seem to have found a way of interpreting the regulations.

Mr. Speaker, in six years the staff has grown from 28 people to 42 people. The costs have escalated. The administrative costs alone are in the hundreds of thousands. One of the statements made by the administrator — I want to read this to you, Mr. Speaker, because I could hardly believe it when I first read it — he is referring to a cessation of any services in the area as put forward by the mayor of the district. He says:

Surrey is predominantly a working man's municipality, and any reduction in services would seriously affect the majority of people in Surrey. Furthermore, as social assistance only provides a basic minimum standard of living any interruption in income for this group could incite retaliation reminiscent of the 1930's. Now I didn't think I would ever read a statement like that in this day and age by somebody who is as close to the scene as the administrator in the Municipality of Surrey.

But it is obvious that the problem is great. It's obvious that the passage of three recommendations by the municipality — first of all that it should be assumed to be 100 per cent of the costs by senior governments, secondly that the formula be changed so that once again people who have got money coming to them from this government get it on time, at the right time, in the right place in the right amount. That doesn't happen often enough when you have to deal with this government in terms of transferance of payment.

If the government lived up to the regularity provisions of the Act the budget in Surrey could be altered by some $230,000. Because of the back-log in payments and the waiting for moneys to come in,

But as I say, Mr. Speaker, I'll be going into that in detail with the Minister and in joining the budget debate. But it is an important matter. It faces Surrey, one of the fastest growing municipalities that unfortunately has suffered a rate above the provincial averages social welfare case-load.

I intend to place a lot more of those problems before you in the next few weeks. But as a start, the Speech from the Throne leaves a lot to be desired and this government, Mr. Speaker, has a lot to answer for.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for North Vancouver–Capilano.

MR. D.M. BROUSSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Speaker, it's been fashionable in this debate to make some comment on the provision of new quarters from the Minister of Public Works, that we've been enjoying.

[ Page 176 ]

Now, Mr. Speaker, I really don't want to look a gift horse in the mouth but I do want to make some comments about this. Our quarters have been moved from here to the far side over here and as a result of that, Mr. Speaker I have occasion now to use this corridor along here a good deal more often than I used to. I find that the specifications used by the Department of Public Works in hanging the little wooden signs that say "Speaker's Corridor" are rather low for some of us.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. BROUSSON: I see the Minister is not in the House at present but I hope that someone will ask the Minister if perhaps he could adjust the height of the little wooden signs. Some of us find that it catches us in just the hardest spot.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. BROUSSON: Mr. Speaker, the standard of speeches delivered in this debate by the members of the Liberal Party has been very high this year. (Laughter).

I think I'll have, I'm sure Mr. Speaker, I'll have some difficulty matching the intellectual quality or the eloquence of those who have preceded me from this party. (Laughter).

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. BROUSSON: But perhaps I can follow them in the theme of inquiring regarding some of the things that were left out of the Speech from the Throne — those policies that the government did not include in their report to British Columbia. For instance, Mr. Speaker, first let us consider the matter of oil leases and oil drilling in coastal waters around British Columbia.

It was amusing last week to hear the Hon. Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Williston) announcing with glee that he thought he had caught the federal government off-base in awarding a preliminary exploration permit for an area off the Queen Charlotte Islands and then an hour or so later we learned that the provincial Department of Mines issues these permits as a matter of routine and did so very recently to another oil company.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. BROUSSON: It's well-known, of course, that the Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Kiernan) would like to find ways and means to issue leases for oil drilling in the Strait of Georgia. Only action by the federal government has locked the Strait of Georgia away from the oil companies. Much to this government's regret.

Mr. Speaker, I'm tired of this kind of politics that Victoria and Ottawa keep on playing in this matter of off-shore oil rights, as well as in many other areas affecting the environment.

I'd like to tell the House, Mr. Speaker, the story of another country in the Commonwealth in dealing with an equally difficult problem in a way that puts Canada and British Columbia to shame.

The Great Barrier Reef lies off the north-east coast of Australia and the State of Queensland. It's over 1,000 miles long and it varies from just a short distance to the mainland to as much as several hundred miles out. It is well-known as the outstanding coral reef area in the world, and I don't have to dwell here on its great beauties and ecological importance. There has been controversy in Australia just as in other parts of the world regarding the dangers of oil exploration. I believe the action Australia has taken might teach Canada and British Columbia a valuable lesson.

Oil and gas are in danger of becoming diminishing resources and pressure for their discovery is certain to increase. At the same time, we have only one natural environment and it is too precious to be destroyed or damaged. What did Australia do?

The federal government of the Commonwealth of Australia and the State of Queensland agreed to co-operate on a Royal commission to enquire into exploration and drilling in the region of the Great Barrier Reef.

Can you imagine the Government of British Columbia and the Government of Canada co-operating in this manner? Australia and Queensland each appointed a Royal commission, comprising the same members and the same terms of reference. Let me read some of the terms of reference.

1. Taking into account existing world technology in relation to drilling for petroleum and safety precautions relating thereto, what risk is there of an oil or gas leak in exploratory or production drilling for petroleum in the area of the Great Barrier Reef?

2. What would be the probable effects of such an oil or gas leak and of the subsequent remedial measures on

    a. The coral reefs themselves

    b. The coast line

    c. The ecological and biological aspects of life in that area.

3. Are there localities in the area of the Great Barrier Reef and if so, what are the geographical limits wherein the effects of an oil or gas leak would cause so little detriment that drilling there for petroleum might be permitted?

And so on, there are a number of other terms of reference, I won't go into in detail.

The commission was appointed in 1970 and it consists of three people. The chairman is a learned judge, formally the president of the Court of Appeal of New South Wales. With him is a respected consulting petroleum engineer, — from Canada as a matter of fact — also a world-renowned scientist, the director of the Plymouth Laboratory of Marine Biology of the United Kingdom, a learned gentleman who was much involved in the problems of cleaning up after the Torrey Canyon disaster.

The commission has been sitting now for over a year and will probably bring in its report late in 1972.

Of very special significance to us, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that these two governments, Australia and Queensland, through the commission, are actually paying the expenses of the conservation interests to make sure that adequate representations are made of their case. What an example for the governments of Canada and British Columbia!

Australians are a practical and pragmatic people. They passionately love the outdoors and all its assorted activities and the environment. They are proud of their world-renowned Great Barrier Reef, one of the outstanding marine areas of the world. They believe this co-operation and in-depth study is the way to approach such knotty problems.

I agree with the statement of the Vancouver Sun editorial of last Saturday, Mr. Speaker, which said: "The environmental quality of the West Coast is far too precious to be squandered on cheap politics".

The only reference in the Speech from the Throne to the

[ Page 177 ]

matter of the protection of the coastal waters of British Columbia was, and I quote, Mr. Speaker, "as a result of a survey, new beach-water quality standards have been set".

The Premier of British Columbia could well learn a lesson from the first Ministers of New South Wales and the Commonwealth of Australia.

The throne speech mentioned the Kootenay Canal power project and the leader of the Liberal Party explained that there appeared to be some problems in connection with this project. The Minister of Lands and Forests attempted, without much success, to answer these questions. I would like today to add some detail to that story.

First is the matter of the economics of the project. As the House was told previously, one consulting engineer, Mr. Francis Bartholomew, who is known around the world for his work on power projects, has prepared a study which throws grave doubts on the economic liability of the Kootenay Canal project.

He suggest that for the 500,000 kilowatt plant that the Minister of Lands and Forests talks about, there will be actually available water capacity for far less than this, much of the time less than 130,000 kilowatt average output and at times as little as only 60 or 70,000 kilowatts and this from an expenditure of over $100 million.

"All further work on the canal project should be suspended until it has been given a full objective and comprehensive economic study, both in the near term and far term of its operation."

Mr. Speaker, I have neither the information nor the qualifications to judge this statement and this project. I do know that rumours have been heard for some time that the decision to build the Kootenay Canal project is a political one rather than an engineering and economic one and that B.C. Hydro was in effect told by the government to get it done.

I do know that if Mr. Bartholomew is even partly right, Kootenay Canal power will be a very expensive contribution to the B.C. Hydro system. There is not much use building a large plant if you can only use its full capacity now and then.

A second problem is that of the City of Nelson. The Minister of Lands and Forests attempted last week to justify this government's treatment of Nelson, but he didn't tell all the story. I think it is worthwhile reporting in more detail because it illustrates so well the contempt with which this government regards any object which stands in its way and the complete lack of consideration of the rights of any lesser powers.

Nelson has had a successful hydro-electric plant for many years, and is now the only municipally-owned power plant in British Columbia. The operation of this plant is very important to Nelson. It provides an annual profit of perhaps $500,000 or $600,000 — perhaps more — and it is easy to see the importance of this sum of money in the budget of a city of the size of Nelson.

Nelson is licensed, as the Minister detailed last week, for 1,428 cubic feet per second of water. It is true, as the Minister said, that Nelson has encroached for some years on the Cominco water licence, but it should also be clear — which the Hon. Minister did not mention — that this was done by arrangement and that the city paid the provincial government for this water.

The Minister also suggested that the Nelson plant was inefficient because it was old. This is neither a fair nor an accurate statement. The efficiency of the generator has been established to be about 95 per cent and of the hydro wheel about 82 per cent, which indicates an efficiency very close to modern plants of this kind.

The problem today is that the City of Nelson badly needs a further 714 cubic feet per second to add to its present 1,428. Even though this could be made available, B.C. Hydro is apparently so concerned over the shortage of water supply for its canal project that it will not allow this water to the city.

The catch is that Hydro needs 38 acres owned by Nelson and this plot of land is critical to the whole hydro canal project.

Nelson has refused to sell the plant and B.C. Hydro has refused to provide either water or power and that's where the matter rests at present.

To further understand the position of the City of Nelson, we must go back many years.

In 1949, the comptroller of water rights of the provincial government of that day wrote to the City of Nelson and suggested that in view of possible effects of development of the Columbia River, would Nelson want to consider the desirability and usefulness of a further 1,400 c.f.s. of water over and above its existing 1,428 c.f.s?

In November, 1949, the city replied saying it would like to apply for 1,400 c.f.s. In case of any future developments that would make this water available.

Early in December, 1949, the deputy comptroller of water rights wrote again to Nelson advising that the fee for such an application would be substantial, about $2,500, that a refresher fee would be required every six months until the licence was issued and that a licence could not actually be issued until the water was available some years hence.

The implication was this would be pretty expensive for Nelson in the meantime.

Finally, the water rights department suggested that if the overall plan was agreed to between the U.S. and Canada, then the benefits therefrom would be apportioned equitably.

The city agreed to leave the matter in abeyance for the time being.

In 1952 the city's position on water had become more urgent and the city did apply for more water again and was told then its application would not be entertained until more information was available.

In 1956, Nelson applied again and was told now that an order in council dated the year before, 1955, put a reserve on all available water, but that its needs will be noted for the future.

Now we come to '62. Nelson applied again and was told that a licence had now been issued to B.C. Hydro giving the rights to store water at Duncan and to receive all the downstream benefits, that the government would not issue any new licence to Nelson without consultation with other licencees.

In 1964, another application. Same reply.

So my question, Mr. Speaker, is: if in 1962 and 1964 the government was so concerned in telling Nelson "we couldn't give you a licence without consultation with the other licencees," why did they not advise the City of Nelson when they were giving the licence to B.C. Hydro? Let's have some discussion on this subject.

It seems that once upon a time when this government needed an electric power operation for its own purposes, it took over the B.C. Electric by calling in the Legislature to pass the necessary law. But now, grown bigger and more powerful, it merely squeezes the small operation, like the Nelson City power plant, until it is dry, and then un-

[ Page 178 ]

doubtedly will take it over.

The City of Nelson's electric operation is only 2 per cent of the size of the proposed B.C. Hydro canal development. Nelson has an old and historic position in power generation on the Kootenay River and has fought hard to maintain that position which today is important to it.

The provincial water rights branch in 1949 lulled the city into a false sense of security and advised it not to waste its money applying too soon for a new licence but it would be looked after.

Nelson was there first, Mr. Speaker. Surely it has rights now?

Surely we have a moral responsibility now, not to merely brush Nelson aside, because it is too small to receive fair and just consideration from this government?

The Liberal leader in his speech outlined the kind of policy we believe would ensure that these decisions would be made in the full fight of informed public opinion rather than in the private board-rooms of the government and its Crown corporations. Let me repeat the policy very briefly to you.

1. The B.C. Energy Board, with broad terms of reference, would gather data and make reports on all energy projects. 2. A new committee of this House, the energy committee, would receive these reports and give them full public discussion with the opportunity of calling all interested parties before it.

3. The Legislature would receive and consider the report of its committee and make the final decision.

These are the kinds of policies and statements we would like to have seen outlined in the throne speech, Mr. Speaker. Another topic on which we might have expected some major comments from the throne speech, would have been housing.

Everywhere one goes today there are problems in finding sufficient, or indeed any, low-cost housing. But after all the fanfare during the year and talk of action, this government has really not done very much in the housing field. I guess it would not for that reason be able to talk about it very much in the throne speech, in its review.

Later on in these debates I want to speak in more detail on housing problems. Today I want to discuss a topic which I raised in my maiden speech in this House. That of mobile homes.

I believe, as an increasing number of people do, that mobile homes can help solve some of our low-cost housing problems. The cost is low, the quality is good, they can be purchased with the very latest new furniture and appliances already in place. They serve a special purpose for the young family, the retired couple, the construction worker, and so on.

I know the Hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Campbell) and the Hon. Member for Nanaimo (Mr. Ney) and others in this House have supported the mobile home. One of the major problems seems to be a reluctance for municipalities and towns to look favourably on mobiles, to provide the zoning climate which would encourage them.

Mobile homes can be harmonised with the environment and they can be an asset to any community with understanding and co-operation. I agree with a number of the members, as I said first in February, 1969, that the political climate must be changed from hostile to friendly.

However, in attempting to set up a better climate for mobile homes, as usual, this government appears to have stubbed its toe over its own prejudices and its lack of foresight and common sense.

