[ Page 201 ]

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 1972

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

Prayers.

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

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of representing a constituency which has three of the outstanding municipal jurisdictions in British Columbia. One of those jurisdictions is being represented in the House today by a visit from the Mayor, Mr. Torn, and two aldermen, Mr. Stibbs and Mr. Boileau. I ask the House to welcome them.

MR. R.M. STRACHAN (Cowichan-Malahat): Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is again my opportunity of bringing joy and pleasure to your hearts by announcing that we have in the gallery a group of students from the Lake Cowichan High School and I would like to thank them for the carnation which the Premier is just putting on now.

AN HON. MEMBER: Pinko!

MR. STRACHAN: They gave me the white one for purity. Why they gave the Premier the red one, I'll never know. (Laughter). On behalf of you, Mr. Speaker, for the flowers which were sent to your office, I'm sure you would have asked me to express your thanks to them. Thank you.

Introduction of bills.

Orders of the day.

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable lady Minister without Portfolio.

HON. G. McCARTHY (Minister without Portfolio): Thank you very much Mr. Speaker. I would like the House to welcome today a member of the board of parks and public recreation who is in the gallery, and as I am going to be speaking considerably on parks and recreation in my address to the throne speech I would ask the House to welcome Commissioner Andy Livingstone of the Vancouver Parks Board.

I'm surprised, Mr. Speaker, that the recent cabinet shuffle in Ottawa has raised so little comment in this House in the past few days. The Prime Minister of Canada has with his actions last Friday placed very many new Ministers over new departments or old departments in Ottawa.

AN HON. MEMBER: It would never happen here.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: The result will be that from now on in the next few months our country will be run by a group of civil servants while all of the politicians are out campaigning for the obvious federal election to come.

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

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Not elected by the people of this country, but of course that doesn't really seem to matter too much in Ottawa these days. It's an obvious result of this act of desperation by the Prime Minister of this country.

Mr. Trudeau has shuffled the cabinet deck, and really the best interpretation the country can take from this desperate card game is that the federal Liberals will soon be tested at the polls and the jokes of the country will be prevented from running wild any longer in this country.

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

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: No, I don't have that on my conscience, Mr. Leader. A few days ago just before giving his own version of the throne speech the leader of the Liberal Party spoke on the C.B.C. provincial affairs programme. Anticipating the beginning of the session the Honourable, the Liberal leader said this and I would like to quote it to this House because I think it is very significant: "In the true spirit of liberalism we should champion the cause of the senior citizens. The Liberal Party will be taking up their cause."

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

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

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: … if they didn't hear that programme someone should tell the senior citizens of this province that the Liberals have pledged themselves to "taking up their cause". Do you remember the last time they took up the cause for the senior citizens of this province? Can you recall?

AN HON. MEMBER: Kind of late.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Can you recall? It was April, 1971 and the Liberals in Ottawa took up the cause of the old age pensioners of Canada. They raised their pension by 42 cents, Mr. Speaker. This was just about the time they raised their own pensions by several thousands of dollars. The senior citizens should tell this little band of Liberals over here, this ageing boys' club, (Laughter), that with friends like these they don't need enemies. Forty-two cents!

But later, the following Monday, Mr. Speaker, when the Honourable Leader did speak in this House on this throne debate, he did enunciate a policy that I could agree with.

In fact I had publicly stated my opinion on the subject just two days before he did in this House, and it was this: that the total acreage of Jericho defence lands in the city of Vancouver should be preserved for park and recreation for all time for all the citizens of British Columbia.

It should never have been considered in this time of environmental enlightenment to be preserved for anything other than parkland.

The Liberal government, however, is profiteering precious potential parkland in Vancouver to developers in blatant disregard for the overcrowding of Stanley Park and Queen Elizabeth Park — totally ignoring the necessities to provide recreational areas for the city dwellers who are unable to avail themselves of the outlying open space which is miles away from the city — those people who do not have transportation, who do not have their own automobile, Mr. Speaker, but need public transportation to easily-accessible park areas within the cities.

[ Page 202 ]

I am so pleased that the Liberal leader and I can agree on that. I'm pleased that the preservation of parklands in our now crowded lower mainland is not decided on political expediencies. It should not and cannot be decided as a matter of political expediency.

Yet there is another area in Vancouver that deserves the same consideration, the same forthright stand, the vision that was portrayed over 100 years ago by those who were able to save Stanley Park for all people for all time — and I speak of the entrance to that very Stanley Park known as the Four Seasons site.