A year ago the government realised it has created a real mess by its approach to assessment and taxation of mobile homes. So the Legislature passed, over a great deal of opposition from this side of the House, the Mobile Home Park Fee Act, which required the operator of a mobile home park to pay a fee which averages $5 a month for each occupant on one of his spaces.

Now let us examine the results of that bill, after it has been in operation for seven or eight months.

Not only are there many mobile home parks in British Columbia, but there are a number of subdivisions where the lots are zoned for mobile homes, where the developer particularly tries to sell his lots to owners of mobile homes. In fact, in a number of cases, you can find a mobile home park and a mobile home subdivision side by side. Let us compare the two situations.

First, the mobile home park owned by a free-enterprise small businessman, who has invested a large sum of money in his park. He has provided concrete pads for each unit. He has landscaped. He is required to meet the terms of local bylaws and the regulations of the provincial Minister of Health, in provision of such facilities as buffer zones, recreation areas, laundry or washing facilities and so on.

He has built and he maintains the roads. He carries out snow clearing. He provides sewers or septic tanks. He provides street lighting and electric wiring. He provides the water lines. He arranges and pays for garbage collection and fire protection.

He pays local tax on the property and the improvements he has built. He must now under this park fee Act remit $3 to $8 per month for each mobile home in his park. His tenants pay $40 to $50 per month, perhaps a little more in some of the very deluxe parks.

Right beside him or across the street is a development which advertises, "Lots for Sale for Mobile Homes." The usual practice is to sell the lots for 1 per cent and 1 per cent per month so a typical deal is perhaps $35 or $40 down and $35 or $40 per month.

Now the developer has put in the roads, but then the roads are turned over to the provincial government or to the local district or municipality and so now the local district or provincial government maintains them or does the snow clearing. B.C. Hydro puts in the wiring. No charge. On top of all this, if you own a mobile home and put your $40 down and pay your $40 per month you get the $1,000 home acquisition grant, and of course you will also receive the home-owner grant, thus your local taxes are paid for you. It will be a rare situation where you'll pay more than $1 per year for all of these services.

Does this seem fair, compared to your friend across the street who perhaps owns the identical mobile home that you do, but who lives in the mobile home park, pays about the same rent per month to the operator who must provide all of these services and also pay his own local taxes?

It seems, Mr. Speaker, there are clearly two kinds of mobile home-owners — first class and second class.

There's another catch, Mr. Speaker, perhaps after you have lived in your new home for a few months enjoying your $1,000 grant and all the services you get so cheaply, you might decide to move to another town for a better job. So you simply move your mobile home to a new community.

But maybe you buy another lot, maybe you just rent from a mobile home park in the new town — it costs about the same. And the friendly real estate developer who sold you the first lot will even help you rent it to someone else,

[ Page 179 ]

who will put his mobile home on your lot and keep up the payments for you.

Obviously, this must be a pretty good deal, Mr. Speaker, for the developer as well — who has all the advantages of the park operator, and none of the problems.

I went to ask one developer about his operation. I discovered I couldn't get much information, he was in Tahiti for the next two months. Then I discovered, Mr. Speaker, the biggest developer of all in this area was Great National Lands Ltd. of Nanaimo, with five different sub-divisions and nearly 500 mobile home lots developed or under development.

Mr. Speaker, I suppose we cannot help wondering why this government makes it so good for the real estate developer and so bad for the mobile home park.

I suppose I should mention, Mr. Speaker, for those who don't know, of course, that Great National Lands is operated by that great friend of the mobile home, the Hon. Member for Nanaimo (Mr. Ney). Surely, Mr. Speaker, there are obvious injustices in this situation, and some serious administrative problems — both created in part by the fact that a perfectly legitimate mobile home-owner may of necessity have to move every few years to different parts of British Columbia, because we are that kind of a province.

There are also to my certain knowledge some not-so-legitimate mobile home-owners, who have seen a way to get cheap use of a mobile home lot, and a $1,000 subsidy from this government with no intention of living up to any commitment they might have made.

The government went into this programme — as usual — without adequate consideration and consultation with all of those concerned. Surely, just once, this government could admit that someone besides itself has some ideas. Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, it's still not too late to repair the damage.

I would suggest that the government should bring in representatives of mobile home parks, from the Union of B.C. Municipalities, from the real estate associations and from the mobile home owners, who have an association of their own. And work out a programme that is fair and equitable to all these parties.

It could have been done last year, it could have been done the year before, but as usual, the Hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs would not listen.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to discuss briefly, the third Burrard crossing in Vancouver. Another major subject, completely neglected by the Speech from the Throne.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. BROUSSON: Just listen. For years this crossing has been something of a political football, and now it's again becoming the centre of controversy. There has been so much said that is ill-informed or misleading, that I would like to put the matter into perspective.

Incidently, Mr. Speaker, I was delighted to hear the Hon. second Member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Wolfe) give support to this crossing the other day. Mr. Speaker, I am for the crossing, but I would not be for it if provision for rapid transit were not an integral part of it.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. BROUSSON: The regional district seems to becoming to grips with the problem of rapid transit, but with this new Burrard crossing there would be no way to provide rapid transit to the north shore. You had your turn the other evening, Mr. Member.

In effect, Mr. Speaker, the tunnel built into the crossing will be largely paid for by the tolls on automobiles. The day the crossing opens, there could be an express bus service operating from the north shore to the central business districts of Vancouver, using the rapid transit lanes. Provision for this is in the present plan.

The Burrard crossing as presently planned, provides benefits to many parts of British Columbia, not just the north shore. It will carry traffic to Nanaimo and Vancouver Island. Traffic for the growing industrial centres of Squamish and Whistler and on to Lillooet later this year. Traffic which takes freight to the P.G.E., for transport to the northern and central parts of the province. Traffic for the container-terminal for sea-transport for Prince Rupert. Traffic even to the Yukon. Traffic seeking recreation along the sunshine coast, Seymour, Cypress Bowl, Grouse, Whistler and so-on. In Vancouver City, Mr. Speaker, it provides a route under the central business district. It arranges distribution for the traffic wherever it needs to go, to the east, to False creek, to Point-Grey and so-on.

The fact is, that rather than greater downtown congestion, when the crossing opens an average of 70,000 cars a day will disappear from Vancouver's downtown streets because of the by-pass tunnel and the waterfront distributor.

Referring again, Mr. Speaker, to the suggestion for a separate rapid transit crossing, this would cost by itself almost $100 million, and it would not provide the other advantages that I have outlined.

If all the travellers going to the central business district were to use rapid transit in 1985, the two existing crossings would still be completely clogged with other traffic, which we have been talking about.

The federal government is clearly committed to this project. This goes back to 1967 when the then Hon. Prime Minister Pearson, by letter and telegram, confirmed the federal government's involvement.

Since then, Don Jamieson, Minister of Transport, has repeatedly confirmed his commitment to the project, and in fact he repeated this last Friday, when he said: "The government has said it will build a bridge or a tunnel component and it still intends doing so, in fact we even decided to help the municipalities get a comprehensive proposal together, by giving them the assistance of a co-ordinating official at the National Harbours Board office in Vancouver."

Jack Davis has explained that he expects the federal government to provide at least the equivalent of what the National Harbours Board has done in the harbour at Montreal where two crossings have been built, and at St. John's, New Brunswick, where another has been built. And these, of course, are all toll structures.

But the federal government is committed only to the crossing, as we have explained it. It will not, and cannot, build a rapid transit system for Vancouver, under any of the present arrangements.

I think it should be clear, that under the British North America Act, this is not possible.

To put some of the opposition in perspective, I would like to quote an editorial from the North Shore Citizen of January 19, this year.

While we think that a new crossing is needed, we respect any individual who honestly differs with our opinion. The operative word is "honestly." The left wingers, who want nothing more than to disrupt, are using whatever sincere

[ Page 180 ]

opposition there is to the Poddy Neeles, the Harry Rankins and the Bruce Yorkes, those great champions of the people. They are maybe fooling some of the people, but their predicable obstructionism is doomed to failure.

In general, it seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the honest opposition, very often appears to lack the facts, and in many cases, have not even read the great many reports, that are now available on transportation and traffic and so-on.

Unfortunately, many of these people are reacting out of emotion, ignorance and fear. I think it also important to point out, Mr. Speaker, that the crossing will provide over 800,000 man hours of work directly, plus many hundreds of thousands more indirectly.

The Hon. Premier has apparently accepted in principle proposals that were made to close the gap in finance. It is now time to get on with it. We need those jobs starting this year. The provincial government has a direct responsibility to assist in the crossing, as it continues to improve Mt. Seymour and Cypress Bowl, improve the road to Whistler and Lillooet and carry increasing traffic on its ferries out of Horseshoe Bay. But, in effect the Hon. Premier has still not fully and officially committed the provincial government except by offhand Press conference announcements, rumours of corridor conversations and relayed telephone messages.

The Speech from the Throne should have spelled that policy out. And I ask for the Hon. Premier to include a commitment of the Burrard Crossing in his budget address.

Two other points are important in any discussion of this subject, Mr. Speaker, as I said, I believe the provision for rapid transit is an essential part of the Burrard crossing. Personally, I am not afraid of the completion of a simple freeway system on the lower mainland. Goodness knows, we don't have anything like a system now, and I believe we have to complete our simple basic system, at the same time as we develop an improved regional bus and light rapid-transit system. But in order for both the freeway system to be kept under control, and for the rapid-transit system to prosper, we must control parking as well.

Unfortunately, parking has been taken out of the terms of reference of the regional district transportation policy statement. Vancouver has three times as much available parking as Toronto, in proportion to population. As long as you have 15 cent parking lots all through the downtown area, as long as you provide hundreds of parking spaces in every new building, you will have too many cars in the central business district.

You must be able to control how much parking, where it is to be, and how much is to be charged. The provincial government must insist that this parking problem be controlled.

Finally, in order for the transportation system we are building, not to spawn unlimited urban sprawl, we must control what happens out on the Fraser Valley flatlands. We've heard a series of proposals for this, to provide green belts for preservation of the farms and so-on.

I don't know which is the best plan, but I do know the provision of such a plan under provincial auspices is essential, to keep the rest of the system in balance, so that the lower mainland of British Columbia is preserved as a pleasant place to live.

Mr. Speaker, these are just a few of the things which the throne speech could have spelled out as government policy.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Skeena.

MR. D.G. LITTLE (Skeena): Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the Hon. Member for Columbia River on being elevated to the cabinet. There is no question that he will be able to give a good account of himself as the Hon. Minister of Labour.

May I at this time thank the Hon. Members of the House for their concern and well wishes during my illness last March.

Mr. Speaker, the mover of the throne speech noted that we have entered our second century of British Columbian history. We are part of Canada, a nation with recognised Canadian nationality. Today we are no longer looking for immigrants to colonise British Columbia. We want future good Canadian citizens to improve Canada economically, culturally and socially. The following is a Press report from the Vancouver Province, January 21, 1972, and it says "Judge Heaps Ire On Heroin Sellers."

"In my opinion all heroin drug traffickers should be sentenced to life imprisonment," Provincial court Judge David Moffat told a convicted trafficker Thursday. He made the comment in sentencing Lube Gresofski, 45, to five years after he was convicted of having 50 capsules of heroin in his possession when the police stopped his car in the 600 block on Granville Street September 1.

Court was told the drugs were found under the driver's seat. That Lube Gresofski had $515 on his person and a search of his west-end suite uncovered equipment for capping heroin. He denied any knowledge of the drugs. "I think trafficking in drugs, particularly heroin, is one of the most serious crimes and the deterrent aspect has to be taken into account as the drug scene is out of control," said Judge Moffat. "The absolute minimum jail term for a non-addict trafficker is five years," he added. He said, after the hearing that in fact provincial court judges must limit their sentences for trafficking to a certain level as the severity of sentencing is limited by the court of appeal. Gresofski, the court learned, came to Canada from Yugoslavia 30 months ago and is a non-addict.

Mr. Speaker, I say there is no way that you and I should have to pay to put this man behind bars for five years. We don't want this sort of thing. This man should be deported.

There's a heavy load of unemployment in Canada and British Columbia. Many people have been here the required time to become Canadian citizens, but have not. Some hold jobs Canadians should have and still some fill the unemployed ranks. This situation existed in the previous depression years. As a result Canadians formed the native sons of Canada originating in Victoria, primarily that Canadians would have jobs in preference to British subjects.

Why should British subjects not be Canadians? Their livelihood is provided by employment in Canada and British Columbia, and I draw attention to B.C. because of the heavy load of unemployment.

There should be no difference between alien and British subject, all must become Canadians to rightfully take their place in this society.

This motion was passed five years at the Social Credit convention. Let's get it in force. Put it before the federal government. So we stand united Canadians. Canada is our nation.

Mr. Speaker, in Skeena Highway Yellowhead 16 has been brought to standard east of Terrace, and Highway 25 south to Kitimat. For Terrace, the engineering department has advised that they have $230,000 available to bring approaches and grade up to requirements for a new bridge

[ Page 181 ]

over the Skeena. Action should be taken here immediately. We should bear in mind that high water will come in May. Foundations for piers and approaches should, if possible, be made before that date.

In Skeena we have several communities that need a government project not only to provide employment but also the needs of the locality.

First, Kitimat needs a B.C. Government building to provide a court room, an office for the government agent as well as other provincial departments which are located thither and yon in Kitimat and even in the federal building.

Kitimat is still referred to as the Aluminum City but with Eurocan now in Kitimat employing an additional 925 people, the population has increased to approximately 12,000 and with this diversification of industry new facilities are desperately needed.

Secondly, in South Hazelton you can look across the Bulkley River to Hazelton itself, yet if you wish to drive there the distance is nine miles around by way of New Hazelton and over the Hagwilget Bridge which is unsafe for heavy traffic.

A new bridge should span the Bulkley River from South Hazelton to Hazelton where this government has helped make a wonderful Ksan picnic-camping area and backed an Indian carving school — a great help to the Indians and a great tourist attraction.

I urge the government to do the engineering on this bridge project in order that an early start can be made. It is communications and tourism.

Kemano, which is tucked away in the base of the mountains by way of the Douglas Channel and Gardner Canal, has approximately 30 miles of road. The government forces people to pay gas tax for private vehicles in spite of the fact that they do not have to license their cars as these are company roads. An order-in-council should be made so the people using these private roads no longer have to pay gas tax at least not on cars or on pick-ups used as buses to transport people to and from work.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I think it takes a bigger man to admit that he made a mistake than one who will try to hid it, and I would like to show you the headline in the last Smithers paper. The headline is "Mill Failure Affects Business." It goes on to state in this article that the Bulkley Valley forest industry had lost approximately $5.5 million in the first six months of this last year and that since last fall they had laid off approximately 200 workers which was costing approximately $150,000 a month.

In Skeena we have large empires created by the government when huge timber licences were given to pulp companies which left fully committed areas with no timber left for anyone else to operate.

Since the licences were issued there has been a change in our economy. We now have non-performance by some of these companies. There is an opportunity for new industries to be established in both Smithers and Terrace. This would give employment to hundreds of men. The government should consider this as pulp mills are proving they are not more valuable to a community than sawmills or plywood plants which could be established if quotas were reviewed and readjusted.

It is time to take a hard look at what has been achieved by our set of rules. If adjustments should be made let's be the first to admit our mistake and make the necessary corrections now.

Mr. Speaker, I know that without question that the Honourable Member from Omineca (Hon. Mr. Shelford) would back me in what I have to say about forestry and I consider him as one of the knowledgeable men in this government.

A concentrated effort is needed to bring to highway standard the road between Terrace and Tyee. This road is narrow and dangerous and the bridges are not safe.

Truckers are licensed to carry maximum loads but have to use load-restricted bridges. This condition has existed for years. Immediate action is needed as it is not fair to the licensee.

The government should replace these old wooden bridges in the interest of public safety.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Attorney General had stated that his department welcomed criticism and if this is the truth I know that he'll be happy to hear me speak today.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. LITTLE: I'd like for a moment to relate what is going on in northern B.C. I have many friends there and when the government goes off on a tangent — which the people have come to expect, incidentally — they merely smile and say to me: "I see the government has found another queer idea to pursue." But lately things have gone from bad to worse. The people are frightened.

When the Attorney General's department had nothing better to do they decided to attack topless dancing girls in Vancouver. They did this with a threat to use every means possible to close these places completely, ignoring the fact that the City of Vancouver saw fit to issue a licence to operate.

Then we in government should keep our cotton-picking hands away from their business.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. LITTLE: Mr. Speaker, I cannot stand deception. It is wrong for the Attorney General to outlaw topless dancing girls in Vancouver, when right in this building he condones more topless girls to be seen than can be found in the whole City of Vancouver.

As a matter of fact he even has his girls lit up so that they may be seen by all people, whether they like it or not. Mr. Speaker, they are right here in this chamber. If this was considered to be decorative before the turn of the century I see no reason why we should not appreciate it now.

Mr. Speaker, may I suggest in all sincerity that when the Attorney General leans back in his chair and appears to be deep in thought perhaps he may be enjoying the show that is put on by the topless girls in this chamber. (Laughter).

The public won't accept this, but there is alarm up north as I stated previously and it was not until I looked at the papers that I realised the cause. In the Vancouver Sun of December 29 it states: "Any and all laws under the Criminal Code dealing with obscenity should be used in an effort to ban the topless display."

In the Vancouver Sun of December 30 Mr. Peterson said: "I am bringing it to the attention of those charged with enforcing the laws." The Vancouver Province of December 30 had a headline: "Peterson Wants to Wrap Up Naked Nightclub Dancers."

"There is no reason why they should express surprise," Peterson commented. "This is not the first statement I've made about this. I discussed the general subject a year or

[ Page 182 ]

more ago indicating my views and these received wide publicity at the time."

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. LITTLE: The Deputy Chief of Police in Vancouver also gets into the act and he states: "We are concerned about this sort of entertainment and the way it is spreading. We are watching topless dancing clubs very closely" he said.

Then came the editorial in the Vancouver Province of December 21, and the editorial said: "Get to the bottom of it Mr. Peterson. It is horrid sex that is at the bottom of the whole filthy business. Show new leadership, Mr. Attorney General. Make sex illegal. Then you would really make an international name for yourself." (Laughter).

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. LITTLE: Mr. Speaker, this is the cause for the alarm up north. I call for a free vote on this matter but I do not believe I would like to vote the same way as the Attorney General or the Minister of Social Welfare and Social Rehabilitation who appear to oppose it. I believe the people in Skeena are not in favour of any change at this time.

Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, it is a good throne speech and I intend to support it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for North Peace River.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to once again stand in my place in this House and take part in the throne debate, to add some comments that I hope will be of value to this discussion of this debate. I've listened intently to the remarks that have been made by some of the other Members both on this side of the House and then the Opposition benches.

It was interesting this afternoon, for instance, to listen to the Honourable Leader of the Opposition when he got up on his feet and tried to pursue a little bit of P.R. work with the "Mayor of Dawson City, whoops, Dawson Creek." It's amazing to realise that the Leader of the Opposition spends so little time around the northern part of the province that he hasn't realised yet that Dawson City is only 1,400 miles from Dawson Creek. It's just a matter of a mere little technicality but after all what's 1,400 miles between friends?

So, the next time the Hon. Leader of the Opposition wishes to get to his feet to address or speak or welcome a mayor from a northern municipality and a northern city to the Legislative Buildings at least he should make sure that he knows where he is from and that he knows a little bit more about what goes on there than he seemed to know this afternoon.

You know, the Leader of the Opposition also likes to spend a little time when he is in the north talking about the seven safe Socred seats. Everywhere he goes he likes to talk and scoff about the seven safe seats. I suppose he feels that ridicule in an area where he is powerless to do much else is a good form of debate. But I'd like to suggest to the Leader of the Opposition — He can sit down, this is my speech not his.

Interjection by Hon. Member.

MR. SMITH: I'd like to suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that he's making a great mistake. It's not seven seats in the north, there are eight seats up there, and he is doing a great disservice to his Member from Atlin (Mr. Calder) when he doesn't include him as a Member from a northern riding. I will tell the Hon. Leader of the Opposition this, that if he had more members in this House of the stature of the Member from Atlin he would have far less trouble about worrying about where he's going to go in the next election. At least he makes an honest contribution to the House. He stands up and he speaks for the area that he represents.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who are you speaking for?

MR. SMITH: I speak for the area I represent, my friend, and I'm proud of it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

MR. SMITH: Of course we usually have occasionally a bit of the odd visit from the leader of the Liberal Party. He whips through the north country once in awhile and even when he doesn't, he likes to make and release Press releases.

The latest one that I have heard about is the fact that the leader of the Liberal Party has said in all sincerity that he would be in favour of paving a road from Fort Nelson to Fort Simpson. This should be a number one priority, the paving of a road from Fort Nelson to Fort Simpson.

Well I would like to ask the Honourable Member which road? Because there is no road there and if he really wants to help the people from the north, perhaps he would just give a little bit of support to the idea of building the road first from Fort Nelson to Fort Simpson. (Laughter). Just support the idea of building it first then we'll worry about paving it.

As a matter of fact if he really wants to be of help let him get on the hot-line to Ottawa and suggest to them that because that road will serve the whole Northwest Territories and the Mackenzie delta area they should have some financial interest in the building of it.

Would he do that? Would he perhaps do that? Then all the commerce that extends from Fort Simpson right through to Aklavik in the north could be channelled down through British Columbia and he'd not only be helping the federal government solve a problem he'd also be helping the Province of British Columbia a little bit. That's not too much to ask for, Mr. Speaker.

I'd like to spend a few minutes, if I may, commenting on the celebration of the centennial in British Columbia during the year just closed. I'd like to particularly commend the general chairman Lawrie Wallace. I know that others have done the same because I think that he has done a great job for the Province of British Columbia.

When 1971 started, I must be honest and say I was a little concerned about what would happen really in the celebration of this centennial which is following, you might say, on the heels of other centennials and just how the people of the province would react and what they would do in the matter of permanent edifices to honour the occasion.

I think it was really through the work of Lawrie Wallace and his general committee in Victoria pushing and pushing hard that we were able to attract and hold the interest of most of the citizens of this province. As a result and because of the contributions that were made by local government, provincial and federal — I'll give them credit for that — we have a number of lasting projects in communities scattered throughout the length and breadth of this province which

[ Page 183 ]

would otherwise have never been possible. I think that is a great feat in a centennial year.

You know I don't know what is wrong this year but as you look around, from the day that the session opened until the present time all of us must realise that the attendance in the public galleries is less than inspiring, as to the number of people compared to say a year ago.

I'm not sure, Mr. Speaker, whether it's the fact that the Opposition has sort of lost all their steam or whether the debate that we have heard and are hearing from time to time is less than inspirational or whether it is the tremendous weather that Victoria likes to brag about — that they're certainly not having this year. You know I travelled 1,000 miles roughly, Mr. Speaker, to get away from snow and ice and what happens? I run into the worst storm of the year coming down and right into Victoria along with me. That wouldn't be too bad, I'd take responsibility for that, if you could find out what has happened to the weather since that time. Somebody here must have a little bit more power than that.

AN HON. MEMBER: What's the temperature in Fort St. John?

MR. SMITH: Temperature in Fort St. John yesterday was 25 above and the sun was shining. It was a beautiful day for this time of year up there but I'd expect it a little bit better in Victoria. The Hon. Member shouldn't have asked that question unless he knew the answer.

The Honourable Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Brousson) who just completed a very good contribution to this debate was a little critical, I think, of the throne speech. He seemed to feel that there was very little reference to anything of substance in the debate, and in the speech itself.

Yet I'd like to contradict that man's remarks because I've read the speech as the rest of you have, and studied it closely, and there are a number of points within the throne speech I think that arouse our interest, that show the direction of some of the government policy which will be announced not only now but later on during the debates that follow.

For instance, there was a mention of the fact that we have a new Minister of Labour, and that's a great contribution. And a man that will do a great job in that portfolio.

There's also a mention of job-creating measures involving the British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority, and the Pacific Great Eastern Railway, soon to be known as the B.C. Railway. To me that indicates a programme that will be coming about to employ people.

AN HON. MEMBER: Staying on the tracks?

MR. SMITH: Oh, quite often. I'll tell the Hon. Leader of the Liberal Party one thing. The P.G.E. stays on the track an awful lot more than the Liberal Party in this House does.

So we have to look forward to jobs because of the fact that B.C. Hydro will be expanding I presume, and the Pacific Great Eastern will expand and continue their programme of expansion.

There's also reference to steps being taken for setting guide lines for mining, meteorological, chemical and petroleum industry pollution control. I think that's good. Because I'm the first one to admit that we do need stronger and more stringent controls, particularly in the petroleum industry. We need more people with authority in that branch to effectively police, if you like, at least to inspect what is going in regard to petroleum and natural gas exploration. We have advanced through the years where the companies could go in and explore without any restraint. They realise this. But there is a problem when you're in the oil and petroleum business and that is that when you have waste products to dispose of from as a result of drilling a well. You must find some place to put it. And if you dig a hole to run this product into — which is generally salt water and the type of chemicals that we don't want to see spread around the area — you haven't solved the problem. All you've tried to do is move it over into another pit.

So we've tried disposal wells and that seems to work fairly adequately in places. But there are a number of problems related within the petroleum industry and they do co-operate fully with the department, but they would be happy sometimes to have a little bit more help, a little bit more advice from the department as to what the government wishes them to do in the field of pollution control.

There's also reference to the extension of the P.G.E. Railway from Fort St. John to Fort Nelson, and regardless of what the leader of the Liberal Party may say that particular extension opens up a whole new phase of northern development.

It's the one permanent anchor that the people of Fort Nelson are waiting for, and as a result of that the community is expanding rapidly.

This is not the only community that will expand in the north, because now we are giving a bit of heart to those people who are out looking and exploring minerals. At least they won't have several hundred miles to haul ore before they can put it on a railway. And this is going to be heartening to the people that will be in that area.

All of this adds to the development of our province. And I can't understand for the life of me why the members of the Opposition criticise the type of endeavours that promote the development of all the province instead of just a small sector of it.

I'd like to speak for a few minutes if I may about the distribution of medical doctors within the Province of British Columbia. And may I preface my remarks Mr. Speaker, by saying that I have no case to hold for, or against the medical profession.

As a matter of fact I have a great deal of respect for the skill of all doctors within this province. I probably have far more respect for their skill now, than I had a few months ago because I had to personally undergo an operation, and I know that we have within the province some of the most skilled doctors in Canada. But I'd like to refer to a specific situation.

Last fall a letter in the Vancouver Province from a doctor residing in Fort Nelson highlighted a problem that has been with us in varying degrees for a long time. This is the shortage of the qualified medical doctors in some of the more remote areas of the province.

Fort Nelson has a well equipped comparatively new hospital, adequate to the present need for the community and I stress "present need" because they're growing fast, with sufficient population to keep several doctors busy, including a general surgeon.

Why then in a province fortunate enough to claim the highest ratio of doctors per thousand of population of any province in Canada, should a community like Fort Nelson experience such a serious shortage?

In my opinion the answer is simple. There is no waiting period, no probationary period, or other restrictions on any

[ Page 184 ]

doctor entering the province. Once cleared by the B.C. College of Physicians and Surgeons any doctor can establish his practice anywhere and immediately take full advantage of our medicare system. The only deterrent, if it proves to be a deterrent, is to obtain hospital privileges somewhere within the geographic area of his chosen location.

I have found that because of this, and a desire to locate close to the metropolitan areas of the province, the ratio of doctors per 1,000 of population is greatest in the lower mainland, on Vancouver Island and in the Okanagan Valley.