The history of this land is well known, it has been a Liberal sellout engineered by the Liberal elite in Vancouver and encouraged by the Liberal leaders in parliament who ignored the wishes of the people of Vancouver. It is proposed that over 4,000 people will be placed in this small neck of land housed with tall buildings which will block out the most magnificent sea and mountain view.

Our Vancouver traffic engineer just four years ago, in 1968, told us that 4,130 vehicles passed Chilco and Georgia every evening just past this site of Four Seasons park. That was just four years ago. Imagine the traffic congestion today, and then add the automobiles and the service vehicles that will be required to accommodate the needs of an extra 4,000 or 5,000 people proposed for the Four Seasons development and this little band of Liberals that sit in this House did not declare themselves on that issue. Perhaps like the 42 cents they would rather it not be mentioned.

Now speaking of parks, I would like to suggest a programme of preservation of open space for the province. In some parts of the world, notably Britain, there is a national trust that receives donations and gifts of land and historic homes. I propose, Mr. Speaker, that a provincial trust for British Columbia be established that would enable the citizen to turn over his property — be it land, be it an island, lake frontage, foreshore — which would be held in trust, and tax free by the province to be used after his death for park and recreational use.

The provincial trust for British Columbia could receive gifts of money, ensuring many British Columbians that their gift, whether large or small in amount, would be used to build a better British Columbia.

Many industries and individual citizens would appreciate an opportunity to leave future British Columbians a legacy of open space and park land — areas to be kept in their natural state, historical homes such as the home of Emily Carr, and islands that are now privately owned but could revert to the public good.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, we are in the midst of building a new British Columbia building in the heart of Vancouver. This magnificent building will be of great benefit to British Columbia and particularly Vancouver. I don't plan to discuss this building at this time other than to say that the co-operation with the British Columbia building committee, of which I am a member, and the city is very good.

But I would like to make an observation about all buildings built by our government and that is that a small percentage of their total building costs should be spent on suitable and local sculpture, art work, or paintings, so that our government will lead the way as an example to private industry in the provision of a more attractive landscape. There should be a contribution by governments at all levels to the cultural growth of each community in our province and I think the municipal and provincial governments should also take this up.

Our province is richly blessed with natural beauty. It is also blessed with many talented artists and craftsmen who could reflect and interpret the first decade of this second century for generations to come.

I was pleased that the throne speech referred to the extensive study undertaken over the past two years of family law legislation,

The fact that these amendments have not been incorporated before now in our province in these changing times has been a real hardship on many parents and many children.

I would like to refer to a programme that has already helped many of our disadvantaged citizens. That is the job opportunities programme that has been given so much attention in this House so far this session.

Centennial year will be remembered for many celebrations for the significance of the historic anniversary, of course, but it will be remembered by me, Mr. Speaker, as the year that the Social Credit government launched the boldest and most innovative programme to implement social change as has been seen on this continent in the past 25 years.

It has escaped the notice of the Hon. Members of the Opposition that in the many years of handwringing and emotional outcries from that side of the House about the plight of those on social assistance, that at no time have they — whose leader is a social worker — come up with a programme to give the welfare family back their pride — not at any time a constructive programme.

No, they were always ready to suggest, as the Honourable Member from Kootenay (Mr. Nimsick) annually does, to give more money to the welfare recipients with no consideration as to how far the taxpayer can go and how many generations of families we can actually educate to live a life on the dole.

The job opportunities programme of British Columbia is being studied all over North America as an exciting new programme designed to place the onus on business, on industry, and on labour unions to provide an opportunity for those who have been left out of the affluent society.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: How many jobs?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I will give you those figures in just a few moments. "A subsidy to big business". Now would you tell me where would they place the responsibility for creating jobs?

If they were in a place of responsibility, Mr. Speaker, where would they place the onus for job production and job creation? Would they do as our Liberal administration in Ottawa has done, funnelled millions of tax dollars through unskilled, unproven and in very many cases irresponsible groups with their only qualification being that they named their organisation a kooky name to fit the Ottawa criteria for grants?

What manner of nonsense is this when we in Canada and we in this House start to believe that it's quite all right to let the draft dodgers from Ottawa — or from the United States, pardon me —

AN HON. MEMBER: Trudeau was a draft dodger.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I think we may have a few in Ottawa, too, Mr. Speaker, but that was a slip of the lip.

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

[ Page 203 ]

dodgers from the United States spend our tax dollars and be told by Ottawa that they can create jobs with more expertise than business, than labour unions, than industry whose very existence is attuned to productivity and the creation of business, the creation of contracts, the creation of a good economic climate and ultimately the creation of jobs?