This leaves roughly four-fifths of our geographic area, with the exception of the larger well-established cities and towns throughout the rest of British Columbia without adequate medical service, and this extends all the way from the northern part of Vancouver through the interior up the coastal area and over into the northeastern part of the province.

This problem continues despite the fact that we annually add a substantial number of new doctors to our medical rolls. I realise that part of this increase is the result of graduates coming out of the university system and entering private practices. But by far the greatest net gain is through doctors immigrating to British Columbia from other parts of Canada and from other countries.

While I welcome new professional people to this province, I think they should be encouraged to look first at the opportunities open to them in medically disenfranchised areas.

Why should members of the medical profession be allowed to participate immediately in benefits of prepaid medical services? Particularly if these choose to locate in those parts of the province already well supplied with doctors.

The taxpayers of this province through direct premiums and taxes collected by the provincial government contribute a great deal toward the costs of providing hospital services and guaranteeing the fees charged by doctors for their service. Every taxpayer contributes equally toward the service, regardless of where he lives.

I am therefore glad, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Health and Hospital Services recognises this problem and is acting to set up a medical manpower committee to study the whole matter of doctor distribution within the province. I tell the Hon. Minister, that if this committee and the medical profession do not act, and act quickly, to alleviate the critical shortage which exists in some areas of British Columbia a great deal of resentment and hostility will be generated toward the medical profession. I'm afraid it would be unwarranted, but still it will happen. It is a result of a lopsided distribution of the medical manpower in the province that some people are being deprived of doctor services, not the fact that we do not have enough doctors within our geographic boundary.

Some persons have suggested an outright grant to doctors who will participate in the more remote areas of the province. I don't argue with that — perhaps this is a solution, particularly in the areas where the population density is very low. However, in Fort Nelson — and I wish to refer to that specifically — the problem has never been a shortage of patients. At least not for the last several years.

On the contrary, the doctors resident in the area are nearly worked off their feet. They run day and night 24 hours a day, seven days a week. They provide the service. But collecting for it, even with medicare, is quite a different thing. I am told and my source of information is reliable, that 30-35 per cent of the services rendered are gratis.

The doctors find it impossible to collect many of their bills, since a large percentage of their patients are transients, people moving up and down the Alaska Highway, in or out of the oil patch, residents of the Yukon, Northwest Territories or Alaska. The net result — people are injured or sick, services are rendered, permanent addresses unknown, bills for service unpaid.

Surely, I ask the Hon. Minister, doctors experiencing this problem should be compensated by the B.C. Medical plan for proven losses of the nature I have described. Such recovery would not be an outright subsidy since it would only compensate them for services rendered. I feel sure this system, for obvious reasons, would have many advantages over an outright subsidy. I hope the Hon. Minister will bring these recommendations to the attention of the medical manpower committee.

While speaking about doctors and medical problems I wish to associate myself with the remarks delivered in this House by the second Member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Wolfe) concerning heart specialists and the prevailing attitude toward hospital privileges.

The existing problems relating to cardiovascular surgery and the seemingly autocratic attitude some heart specialists harbour toward granting hospital privileges to other qualified specialists must be changed. We have more than one qualified cardiovascular surgeon, resident in British Columbia, who is prevented from exercising his total skills because hospital privileges, operating rooms and other specialised equipment and services required for open heart surgery have been unavailable to him. This is a matter the new advisory committee on hospital privileges should act on without delay.

At a time when irreparable damage to health is a result of delayed access to corrective surgery the prevailing attitude toward hospital privileges is really unacceptable.

Now, Mr. Speaker, may I turn to the matter concerning mines and petroleum resources?

I personally am sorry to contemplate the imminent retirement of Mr. Ken Blakey, deputy Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources. The department will not be quite the same with the cheery countenance and quiet competence of this well-respected civil servant. And I understand that he has served the government faithfully and well for 49 years, so perhaps he deserves a rest. But it will be hard if not impossible to find another man so knowledgeable on both the fields of mining and petroleum resources. Mr. Blakey served this department long before petroleum or natural gas was ever thought of in British Columbia.

The man served for 49 years so he had to serve under a number of different governments. True?

AN HON. MEMBER: Never an N.D.P. government. He said he'd quit before he'd serve under an N.D.P. government.

AN HON. MEMBER: I don't blame him.

MR. SMITH: He has, however, added immeasurably to his knowledge and experience since natural gas was first discovered in this province in 1947.

It is interesting to note that the total expenditure on drilling, production, and distribution between the years 1947 and 1958 totalled $186 million. That's the total amount of money expended in the province on drilling production and distribution.

During the next 12 years, to the end of 1970, expenditure

[ Page 185 ]

for the same items had skyrocketed until it totalled $1,216 million. That is an 800 per cent increase in 12 short years. From 1947 to 1970 statistics indicate drilling companies completed 2,808 exploratory wells, in the province. Of this total 739 turned out to be oil wells and 771 gas wells, 87 service wells were drilled and 1,211 drilling programmes resulted in dry holes.

However, the successful ratio of productive wells as compared to holes drilled remains one of the highest in all of Canada. The production of crude oil, natural gas, and miscellaneous gas products such as propane, butane, pentanes and sulphur added substantially to the revenues of the province. As a matter of fact the total value of petroleum and natural gas permits, leases, licences, drilling reservations, rentals and Crown royalties reached the staggering sum of $369 million by the end of 1970.

It should therefore be apparent to everyone that the administration of our petroleum resources has grown to the point where it is a full-time occupation. While this was not true 25 years ago, when our petroleum industry was in its infancy, it certainly is of great importance today. The jobs the petroleum industry and natural gas exploration creates and the revenue it generates is no small consideration.

Surely now, Mr. Speaker, is an ideal time to consider the appointment of two deputy ministers — one responsible for mining, the other for the administration of petroleum resources. There is ample precedence for such a division of responsibility. I am convinced that such a move would prove beneficial to both the departments involved and be well accepted by the general public.

During the course of this debate numerous speakers on both sides of the House have offered suggestions and alternate programmes for the generation of the electrical energy we know will be required to serve our expanding population in the next decade. The Opposition would have the public believe that further hydro development is impractical. That we should turn to nuclear reactors.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. SMITH: That's what was said. That's what was said…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. SMITH: …the leader of that party suggested: "Let's forget about this, let's get into the nuclear field…"

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you against nuclear power?

MR. SMITH: "Establish generating stations on Vancouver Island and in the lower mainland as quickly as possible." This is nuclear reactor stations. For my part, I agree with the Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources who indicated we are at least a decade away from the need to cross that bridge.

In the meantime we should continue the job of completely developing our hydro-electric sites, particularily the sites that have already some hydro-electric power generated on site.

The unused capacity from present partially-developed sites, when fully developed, will double our present output. I don't think it's necessary to look at additional new sites until the total electrical capacity of existing sites has been developed — 10 years at least. Double our electrical energy that we could produce now.

The throne speech indicates that the Mica dam project is more than 80 per cent complete. The latest report of B.C. Hydro states that this project will be completed by 1973, barring any unforeseen delays. The labour force is at its peak. From now on the number of jobs available at this project will diminish. Many of the personnel now employed in the Columbia River project came to that job after completing the building of the W.A.C. Bennett dam at Portage Mountain.

Six of the turbines at the Peace project are now in operation, the remaining four will be phased in as the installation work is completed. However, the present work force on the Peace is low in number and it will not increase since the remaining work to be done is limited. It takes highly-trained and experienced technicians to do the type of work that is available to them now on that particular project.

One of the best ways to keep skilled workmen employed — the type of workmen who will soon be out of work on the Mica dam — would be to start on Site 1, some 14 miles below the present dam on the Peace River.

Engineering studies indicate the project to be economically, geographically and ecologically sound. The ultimate capacity of this hydro site is 700 megawatts from four generating units. The dam would be approximately 250 feet high with a head of 140 feet. A relatively short 500 kv transmission circuit would deliver this power to the Shrum generating station at the Bennett dam. A second 500 kv transmission line would have to be built from the Shrum station to the Williston station near Prince George.

This power dam, much smaller than the first, would merely re-use the water passing through the turbines at Portage Mountain. I am told that this is the best site for incremental power in the province.

The small lake created downstream would be much more adaptable to immediate recreational purposes than Lake Williston. When I say "small" I would think the lake would be somewhere in the neighbourhood of 12 miles long but it will be very narrow, so it's small compared to Lake Williston.

The present lake, which is really an inland sea in size, can be very dangerous to small pleasure craft. It is not unusual to see the body of water run waves six to eight feet high and storms come up very quickly on this lake. It becomes a real hazard to the small pleasure boats most people like to use for fishing.

But risk or not, fishing is going on in Lake Williston, particularly in the mouths of the small streams discharging into the lake. Limits of Arctic greyling and rainbow trout running to 4 lb. are now a common occurrence.

In Lake Williston, on the small streams running into the lake, you can take the fish any time practically during the summer. You can take your limit within half an hour, an hour, of Arctic greyling and rainbow trout. This is the area that some people have said is being ruined for recreation.

AN HON. MEMBER: How big did you say? Have you got that clear now? Four pounds?

MR. SMITH: Rainbow to 4 lb. and this is a phenomenon that has never been known up there before. Because when we fished the upper Peace it was unusual to catch a rainbow trout that was larger than 1 1/2 lb. But since the lake has been flooded, the fish are growing to the extent that it is not unusual to take 4 lb. rainbow trout from that lake at the present time.

It is reasonable to assume that fishing in the smaller lake,

[ Page 186 ]

the fishing now experienced in Lake Williston.

I know that our Opposition in this House and some ecologists will immediately start to scream "death of the delta" as they have been doing in prior years. However, the screams will not be nearly as loud as they were a year ago. Particularily since a combination of snow pack and tremendously heavy rains in June and July flooded the delta this year.

This was a suggestion that I made in the House when I stood in my place last year at this time and got nothing more than a patronising smile from most of the people assembled. Also, investigations just completed under the direction of the federal Environmental Minister, the Hon. Jack Davis, indicate that a comparatively low cost rock-filled dam will retain water levels in the Athabasca Delta at the level required for wildlife and fish.

This, Mr. Speaker, is probably a project that should have been built years ago because there have been, long before the W.A.C. Bennett dam was built, the problems with low water in the delta area where we had a succession of dry years. All you have to do is check back on the records to find that out.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, Site 1 on the Peace is a natural addition to the hydro development programmes of this province. The time to launch the project is now. The power will be needed by the time the dam is completed. This development together with the other sources mentioned by the Hon. Minister will give us breathing space without jeopardising any of our gross potential. So, Mr. Speaker, let's get on with the job.

I know that we have an evening sitting and I'm sure that the other members of the House will not mind if I cut my speech a little short in order that we may conclude our afternoon session earlier than we anticipated. Thank you for your kind attention and I'll enjoy speaking once again when the budget is before the House.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Dewdney.

MR. G. MUSSALLEM (Dewdney): Mr. Speaker, all he did by cutting his speech short was getting a yawn.

It is an honour and a pleasure to take my place in the throne debate and I just wonder if someone has not sent a runner to his Hon. the Lieutenant-Governor advising him that the Hon. Member from North Vancouver–Capilano has spoken, that he should revise next year's Speech from the Throne. Because he gave the full report on how the throne speech should be written. I just thought to save you any trouble next year we should have a runner go up there right away.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't kid yourself.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Well, it's all right. If you think it's not necessary I don't want to herd you too much, but it seems so plausible and so logical that we have to do something for him.

May I at this time pay my respects to the Hon. new Minister of Labour. I remember last year, just a little later than this a year ago, we were feeling the material in his suit and we were saying to him, "that's executive material".

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. MUSSALLEM: He said no, no it wasn't executive material at all. But somehow, somewhere he had an idea. I don't know what happened to this mysterious conclave but the word must filter in and you get a suit to fit. I've been looking around here for suits all this session so far and I've not seen nary a one as yet.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Some union leaders, by authority and power of command, can and have exercised more control in our society than government itself, both provincial and federal. A union leader, by promise of big settlements, can bring the economy to its knees. They know it and exercise the power unmercifully.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. MUSSALLEM: This government has with courage and foresight, enacted the finest legislation the nation has ever seen. As I said before on two previous occasions, Bill No. 33 is a shining light and is showing direction.

I predict that unions will eventually say that it was the salvation of the trade union movement. There was no way they could go on unchecked. Power without responsibility corrupts. Bill No. 33 has given the union leaders responsibility and will eventually remove the dangers of untrammelled power. They will, eventually, have a sense of responsibility to their country as well as to the membership they serve.

Business leaders also have a responsibility, as has business generally. The market place controls business effectively, and where it did not, this government stepped in. I am sure it will continue to do so as the need arises. All is not perfect, and improvements are constantly being made. I am confident that legislation in this session, as in others, will indicate the government's concern, and that steps will be taken to protect the consumer at every level.

There is one important area that concerns me, and legislation is past due. It is in the matter of employees' pensions.

There are some excellent plans, among them those administered by the pensions department of the government: the Civil Service Superannuation Act, the Municipal Superannuation Act and seven others.

These funds are all well intended, but in my opinion they have two serious flaws. There should not be an option of voluntary withdrawal on termination and vesting should be much earlier than the usual 20 or even 10 years.

What is the sense of voluntary withdrawal if a pension was planned in the first place? I'm sure many here can cite cases, as I can, of individuals in the above pensions — the ones I have mentioned — who have quit the job and withdrawn their money just to get hold of the cash, which is, most invariably, lost with little benefit but to supply an immediate need and desire.

You know, this is the first time I ever looked and read a speech. I tell you one good thing about it, you don't hear the heckling. You know, you can heckle all you like and it doesn't bother me at all. I think that's a good idea. (Laughter).

MR. SPEAKER: Order.

MR. MUSSALLEM: I do not suggest that a person should not have the right of their own decision but why permit the abandonment of the security that at one time seemed so

[ Page 187 ]

important?

What is needed is a non-withdrawable portable pension system administered by government. The Canada Pension Plan is a good example of this.

There are other alternatives such as imposing standards on private pension plans as has been done in Ontario, but it is my opinion that this does not fully meet the requirements for the safety of the funds and guarantees to the beneficiary.

Senator Javits of the United States is sponsoring a bill known as SE 2 in the current session of the Senate. This bill mainly will guarantee portability and security of the pension benefits to the beneficiary.

The problem with private plans is their uncertainty. There are practically no minimum standards governing their establishment and far too often no practical means by which a beneficiary can secure his rights.

We have the case of McGavin's Bakery, where the company closed up and chose not to give the employees any benefits of the funds that the company had set up. The Hon. Member from New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) said last week: "We are dealing with a situation where the employer used a badly-set-up pension plan to his advantage and literally stole from his employees."

Such reckless statements at best must be labelled a half truth, and inflammatory and misleading at worst. Neither fair by statement or right in fact.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. MUSSALLEM: The company had contributed the entire fund, and undoubtedly was bitter at the treatment meted out by the union, forcing the plant to close.

I do not pass judgment on anyone in this dispute — on no one. After all, the thing is accomplished. But I say that the proposition I propose would have left the pension funds intact, and such a heartbreak to workers who are depending on a pension could not happen. The funds, both the employees' and the company's, would be safe in governmental control, or close supervision. Our sympathy, in the case of McGavin's, must be with the employees, but neither can the company be censured.

There is the case of the Dunlop Tire & Rubber Company of Ontario. Four or five years ago it became economically unsound and therefore closed. Over 1,600 workers were put out of work and the town in which the plant was situated became almost a disaster area. There is the case of an employee, 46 years old, who was fired just before his plan was vested. He was too old to start a new plan — almost 20 years of building was blown to pieces.

The employee who is approaching pension age lives in constant fear of dismissal, fancied or real, what's the difference? Such cases are legion. I have made a considerable study of pension plans — both government and private. To go into detail at this time is not necessary or prudent.

You know, I hear the words of "author". This is the only time I ever took the trouble to write a speech. This time the author is myself. (Laughter). I'm not sure I like this system. I think the other way is better — you don't say nearly as much, Mr. Speaker, but it goes over much nicer.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. MUSSALLEM: I know that many actuaries and experts frown on government operations of pension plans, perhaps for personal reasons or genuine doubts. However, I definitely state that whatever system is used, governmental control must be exercised either by direct control, or insured protection of the fund. Withdrawability must stop and a pension should build up continuously through an employee's working life, wherever he works in the province, so that at the planned time it will pay the amount planned, whatever that amount would be.

The benefits of government control as in the governmentsponsored funds are essential to the working man's security. Essential also, is that the fund must not be withdrawable, or on termination but remain in the fund with employer's share until maturity.

I believe that pension security would be a valuable asset to a workman and remove the constant fear of some distant day, being without income and a public charge. Without question, harmony would be added to the working force on all levels.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your attention and that concludes my speech. It's the last time I will do one this way.

Mr. Merilees moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Bennett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:35 p.m.

The House met at 8:00 p.m.

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the First Member for Vancouver-Burrard.

MR. H.J. MERILEES (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, as I rise to take my place in the throne speech debate of this third session of British Columbia's 29th Legislature it gives me a very great sense of gratitude. My deep thanks to the Premier, all Members of this House, members of the Press gallery, members of the permanent staff, my constituents and the officers of my association.

Last but not least, Mr. Speaker, to my Honourable colleague, the second Member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Price) for his help in carrying the extra load thrust upon him during my enforced absence. Mr. Speaker, it's great to be back.

I had a little time to do some thinking. I won't tell the Hon. Leader of the Opposition all the things I thought, but just a few. Well, I'll try.

To begin with, just in case there are doubts or disappoints, I'll have more good news later about making our highways safer and more beautiful.

And for anybody that wants to get into the act a small $5 contribution will put your name on a British Columbia dogwood to be planted along one of British Columbia's highways.

My partner and I are still working with the Vancouver City Council on many problems and subject. Particularly on the cleanup and redevelopment of False Creek.

[ Page 188 ]

We're working with the new director of housing for the Greater Vancouver Regional District.

I'll continue my fight for a fair deal for the nine tourist regions in British Columbia. You remember some years ago this government raised a municipal grant by $3 per capita, specifying that $1 should be allocated for tourist promotion. Mr. Speaker, I have yet to hear from a single one of our tourist area councils that has received more than a few pennies for what is one of the largest dollar volume earners in British Columbia…close now to the half billion mark.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where's the mayor of Nanaimo?

MR. MERILEES: I think he's taking care of Nanaimo for the minute.

I will continue to urge for an exploratory trade mission to Peking. Surely in a nation of 700 million people, Mr. Speaker, there is a market for some British Columbia products even if it's broomhandles. Those of you who watch the television news at seven o'clock will notice that now Ontario has stolen our thunder. I advocated this trade mission in the last session. Ontario has the intentions of going into the Chinese market with the first trade mission of any area, state or province in North America.

I note that the United Nations Third World Conference on Trade and Development is to be held in Santiago, Chile, in late April and May of this year. And this conference will be discussing Pacific rim trade. I respectfully suggest to the Honourable Minister of Trade and Industry that he scrutinise both these opportunities in 1972 for expanding British Columbia exports.

I will continue to cooperate with other individuals and associations…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. MERILEES: The Hon. Member is a believer in the cleaner environment, isn't he? O.K., we're going to keep it clean.

I will continue to cooperate with individuals and associations who fight for a cleaner environment. I was so pleased to read of the Honourable Leader of the Opposition's trip to Olympia, where he reportedly set the stage for a complete cleanup of Puget Sound and the Gulf of Georgia and the Straits of Juan de Fuca. Little big man, I call him, from Coquitlam. Chief little big man. He evidently was listening to my throne speech in 1970, Mr. Speaker — two years ago — which I repeated and enlarged upon in 1971.

But he fooled me, Mr. Speaker, all the time I thought he was upstairs buying coffee for the Datsun boys from Tokyo he was here making notes about this. In any case the Honourable Leader evidently recognised a good idea when he sees one.

And now for 1972 I will give him a little longer trip Mr. Speaker. I'm sure the Hon. Leader would like to take a longer trip next year. It is not a snide remark you know…it's not a one-way ticket to Libya or something like that. Incidentally I trust if he takes this trip that he will meet a very important Member of the Department of Lands, Forests and Water Resources if he arrives in Stockholm, Sweden, June 5 to 16. Because these are the dates, Mr. Speaker, for the 1972 United Nations Conference on the Human Environment.

As Canadians we can be most proud that the secretary general of this conference is Canada's own Maurice Strong. Sweden is a perfect choice for location of the conference, Mr. Speaker. No other nation has made the sacrifices and the progress toward a pollution free environment than has Sweden, and nearly all this has come in the last 10 to 12 years. I commend the Members' reading, Mr. Speaker, the article in January 1972 issue of Reader's Digest, "Sweden's War on Pollution".

This province has made, despite the editorials and the attitudes of the Vancouver Sun, prodigious strides in its introductory approach to the control of environmental pollution in all forms — there might be no doubt about that. The reason I'm advocating that attendance at the World Conference in Stockholm is that we should support our own leader who is considered the leader in the world today in the promotions of pollution-free environment — and that is Maurice Strong.

Besides which you cannot attend that kind of meeting with the top experts of the world without gaining knowledge and probably ideas that can boost the ideas that we have here.

The new Burrard Inlet crossing is needed now, Mr. Speaker, not tomorrow, or another 100 years from now. Even starting now will not make it open one day too soon. Controversy is being fomented this minute by a bunch of Johnny-come-lately's — I don't know who they are — protestors who at the opening the other day spit on the mayor's car and did their usual little trick, and it is one more proof for a need of a senior government advisory planning authority for the whole of the southwest comer of the British Columbia mainland from Hope to Tsawwassen and from Hope to Squamish.

This is what I advocated in my throne speech in 1971. This triangle Mr. Speaker, is now and will become more so as the years go by one of the richest most densely populated and strategically important areas in the whole of the Dominion of Canada. The federal government has too long dragged its feet on the responsibility that it should be sharing toward urban planning and welfare. The latest example was when the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Campbell) promised the greater Vancouver group planning regional transit authority 37 1/2 per cent of the cost and the answer from Ottawa over the years has just been a big fat nothing.

Now we have a new Minister of Urban Affairs and he's a Vancouver man. I wonder, Mr. Liberal Leader, can we hope for any improvements?

Public clamour said the First Narrows bridge should not be built, Mr. Speaker and the most people in this House remember that. Public clamour said the Second Narrows Bridge was out of place, wrong bridge, et cetera. But most decisions proved wise.

Even though the first bridge was much too small. Second Narrows proved itself to be well-placed, serving a rapidly-developing area as well as providing an excellent bypass for some of the through traffic from the east and south. The new crossing will probably prove the same provided of course that proper link-ups are planned for arterials to distribute bypass traffic and adequate provision made for mass rapid transit. And there are committees working on both of those problems Mr. Speaker, in spite of the bleeding hearts to the contrary.

It's not a question, Mr. Speaker, of a Burrard Inlet crossing or a rapid transit system to the east and south-east and parts of Greater Vancouver and the lower mainland. That's not the question Mr. Speaker, Greater Vancouver needs both. And we need them now — we don't need them 10 years from now — for the greatest and fastest-growing area

[ Page 189 ]

in all of Canada.

Protestors, Mr. Speaker, are a dime-a-dozen. Petitions are taken on the street at Granville and Georgia where anybody will sign anything, we all know that.

Where were all these bleeding hearts during the past several years when group meetings were held and widely publicised, discussing plans for both the third crossing and for mass rapid transit? Now, Mr. Speaker they're coming out of the woodwork and they want a plebiscite…an old Vancouver bromide used by wishy-washy leaders as a substitute for proper leadership that they were elected to give in the first place.

After years of discussion and consultation with internationally-respected transit and highway planners, the mayors and councils of the areas affected unanimously agreed on another crossing to better utilise the north shore for residential buildings. Isn't it better to build on rocks and mountain than it is on the green valley of the Fraser Valley? Certainly. To better service Squamish and the Pemberton area and the Nanaimo–Vancouver Island ferry run for a rapidly developing central and northern Vancouver Island area, such a crossing is needed now. These mayors and their councils were elected by the people — isn't that a plebiscite in itself? They have an excellent engineering department and budget and financial experts so now we need another plebiscite!

Last week, Mr. Speaker, I received a mimeographed circular letter signed by the Secretary-Treasurer of the B.C. Federation of Labour, accompanied by a so-called "brief."

The letter stated that this "brief" would replace the usual personal delegation from the B.C. Federation. Now this was hardly necessary, Mr. Speaker, because we had read about it 24 hours before in the Press. A good 24 hours before we even came to our desks.

This brief contained several pages of inflammatory accusations followed by more and more pages of tedious resolutions supposedly passed by the B.C. Federation during the past number of years.

This was no brief, Mr. Speaker. This collection of ill-conceived paragraphs was nothing short of an insult not only to Members of the Legislature but also an insult to every affiliated union member. In this day and age, Mr. Speaker, when labour unions are represented at important negotiations by the highest price legal counsel you can hire, top ranking economists and professional research experts, one might have expected a masterpiece of research and reason.

Instead it was a disgrace. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I wrote to Mr. George Johnston, president, and Mr. Ray Haynes, the secretary-treasurer, a letter which most of you have already read now stating and acknowledging the receipt of the so-called brief and saying among other things in this letter:

That such a brief would never have been written nor presented in such a fashion by men of sincere intentions. I believe the time is long overdue for the B.C. Federation of Labour to make a sincere and honest endeavour to bring constructive and reasonable thinking and action to bear on the continuing problems that face British Columbia in 1972.

Other major union leaders in Canada and the United States maintain meaningful dialogue with governments even though their requests are not 100 per cent accepted. As a result the union membership and the overall economy and peace of mind of these communities emerge as winners. At worse they still occupy a respected and tenable position for fresh negotiations, instead of an untenable impasse from which constructive and meaningful manoeuvre is well-nigh impossible.

This government has made many changes over the past year over a sincere endeavour to find meaningful ground on which it can assist in the collective bargaining process. It seems, however, that just as quickly as any aspect of new legislation or personnel fails to fall in line with the wishes of people like Johnson and Haynes, there is an immediate demand — often without prior consultation with membership — for repeal of the so-called offending legislation and/or resignation of either Ministers of the Crown or appointed civil servants.

The provincial government occupies and does its level best to discharge its responsibilities as an interpreter, advisor and mediator in the inevitable problems that arise in the conduct of collective bargaining contracts between trade unions and employers.

I told these gentlemen that over the years it has become apparent that the hostile position taken by them made it well-nigh impossible to hope for meaningful dialogue, and I said:

Therefore I suggest that you and your President, Mr. Johnston, resign and that the federation elect new and progressive leadership with a new look, dedicated to the vital task of improving labour relations and industrial progress in British Columbia in the years to come.

I haven't had an answer to that letter yet, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you expect one?

MR. MERILEES: No, I don't know. Anyway, it doesn't concern me.

The problems that always exist, Mr. Speaker, when organised labour unions and the management of companies with whom they enjoy collective bargaining contracts meet are delicate enough without the irresponsible, inflammatory type of leadership provided by these enemies of the British Columbia economy.

After last year's disgraceful goon squad attack at the very doors of democracy, these buildings, little wonder, Mr. Speaker, that Messrs. Haynes and Johnston chose to send something in the mail instead of appearing in person.

A card-carrying, dues-paying member of a British Columbia union should be a proud man — proud of his jobs, his family, his community and his union. But how can he, Mr. Speaker, be proud of his union, if it permits bosses of this type to preach disregard for any of the rules of fair play? Yes, even malicious disregard for the very laws of this province and the Canadian nation.

Which leads me directly into another prize example of bad, irresponsible union leadership. This chapter will be entitled, "Dennis the Menace and the Can of Worms".

Last week, the Honourable Member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) pulled a boo-boo of the first magnitude. He opened his own can of worms.

The whole sad, sordid story started nearly 12 months ago on March 1, 1971, when the bakers of McGavin's Toastmaster, coached by another disastrous labour leader, Mel Kemmis, walked out on an illegal strike.

This closed the whole plant and put between 280 and 300 employees out of work. McGavin's Toastmaster never opened again. So, Kemmis carved another notch in his belt. At least four other bakeries have been put out of business by the same man in greater Vancouver and I think about four or five in other parts of the province, long before he scuttled

[ Page 190 ]

McGavin's.

By the time he scuttled McGavin's he was a pro.

Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Member opened his own can of worms and it remained for Senator Ed Lawson, a responsible labour leader, to straighten the record insofar as the untrue allegations regarding the pension plan enjoyed by the McGavin employees is concerned.

I am quite sure you all read a Press statement by Senator Lawson in which he demanded that the M.L.A. and his leader correct statements made in this Legislature about McGavin's Toastmaster, and its treatment of employees. We will leave that and leave the boys to make their apologies in due course.

In any case, the allegations were certainly untrue and just showed that the homework had not been done.

Lawson described the company head, Alan McGavin, as a man of integrity and said that in the shutdown of the Vancouver plant the company went beyond everything required in its union agreement, et cetera.

Despite the strike, he said, they were well treated and so on and so forth. We won't go on to the details there, except that he referred to one or two of the employees and their severance pay and the one that I am interested in other than that was Mr. Des Howe, former president of the Teamsters' Local — $4,284, and so on and so forth. He said Howe was fully conversant with the provisions of the pension plan and had five sets of negotiations in which to correct any failings.

My comment on this Mr. Speaker, is this. Out of this very depressing story — and it is a depressing story, and I'm not here to capitalise on a misfortune of some individual or group of individuals — there emerges a number of personal tragedies. I can't go into all of them, I'll deal with two.

One concerns this Mr. Des Howe. Mr. Howe, along with others was out in front of the company office the other day with his family and children carrying placards and you read about it in the week-end Press.

What was not revealed was that Mr. Howe started to work for this company when he was 18 years old and continued to work for them for 33 years. When the plant closed he was only 53 years of age. You notice I say "only" 53 years of age — which as anybody here knows is unfortunately two years short of the earliest age recognised — 55 — by the company paid pension plan. Two years short. So Mr. Howe gets no pension.

The decision is made by the pension company, Mr. Speaker, not by the employer. This is a package which is bought, we all know this, and this is the way it goes and it's too bad.

However, it should be understood, Mr. Speaker, by all who are concerned, that Mr. Howe's extreme misfortune is that he was a member of the union negotiating committee for many, many years and was fully aware of the rigid rules that prevail in any and all pension agreements.

There are many people, who for reason of a day or two and even less, a matter of hours, who are on pension plans and certain other benefits, lose benefits. They terminate, say at midnight on December 31, or whatever it might be, and too bad if your date is the first of January. For reason of a day or two, not a year or two, these people have lost really much more than Mr. Howe has lost. This doesn't mean that I am not sorry for Mr. Howe, it would seem however, that he was a partial victim of his own negotiation.

Another festering aftermath, and this is a sad one, the second one, of the McGavin Toastmaster affair, comes with the story of some of these former employees, now non-union, driving non-union trucks, picking up bread in Seattle, Washington, U.S.A. and selling it in competition against their former union buddies and union-made Vancouver bread.

So the wheels turn in close circles, right? And what a dreadful situation to contemplate. This multiplies itself, Mr. Speaker, in other areas.

Mr. Mel Kemmis, who I read retired in the last four days, will be long remembered, Mr. Speaker, as typical of the type of greedy, irresponsible union boss, that does no lasting good service to his members, their families, nor to the people of British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame!

MR. MERILEES: Right, I say shame too. If we are to cut down the dreadful loss of income by workers as well as employers that result from ill-considered strike action, Mr. Speaker, if the great port of Vancouver can be paralysed by an internal union disagreement as to which union carries a container from point A to point B — nothing to do with dissatisfaction over the contractor either one of these two unions has with the employer, this is a fight between two unions on the job — if the giant and vital port of Vancouver, Canada, can be paralysed by this type of internal union squabble, well I leave it to you.

If a giant building or industrial complex can be tied up and throw thousands out of work because the lathers and the carpenters or who ever it may be, or some other unions argue between themselves, as to who can do which and what to whom, then how in the name of all that's holy, Mr. Speaker, can you hope to attract new industry?

Not all the fault lies with labour leaders, however. Now the Hon. Member from Vancouver East can prick up his ears. Management too must pull up its socks and decide that the time has come to pledge its best brains, effort and its sincerity in a better way of coming to fair and equitable collective labour contracts.

We have a new, young, and able Minister of Labour. I respectfully suggest that as early as possible, following this session, that he call a top-level conference of all the leaders in this province divorced entirely from a stroke climate, some of the leaders of organised labour and the leaders, all of them, hopefully.

AN HON. MEMBER: Would you include George Johnston in writing?

MR. MERILEES: I would, yes, if they're still in office.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Would the Honourable Member please address the chair.

MR. MERILEES: Excuse me, Mr. Speaker.

Not all the leaders of organised labour, just not the brass, not the wheeler-dealers — get down into the ranks of the men who are close to the workers, not to the bosses who sit and talk. The same applies to the leaders of industry, Mr. Speaker. Not just the experts who bargain for the giants of the forest industry or whoever it may be. Them too, of course, because they are experts and recognised as such, but also the men who battle year to year on contracts that are close to the problems of business and industry in this province from a day-to-day basis.

Call this conference of these people, these responsible people in good will and as men of good will attempt to thrash out a programme of co-operative labour-management pro-

[ Page 191 ]

gress that will serve as an example to every other province in Canada and hopefully will provide the framework for reasonable, just and progressive labour relations in the years to come.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Burnaby-Willingdon.

MR. J.G. LORIMER (Burnaby-Willingdon): Thank you Mr. Speaker. Once again I'm pleased to take my place in this debate which has been going on for quite a number of days up to now and I'm supposed to leave a little for the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat.

First I would like to congratulate the Honourable Minister of Public Works for the improvements he has made in our new quarters. The only thing wrong with my room is that I have a very poor picture of Robbie Burns on the wall, but I can't very well blame him for that. (Laughter).

MR. SPEAKER: Order! There is no such thing as a poor picture of Robbie Burns. (Laughter).

MR. LORIMER: Well, Mr. Speaker, I should have done better research on that one. (Laughter).

We will soon have the Honourable Provincial Secretary giving his awards for the year and I have a suggestion for him. I would like to assist him in his choices.

I would like to nominate His Honour, the Lieutenant-Governor, for an Oscar. I thought that his performance in reading the Speech from the Throne was really magnificent, considering the material he had to work with. I thought it a tremendous performance. I think Laurence Olivier, with lines like those, would be moved out of any theatre. (Laughter).

I know it's the duty, and we all know it's the duty of the government to divulge to the people of the province what programmes and what initiations the government intends to take. What directions they intend to go. To indicate to the people of the province what new legislation might be expected.

So the interested citizens and Hon. Members of the House can look into the matter and be able to give some constructive criticism about the matters proposed.

The speech itself was a verbal vacuum. The document spoke of the past and not of the future. This is obviously a reflection of the thinking of this government. It is a parrot government, peering over its shoulder and not looking forward. Thinking of the past, hoping that the problems of today will somehow disappear.

I suggest the concept of bringing the Lieutenant-Governor to this chamber to relate pages of drivel is inexcusable. I suggest it shows the disrespect to His Honour, to this chamber and to the people of British Columbia. I suggest it as a typical act of an arrogant government. This, of course, is a problem that developed from big government, too big a majority.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, Hear.

MR. LORIMER: If he gets to believe in the divine right to rule this in turn brings about the legislation that we have been receiving for the past few years — the retroactive legislation we saw last year in the changes in the Equalisation of Assessments Act where the Premier advised at a Press conference that the laws of the land would be ignored and the edict of the Premier would be obeyed.

As a result the assessments throughout the province were not based on law — they were based on the edict of the Premier.

Now we saw during the last session the changes in the legislation pushed through by this big government.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. LORIMER: I'm pretty close to the truth, too, but I use it merely as an indication of how democracy in this province is decaying. This government feels that it can ignore the democratic process and merely go through the motions. I suggest it does little for democracy in this province.

This term, this government, I suggest, should realise is merely the custodian of the democratic process during its term of office.

This term may have been too long but it's still a small span in the history of the province. I suggest they should be protecting the process. They should strengthen the foundation of democracy and the parliamentary process when in power and they should make sure that the parliamentary institutions have been strengthened because of their presence.

Victorians will determine the government's performance in office in part by these measures. I suggest the government may fail in this test in this aspect.

The Hon. Member from Skeena (Mr. Little) this afternoon was somewhat critical of the Honourable Attorney General with reference to the stand of the topless and bottomless dancers. He quoted the newspapers at length and he obviously has a very thick file on the subject — I was thinking it may well be called a "body" of evidence. But he didn't realise, I think, that the Attorney General was caught modeling the new uniforms for the dancers. This appeared in the Vancouver Sun of last week I think — his new costumes for the dancers in Vancouver.

But I would like to discuss one or two things with the Honourable the Attorney General. I would like to discuss the question of the backlog in the land registry offices in some of the offices in British Columbia. I know that he is quite aware of the matter and the matter is fairly serious in that. In New Westminster apparently at the end of the year the applications were some two months behind. Now the dangers here are that the registrations are accepted and it is possible to sell the land two or three times over before those applications finally are cleared and even though the deeds have been signed and money has passed, then if the first application is faulty then all subsequent applications are null and void.

This can be very serious for home-owners who are buying property believing they are getting title when registration is accepted.

Now I think Mr. Belwood the registrar in New Westminster resigned and this was mentioned by my colleague from Westminster. It was reported in the Vancouver Sun Friday December 31. "Belwood said the registry office is chronically understaffed and overcrowded. He said he resigned because repeated requests for more staff went unheeded by the Attorney General's department. And subsequently the registrar in Vancouver, Mr. Toothill resigned as well."

The problem has been present for a great number of years. It's merely getting worse each year. I realise that the Attorney General is having some experiments tried out in Victoria but certainly the matter is very serious and the solutions are not simple.

The basic problem is space — the lack of space — and

[ Page 192 ]

secondly, of course, the experienced help. Now new facilities in Vancouver — although they are very nice and new really — the space is not much greater if any at all than the previous quarters occupied by the registry. The crowding there is very extreme.

Experience can be brought in by paying the employees a higher rate of pay and by improving working conditions to encourage employees to remain. The employees generally in the land registry offices are those that commenced work shortly after the war and are now in their 20th year of service probably and find it difficult to go back into the labour stream. There are very few employees between that age and, say, two or three years of employment where the new help is coming in but the difficulty, it seems to me, is that the new people are not staying long enough. They are staying only as long until they can find employment with higher pay then they leave.

I suggest there should be possibly a review of the pay scale for these people — these people are well trained people and have a lot of responsibility — an employee until he has worked in the registry for at least two years is really of little help to the operation of the registry.

I would hope that the Attorney General will look at this seriously and have a committee of people that worked in the registry to advise him on how this process can be streamlined.

The same situation or basically the same situation I fear is being experienced in the court registries, especially in Vancouver, at any rate — I don't know about the interior ones. There seems to be a lack of space and a lack of employees and I hope that this is one matter the Attorney General will not try and cover up.

Now we witnessed an interesting situation a few days ago when the Minister of Lands and Forests condemned the federal government for granting drilling rights in the area of the Queen Charlotte Islands but subsequently the Honourable Minister of Petroleum Resources said that some three months ago they had granted licences for Union Oil Company to drill or explore in this similar area.

Now I hope that the Hon. Minister will tell us that he was merely being facetious as he said last year when he announced that they were thinking of purchasing Home Oil Ltd. of Calgary but to date I don't think he has said that.

But the whole question of oil drilling on our Pacific coast and the Gulf of Georgia is a very serious matter and of great concern to the people of this province. I think we have passed the time for playing games on the subject and I think the questions could be answered yes or no, that I'm going to propose and I hope they are answered before the end of this debate.

One of them is, I wonder if the provincial government is in favour of oil drilling in the Gulf of Georgia. Are they in favour of oil drilling in the Strait of Juan de Fuca? Are they in favour of oil drilling in the area around the Queen Charlottes or off the Pacific coast?

AN HON. MEMBER: The answer is yes.

MR. LORIMER: Now these are basically simple questions that could be answered quite readily. I have often wondered why sawmills when loading their sawdust and chips into barges are allowed to load them in such a careless manner where a great amount of the sawdust and chips go nowhere near the barge but fall into the inlets or bays wherever it is. Other barges are overloaded and by the time they reach the destination the sawdust has blown away and the chips have been lost and the debris is floating all over the harbour.

Hemlock logs sink, leaving the booms before they are processed and these logs add debris over the harbours and this creates hazards for boaters and everything else. We all know the end results of this practice, this waste. It causes the ruination of the fisheries, the beaches for miles around, destroys the sea life in the whole area and kills the ocean bed.

Now the whole mess and waste could be stopped by a little control from this department, I suggest. Maybe that more money from the budget be spent on the inspection and protection of the environment and to make sure that this practice which is very wasteful doesn't continue. It is hurting the tourist industry and I figure it is nonsensical to allow an industry to thrive uncontrolled at the expense of other industries of the province — fishing, industry, tourist industry and worst of all the ecology.

There have been miles of beaches destroyed in this province and I am afraid there are a number of harbours and other beaches going to be destroyed in the near future, unless action is taken. I would hope that the Minister would be prepared to tell the companies that this practice has to stop and if it doesn't stop he would take appropriate action and see that it does stop.

I must say I was disappointed in the Minister of Municipal Affairs when he gave his address the other day.

AN HON. MEMBER: I told you not to be surprised.

MR. LORIMER: I thought his attacks on the regional districts were completely unfair, unfounded, uninformed and completely irresponsible. He usually gives a good show for himself, he's entertaining. But I thought this year he went beyond the entertainment level and it seemed to me he was somewhat vicious in his attack.

AN HON. MEMBER: Should have been restricted.

MR. LORIMER: He quoted a variety of percentages to try and show the financial well-being of municipalities. These as usual were merely statistics in isolation. He offered to resign but his offer was an empty gesture. From the reports we received from Comox I think the Hon. Minister is in deep trouble. Whether or not he resigns is at best merely academic. (Laughter).

He reported that the municipal borrowing authority had borrowed money from the New York market and he failed to tell us that due to his interference the municipal borrowing authority were delayed some two years before they were able to borrow a penny because their rules and regulations had to be checked over and changed and there was interference from the department for some matter of months or over a year.

AN HON. MEMBER: Find out when the bill was passed.

MR. LORIMER: He compared the interest rates. The interest rate charged the Province of Quebec was 8 1/2 — one-eighth of a percent lower. He failed to tell us that New Brunswick also made a loan — floated some bonds in New York — and that was 8 1/4 per cent which is one-eighth percent lower then the authority here.

This one-eighth of a percent isn't a large interest rate but when we are dealing with millions of dollars over the long run the interest in dollars and cents to the individual home-owner would be quite substantial — an increase of thousands of dollars.

[ Page 193 ]

You see, I know that these questions of an eighth of a percent difference of borrowing is immaterial because the bond market changes day to day. The only point I want to make is that I was wondering why the Minister quoted Quebec but neglected to quote New Brunswick — that's the only point I'd like to make.

I'm not suggesting there would be any significant reduction one way or another if the loans were on the same day.

AN HON. MEMBER: Quebec was a quarter off?

MR. LORIMER: Quebec was an eighth off. Three-eighth and one-eighth make one half I think — it used to anyway when I went to school.

AN HON. MEMBER: He was a schoolteacher, no wonder he got out of it.

MR. LORIMER: I suggest that if the municipal borrowing authority were backed by the provincial government guaranteeing their loans, the interest rate would substantially be decreased. I suggest that a group on this side of the House continually suggest that the borrowing for municipalities be put on a provincial basis, provincial guarantees in order to reduce the interest rates. This will make the percentages, I suggest, a lot lower than what we have been able to receive here and I suggest to the Minister it is not too late to repent. At this session of the House he can bring in a new bill guaranteeing municipal bonds.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. LORIMER: But I thought the Hon. Minister would have spoken of his accomplishments during his tenure of office and given a short speech. (Laughter). He failed to explain how he intended to lighten the load of the municipalities.

AN HON. MEMBER: Due to an interjection.

MR. LORIMER: He failed to tell the House how he intended to use the cost of welfare on municipalities and he failed to tell what financial assistance he hoped to obtain for the sewage treatment centres and what he hoped to do for transit, rapid or otherwise. In short I suggest he failed.

But the Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement I think did enjoy that speech. I think he feels that he is now number one. Now in October…

AN HON. MEMBER: Quit picking on Phil.

MR. LORIMER: In October, Price Waterhouse and Company produced its 1970 report on the mining industry of British Columbia. And it's interesting to note that according to this report some 45 per cent of the mining industry is owned outside the province — foreign owned, it's not owned in Canada but outside the country. And since this report was made Western Mines Ltd. of the Buttle Lake fame sold out to W.A. Grace and Co. — I think it's of New York, and instead of that company being, I think 98 or 96 per cent Canadian-owned, as I understand is now totally owned by the United States.

So I suggest that probably the truer figure, probably the content now, is closer to 50 per cent or even over 50 per cent foreign owned of our mining industry.

According to the report over $400 million including taxes and royalties, $400 million was the total revenue from the mining industry and the taxes and the royalties paid by the mining interests amounted to $32 million only.

Now, this represents 8 per cent, so that's 8 cents on the $1. So what has happened is that the mining industry for 8 cents on the $1 has sold the resource and paid all its provincial taxes — that 8 cents. Now there are no royalties paid on copper — we give the metal away in this province. In 1970 $128 million worth of copper concentrates were shipped out of this province. Not a penny was returned in the form of a royalty. Now this is our copper, Mr. Minister, and we want a return. Kaiser Coal Company is shipping about 5 million tons of coal per year. The original contracts call for $18.65 a ton.

So the gross annual figure is $95 million revenue from the sale of this coal. Not a cent is being paid in royalties.

Now these are our minerals as well, Mr. Minister, and we want some return. And in 1970 we did a little better on the iron. There was an export of $17.5 million worth of iron, and we got back $260 thousand worth of royalties — which comes to 1 1/2 per cent, 1 1/2 per cent of the gross revenue of the iron concentrates came back to us.

AN HON. MEMBER: The typical Social Credit dividends to the people.

MR. LORIMER: Now this iron belongs to us as well, and we want a return.

In another area of the mining industry we have given thousands of acres of our land as held by the mining companies under Crown grants. And these Crown grants pay 25 cents an acre in annual tax.

Now this is not good enough, I suggest. The farmers and ranchers cannot get anywhere near an acre of land for 25 cent tax. They have to pay a different figure. We have two prices, we have the price we charge the ranchers and farmers and the price we charge the mining industry. And the only ones that can compete with the mining industries in this regard are the forestry industries. Now these give-aways of special privileges have got to stop, and they've got to stop now. I'd like to ask the Hon. Minister of Mines if he's satisfied with the returns the province received from the mining industry. I am just wondering if he will maybe go back to the drawing boards, maybe draw up a new Act and let us have a look at it and pass it at this session, and have a little more equality in the affairs of the province.

The benefit to the people in our mining industry I suggest, to be kind, is limited, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement.

HON. P.A. GAGLARDI (Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement): Mr. Speaker…

AN HON. MEMBER: What's this, the Late Show?

HON. MR. GAGLARDI: It is the late show, the late, late, late show. I don't propose to keep the House very long because what is to be said certainly doesn't need an awful lot of words. Because what isn't being said in this House, particularly by the Opposition, I don't think can ever be recorded excepting in history — showing that the Opposition lacks in ability to keep up with the necessities of the times.

[ Page 194 ]

Speaking of the throne speech — I originally didn't intend to do any speaking in this particular debate because there are so many very fine speakers to do this particular job — but there are some things that maybe we should draw to the attention of the House.

One of the failures of this government, if there is any failure in this government, is the lack of telling the story really as it is. The good story, of telling the accomplishments of the government without appearing to be bragging about what is being done. And sometimes it's not the easiest thing in the world to divide the two.

A lot of times when you tell the story there's so much, so many aspects, of it that borders on genius that a lot of people really don't like to credit it. Yet it's true.

But in the throne speech that we have been debating I've listened quite attentively to what the Opposition has had to say. One thing that the Leader of the Opposition brought out was the age of the government, stating that maybe some of us were getting a little bit lax and a little bit stereotyped in the activity in government.

I'd like to suggest that if there's anybody that's getting old in this government it's the Opposition. I haven't heard anything new in 20 years. Every throne speech that we have ever placed before the public, that's been loaded with activity — and history will tell that story better than it ever can be told any place else — the Opposition rises constantly and says that there was nothing in it. Nothing in it! Simply because of the inability of being able to see what they're looking at.

It's like the man who can't see the trees for the forest. And what you can't see, you can't see. It is an impossibility to educate individuals or to be able to instil any type of knowledge in individuals that are incapable of being able to absorb knowledge.

The reason why they can't see anything in the throne speech is simply because they can't credit a government with that type of activity.

This last throne speech that was presented to the people of this province is loaded with activity of the history of what went on in this province in this last year. And anybody that is unable to see it, I think history will literally dazzle the people of the future with what has gone on in the last some 20 years with this particular government.

Now, if there's anything that the N.D.P. can be famous for its an endeavour to mislead the public in their statements here, on the floor of the House.

I'll wager that — you know it's an amazing thing but they talk about Socialism and about N.D.P. and so on — I'll wager the first Member from Vancouver East gets on his knees every night and he says: "Lord," and then he pauses and looks around, opens his eyes and then he says: "If there is a God like the Member from Kamloops says that there is, please let this Social Credit government stay in power, because I'm doing so well as a legal man, and also as a mortgage man. I'm making so much money, please keep them in power. Don't let that fellow Barrett get into power, or the Leader of the Opposition, because it'll go down the drain."

I'm positive that's the way it is. I'm sure that the Member from Lillooet, I'm sure that most of the Members of the Opposition if they believe that there is a divine power ask every night that this government stay in power because they have never had it so good.

Imagine the Hon. Member from Lillooet rattling around in two automobiles — Mercedes Benz if you please.

Interjection by Hon. Member.

HON. MR. GAGLARDI: Yes, two of them. There's all kind of capitalists that can't afford things like that. (Laughter).

But here the government of the Province of British Columbia is such an affluent government that even the Socialists can afford to own two automobiles.

And the Hon. Member who just got through speaking — God bless him — did an outstanding job but there again is a man who quietly goes on his way rolling in the dollars as a capitalist working within the system and enjoying every hour of it. Fat and sassy, he comes back here for a couple of months makes his $10,000, and goes home and sits in that old rocker and says: "Good Lord please keep this government in power."

Burnaby-Edmonds — have you ever seen a man driving around in an automobile with a speed boat behind his car heading for every resort that the Minister of Recreation can build? What for? Because he can afford to spend hundreds of hours every year in recreation because of the affluent society that this man who says he is a Socialist is in.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. GAGLARDI: Imagine if you please…the ball point fellow can even write out a cheque. He has money in the bank. Imagine that if you please.

Now, can you really credit this situation? And can you equate it with what the ordinary concept of Socialism is? Impossible! And then the stuff that they try and sell us on the floor of this House.

For instance for 20 years in Saskatchewan they worked on the system of Socialism and what did it produce? Those old farmers who abided up to 20 years of that hide-bound type of ideas without any new innovations of any kind got up and went to the polls and threw them out.

AN HON. MEMBER: They threw them back in again.

HON. MR. GAGLARDI: Sure they threw them back in again, not by choice but because they were voting against something not for something. No way, no way.

Then when you mention the Socialism in Saskatchewan, and if you mention the Socialism in Saskatchewan, and if you mention the Socialism in Manitoba…and the businessmen and the enterprises are leaving Manitoba so fast that there aren't enough trucks to keep them rolling across the country.

I spoke at a meeting some time ago of the freight haulers, the truckers…

Interjections by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. GAGLARDI: Sure I drive lots of them, you can't find better people than those Manitoba people, heading for British Columbia and they tell me…the truckers tell me they're hauling more people into British Columbia from Manitoba and Saskatchewan and from Quebec and so on than almost any other province in the country. Now, why?

AN HON. MEMBER: They must think this is a speculator's paradise.

HON. MR. GAGLARDI: Why certainly it's a speculator's paradise. And that's what my friend is doing and enjoying the paradise. Only one is looking at a fat-cat Socialist like himself

[ Page 195 ]

and seeing that he's enjoying the fat of the land and they want to join it to. Surely you can't blame them.

Here's Manitoba and Saskatchewan with the socialistic activity trying to peddle that line here that something good is going to come out of the socialistic concept — if they can produce anything that's any good why didn't they produce it in Manitoba and Saskatchewan?

Oh, they say: "We don't have the circumstances that you have in B.C." You mean to tell me that Socialism is going to produce anything in British Columbia when it can't produce anything any other place in the world? I suggest to you…and then to add insult to injury if you please, this little old flea circus got in a bus and went down to Washington if you please, the State of Washington.

As though those Americans wouldn't be able to see through that flim-flam after a little while. And then sitting down and chatting with those Americans and thinking that we were going to sell them a bill of goods. Now, what were they trying to do? The Attorney General pointed it out I think in the clearest terms that it could be possibly pointed out. They were trying to make out to the people of British Columbia that the manifesto that the Leader of the Opposition signed had no credence to it.

Imagine, if you please, signing the manifesto from the Waffle Group and then going down to the United States of America fraternising with the very people you are speaking against.

That reminds me of the Member from Vancouver-Capilano who took a tape recording…if you please he puts a bill in the House saying it's wrong to record any secret speech onto the floor of the House if you please.

Now, I like the fellow from North Vancouver, whatever the riding is? He's a terrific fellow and a nice guy but I couldn't buy that principle no matter how you sold it, no matter how you peddled it. He spoke here on the floor of this House saying that it was a wrong principle and yet he brought it in here on the floor of this House as though it was the thing to do.

I am not in favour of the tape, period. Any time you want, bring anything in here that I've said and play it all you please.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. GAGLARDI: I remember everything that I said in the tape. If that's the tape you're talking about, I know what I said…

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

HON. MR. GAGLARDI: But I'd like to suggest to the Leader of the Opposition, when he went to the United States of America was he trying to suggest to somebody that maybe there should be some tie in with Socialism and the Americans? I think they've got enough problems of their own. And certainly he wouldn't be part of their solution. But apparently some senator discovered the colour of those Members' eyes and the colour of their creed because it wasn't too long until they laboured them as a bunch of pinkos and they got on their bus and went back to British Columbia. And we, harbingers of all people, we look after you, fat and sassy as you are, sitting in a House, enjoying the fat of the land, living under a good Social Credit government and under the greatest affluence of any government in Canada today. That's right.

The Hon. Member from New Westminster selling insurance that you speak against every day. What kind of principle is that? Living off of a capitalistic system and preaching against the very system that they're living off of — and chewing gum at the same time. Why don't you park your gum and go to sleep?

You talk about fat cats!

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. GAGLARDI: You mean you have people working for you that do the job for you and you just supervise? More of a fat cat than what I thought!

Interjection by an Hon. Member

HON. MR. GAGLARDI: Would you want to buy a used car from that Member? (Laughter). I'll be through here in a few minutes, but I said that this government, if the government is old in office it is only old when it fails to measure up to the challenge of the times. There has been no government, no government, that has met the individual challenges of every year like the innovative ideas of this particular government.

I don't care what field of activity you want to tackle. This government has measured up to its responsibilities perhaps in a greater fashion than any other.

I'm amazed that the Hon. Member from Oak Bay — not that I want to attract any attention to him, I think he's one of the best doctors that came from Scotland — he should stay in the business of being a doctor, cut out a few kidneys and chop off a few tonsils and cut somebody's hair, pare their toenails — I think that's the job that he should be doing. (Laughter).

When any man leaves the Social Credit Party and he goes to the Conservative Party he's walking backwards faster than he ever walked ahead in any time in his life, I tell you.

He didn't walk into anything, he backed up into it. Believe me, it's like a lawnmower that'll chop your tail off before you're through. Your head as well.

AN HON. MEMBER: Have your tonsils out…

HON. MR. GAGLARDI: I don't need my tonsils out. I got the best set of tonsils you ever saw. They've been with me for 59 years and they'll be with me for another 60 years. (Laughter). You'd better believe it. Oh yes, it's only the good that die young. I'll be around a long time.

Now, I said that this government met the challenges of the times. You could go back into history — be very simple to do that. I said here, and I say it again categorically, one of the things that's wrong with this government is because of the dazzling picture of genuine activity it's hardly able to talk about it without someone thinking that you're boasting or bragging.

That's right. It's true. I don't care what fields you want to tackle. It's exactly the same.

Because this government, though it's not a big government just an ordinary small government, yet it has met more challenge than any other government in the nation.

I tell you, it's the only government in Canada today that's ever measured up to its problems in the field of labour. There's so many.

Canada today just got through one of the worst strikes you ever saw in the air strike. That was a tragedy — 1,600

[ Page 196 ]

men, and I'm sure they had a just cause and I'm not saying that they didn't deserve more wages. Nothing wrong with that. What I am saying is after 11 days of strike then what did they do? They got together with the mediator and they said "we'll go now for compulsory arbitration. What's our commission?"

So the provincial government in the Province of British Columbia had the intestinal fortitude to stand up and say for the sake of the people of the province and for the sake of the labouring man that can't afford a long strike: "Let's put in some legislation that when the entire community has to suffer we can do something about it."

That is true. That's courage.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about the construction workers?

HON. MR. GAGLARDI: What about the construction workers? The construction workers when they were on strike, the moment that it started to affect the whole of the situation on a very serious basis, then action was taken. But after all, you have to work with people. You have to work with people. If the people are in a mood to obey the laws then they will obey them, and so on.

So I suggest that this government has the ability to measure up to the times. Take for instance in the field of finance. You know, when we became government the first thing people said was: "Will they last? Will they last?"

We've lasted out every other government that there ever was in the Province of British Columbia. This man, the leader of our organisation, the Premier of the province, has, very successfully. I don't think anybody believes in democracy more than the Premier — he's never allowed us to go a couple of years or three years — let the people have their choice. He believes in democracy. Take it easy. Give us time to catch our breath. Man, we've been going all these years. Still going!

AN HON. MEMBER: Pride before the fall.

HON. MR. GAGLARDI: Ha, whose fall, whose fall?

AN HON. MEMBER: You know whose!

HON. MR. GAGLARDI: Your fall — because what new idea have you come up with in all the years that you've been on the floor of this House? You're still the man that's been trying to suggest to me that you're such a great individual in the social services of the community and all the highbound ideas that have been going on for the last 50 years you've never been able to improve on. What are you talking about?

So in the field of finance, once in a while when I go to bed at night I have a little bit of fun laughing to myself about some of the things that have taken place in history — the amusing things.

AN HON. MEMBER: How long have you had that problem?

HON. MR. GAGLARDI: Oh, ever since listening to the Hon. Member, I've been laughing all the way down the street year after year. I have to keep laughing.

AN HON. MEMBER: Come down to my office.

HON. MR. GAGLARDI: I tell you, it's only a sense of humour that keeps a fellow alive listening to fellows like you. So the many times when I think about it, some years ago we tried to have a bank in the Province of British Columbia and the Premier was the man who thought up the idea and he thought that we would like to back it. But the Senate committee in Ottawa said "No, you can't do that." Most of those senators were sitting as…

AN HON. MEMBER: The Liberal government…

HON. MR. GAGLARDI: Sure.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. GAGLARDI: I'll tell you. Your ball point pen is wearing out and so are you. Go to sleep. That's all right. Go on home and go to bed. I've got lots of life in me and I'll be going a long time after you get to sleep.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. GAGLARDI: That's right, go back to your couch. Maybe you haven't got a psychiatrist in the group any more now, you're a lot wiser for it. But none the less you haven't got one.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. GAGLARDI: Another capitalist planner! Goes and buys islands and then he fights against anybody that makes any kind of a profit on land and then goes out and makes a profit himself. Man, I tell you, you talk about Socialism. I never heard such ridiculous things in my life.

AN HON. MEMBER: You've been listening to yourself.

HON. MR. GAGLARDI: That's right, I like listening to myself. That's why I've got such good ears.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I don't want to prolong the House but I have to tell you something about this finance business, because it is an amazing thing, and it borders on genius, if it isn't genius.

But imagine the federal government saying: "You can't go into banking business." I don't think there's any bigger bank today, any place in the world as far as provincial governments are concerned than the Premier of this province. That's right.

Now the amazing thing is — and here's the amazing thing — the Premier of this province has managed the affairs of the province in such a way that there has been an accumulation of money. We have never had to borrow to be able to provide services.

Now that's an important thing. Never had to borrow to provide services. The Premier today doesn't have to run to any bank to start borrowing money for providing of services but he is able to lend money to many of the agencies of government and get an interest rate from that lending, like the banks so that the economic balance is kept and the bank can still pay and stay in business.

Then on top of that instead of that interest money going to some moneylender some place it comes right back into the coffers of the provincial government and is used to the benefit of the taxpayer. That's what you call having your cake and eating it too.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

[ Page 197 ]

HON. MR. GAGLARDI: That's only in the Province of British Columbia. Go sell your insurance. Chew your gum and go sell your insurance. Peddle your insurance, because in this kind of economy you can sell insurance. If your government or your philosophy was in power today you'd starve to death. That's right. You'd be chewing gum for the rest of your lives.

Now, along with that, tonight the Premier said to the Minister of Public Works "go out and turn the lights on." You know, we're losing money when those lights aren't on. Because Hydro is a Crown-owned agency. Not ours, but it's a Crown agency. Bought with our money, that's the people's money. Now here again is where you can have your cake and eat it too. Raised through a parity bond. That parity bond is really an amazing and a genius thing if ever there was one. The parity bond. Never been duplicated.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. GAGLARDI: You'd better believe it. That's right. I'm telling you that this government's fault is its inability to be able to tell the people what it's actually done without seeming to border on bragging. That's right. I'd like to ask the Hon. Member from Vancouver East to go out and duplicate it any old place that he can, to ask him to find one government in Canada today or the United States of America that could equal the Province of British Columbia in financial stature or in status today. I'd like to have him do that.

AN HON. MEMBER: The other Minister says the Minister of Chaos.

HON. MR. GAGLARDI: I don't care what they say that I am. I'll tell you what I am. That's right — a Minister of Chaos for you — that's what he says. That's right. When you went out and the C.B.C. came rattling out in the last elections and set up all their cameras and thought that Berger was going to be the next leader of the government and so on, everybody was running around — great big smile and happy — and it looked like the world was already built for you. But somebody pulled the plug.

Who was it that caused your chaos? The Social Credit government and I was one of them. That's right. So my friends, don't do too much bragging about this chaos bit because you're the fellow that's in the middle of it, and you don't know how to get out of it and you never will. Never will.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's always the next leader.

HON. MR. GAGLARDI: No, no, no. He doesn't want to be the leader of anything. He's making too much money where he is. (Laughter).

AN HON. MEMBER: Thank you very much. Thanks for calling.

HON. MR. GAGLARDI: The Hon. Member for Burnaby said a little while ago that we weren't getting any money from our resources. I don't like that. I don't like that.

AN HON. MEMBER: We don't like it either.

HON. MR. GAGLARDI: Then when the leader of the N.D.P. stood up in the floor of this House and said: "we do not get any royalties from our mines" — I've got news for you, Mr. Member, I've got news for you. Whether we get any royalties or whether we don't…

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. GAGLARDI: The people of this province today are getting millions and millions and millions of dollars.

AN HON. MEMBER: Your own answer's on the order paper.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

HON. MR. GAGLARDI: Because you ask questions. Because you say there are no royalties. We're getting millions and millions and millions of dollars from the mining industry in the Province of British Columbia. Yes we are.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. GAGLARDI: If the federal Liberal government — and I'll wager you the member from West Vancouver is not in favour of it — if that finance mess that they have down in the federal government in Ottawa continues there'll be no mining industry left in Canada at all.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. GAGLARDI: I tell you. We've got to straighten it out and in the next election there'll be no Liberals left. They might be able to do a little manipulating and took Benson out of the Department of Finance and put him out in someplace else. What they should have done with him is give him a rocking chair and some slippers and a pipe full of tobacco and said "sit there and smoke for the rest of your life."

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. GAGLARDI: So what do they do? They have to take the best legal brain that they have and put him in the finance department to try and untangle the mess that they've got there now. He'll never untangle it.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. GAGLARDI: There's only one way to straighten it out and that's to throw them out. That's what the people of this nation are going to do in the next election. Believe me. We're going to save you, mister. The electorate will save the Liberals. Throw them out. Now surely they're not going to vote for Stanfield as Stanfield but he'll get in, I believe, simply because there's nothing else to vote for. Who in the name of common sense would vote for that outfit called the N.D.P.? Lewis rattles around just like you do, accomplishing nothing.

AN HON. MEMBER: Social Credit! What happened to you federally? What happened to you in Alberta?

HON. MR. GAGLARDI: You talk about royalties.

[ Page 198 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: If you're not satisfied, write your memoirs.

HON. MR. GAGLARDI: The Hon. Member from Burnaby said that there was $128 million — that much sale in copper. That we didn't get any money out of it. No royalties!

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. GAGLARDI: Let me ask a question of the Hon. Member from Lillooet. Do you mean to tell me that we got no money out of that $128 million? Sit down, I never asked a query. You haven't got the answer anyway.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order.

HON. MR. GAGLARDI: That $128 million is producing a lot of money for the province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! State your point of order.

MR. W.L. HARTLEY (Yale-Lillooet): When the Member sits down.

HON. MR. GAGLARDI: No, no. I'm not sitting down.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, the Hon. Member should be seated.

HON. MR. GAGLARDI: No, I'm not sitting down.

MR. SPEAKER: If the Hon. Member has a point of order, the Hon. Minister should be seated.

HON. MR. GAGLARDI: He's got no point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Is the Member standing on a point of order?

MR. HARTLEY: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, a point of privilege.

HON. MR. GAGLARDI: You heard what I say. Sit down. Wait until I get through then you can stand up and say anything you like.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! A point of privilege is in order at any time. Now I trust the Member has a point of privilege.

MR. HARTLEY: The Hon. Member isn't seated.

HON. MR. GAGLARDI: No, I'm still standing up.

MR. HARTLEY: What was stated was that the Province of British Columbia on behalf of the people received no royalties from…

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The Hon. Member realises this is not a point of privilege. That's an abuse of the rules of this House.

HON. MR. GAGLARDI: That's a classic example of all the misleading statements that you and the other members have been making on that side of the House all the way down the line.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. GAGLARDI: I'm going to tell you the most misleading statement that's ever been uttered here. That we're not getting any money out of this copper. For every dollar that is made in the Province of British Columbia there is income tax, there is all kinds, there's 5 per cent on every piece of machinery that goes in there and quasi royalties and on top of that, every wage earner that's working up there has to pay income tax because he's getting good high wages. The people of the Province of British Columbia are profitting every day from that mining venture.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. GAGLARDI: Exactly the same with the coal. Your leader, the former leader, that's right, Mr. Berger got up and he said, "I'd shut the mining down up in the Kootenays." What happened to him? He got shut down.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. GAGLARDI: And they just about knocked you out if it wouldn't have been for ballpoint.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. GAGLARDI: We're getting hundreds of millions of dollars from the mining industry. This government has already set up legislation, saying that when the time comes and it's economic to do so, we want all of this material smelted and produced and refined and everything else right here.

Why? Because that's exactly what we want. Protection for our people. We have the laws. The moment that it becomes economic to do so and the moment that it becomes possible so that there's no pollution from that type of industry, then we want it. There is no one — I don't care how much you rattle away, rattle all you like — there is no government in Canada that can match the record of this government in finance, in industry, in progress, in innovation, in invention, in ingenuity, in anything else you want to know.

I am a proud man to belong to this kind of a government under the leadership we have in this country today. There is only one thing that would worry me — too bad that the Premier didn't have a double that could go down to Ottawa and get them out of the wilderness that they're in.

What this province needs today, is the continuation of a government that never grows old, that is ingenious, capable of meeting the challenge of every day and of every hour and our every need.

This is a government that serves humanity — 80 per cent of its budgets are always spent in a humanitarian way, education, health and social services. Why? Simply because people are the most important things that we can serve today and we're proud serving them.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a point of privilege.

[ Page 199 ]

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

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, during the comments made by the Minister of Social Development and Rehabilitation, he stated that myself and the Member for Burnaby-Willingdon, had given mis-information to the House and were misleading the House.

He referred specifically to a statement that we had said there was no copper royalties. I don't ask the Member to withdraw the statement, "mis-information". But "misleading" is incorrect and I ask a withdrawal, because I refer to page 173 of the Journal of 1971. In answer to a question asked of the Minister of Mines: "are there any royalties on copper?" the Minister's answer — and I know that he wouldn't mislead the House — the answer is: "No royalties on copper".

MR. SPEAKER: I think earlier this evening, I pointed out that unless there was an imputing of a motive to deliberately mislead, that I would not ask for a withdrawal. I think there was no imputation of a motive that any Member was deliberately misleading the House.

Hon. Mr. Skillings, on behalf of the second Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain, moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Bennett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 9:45 p.m.