The job opportunities programme is a success and it is the first programme of significance of its kind in North America that addresses itself to turning around the spiral of welfare. It's the first programme that says we are no longer going to accept the philosophy that whole families must be written off once they are caught in the vice of the welfare milieu.

I am very impressed by the response from the business community who have responded positively to the job opportunities programme. Let's not forget this, as we're talking about big business, establishments and industry that so often has such a bad name in this House by members of the Opposition and given a bad name. In spite of the 50 per cent government subsidy paid to the employer for a period of six months, the employer takes a risk and has an investment of time to train and sometimes rehabilitate these people who often are ill confident and whose work habits leave much to be desired.

It is a new approach to job finding, aimed at offering something meaningful to help individual people. To help these individuals to make their own way and to avoid plunging them into the paternalistic trap of government handouts and government-created jobs, which has been an easy and all-too-commonplace pattern.

There is really only one effective way to get people off the social assistance rolls, and that's one at a time, individually, recognising that each person's abilities, attitudes and aspirations are different. There is no blanket solution to helping these people break out of the social assistance cycle. The job opportunities programme is oriented toward this individual approach.

Before dealing with the programme itself, I would like to put the statistics in their proper perspective. The figure of 361 jobs has been bandied about. We know that in fact there are well over 500 jobs filled throughout the province, not counting January placements. In Vancouver city alone, we know of 321 jobs that have been taken and another 65 that are listed and waiting to be filled. The programme is not yet four months old.

We have no record of the placements in January. And no record of what we understand are a number of placements in December. The employer claim forms in these cases have not yet been received.

Social welfare administrators from around the province report that possession of a certificate of opportunity has motivated a significant number of certificate holders — exactly how many is impossible to determine — to find work under other federal or provincial job programmes, or, more importantly, to find jobs on their own, independent of any government programmes.

The important word here is "motivation". The emphasis is on individual initiative, with government support. This new motivation of people, many of whom had given up hope, is a vital aspect of the job opportunities programme and the results cannot be recorded statistically.

The job opportunities programme represents a fresh approach to job finding. The jobs that have resulted are not phoney, are not artificially based make-work propositions, the only purpose of which is to take people off the unemployment rolls for a short period of time.

They are real working situation, legitimate jobs, giving the employee the opportunity to work in the real market place, in a normal situation. The job holder is an active member of the labour force, rubbing shoulders with people who have been on the job for years. He is not working in a vacuum with people in the same situation as himself.

In many cases, the employee is receiving invaluable on-the-job training, in preparation for permanent employment. But even if the job is only temporary, the experience in a real work situation is an asset when seeking future employment. A current job reference is of real benefit.

Most people who begin to collect social assistance have been out of the labour force for three months or more. They then have to wait three more months before being eligible for a certificate. This means that most of these people who are employed under the job opportunities programme have been out of the mainstream for at least six months. Getting a job gives them a real boost. It gets them back into the labour force and earns them a current reference.

As we all know, you're in a much stronger position to get a job if you come from another job, than if you are out of the mainstream on social assistance. And an employer reference holds much more weight than a report that you have been employed by the government on winter works.

There is no doubt the job opportunities programme has been the vehicle through which a lot of families have broken out of the depressing social assistance rut.

I wish that the hundreds of members of these families were in the galleries and the halls here to listen to these members of the Opposition who pronounce this programme a failure. They certainly wouldn't believe it. And you couldn't tell them it was a failure, Mr. Speaker, because they know what it's like to be on social assistance and out of work.

When you're assessing this programme listen to the social workers who have been involved with it. We have had enthusiastic response from social workers throughout the province who say the job opportunities programme is a refreshing, positive, realistic approach aimed at returning to the social assistance recipient his self-confidence and returning to him his dignity. Free of paternalism. These social workers have urged us to continue job opportunities.

Those who want some statistics might be interested in the fact that every 100 persons employed under the job opportunities programme and taken off social assistance represented a total investment over the months of some $186,000 in provincial payments.

We know at least 500 people who have received nearly $1 million in direct payments. For each month these 500 people were to continue on social assistance, the province would pay out $66,000. So in financial terms alone, this programme has saved the taxpayers a significant amount of money.

The Leader of the Opposition was critical of the cost of the job opportunities to date. The figures I have just given you will prove that already that investment will be returned by the elimination of social assistance. Once again, Mr. Speaker, the Opposition leader has missed the point, what price a man's life or that of his family? If, through the job opportunities programme, we alter the course of one family, just one family or one individual, we give that one family a just reason for pride, a motivation to control their own destiny, their own economic control within the framework of their own family budget — don't we then take the family out of the position of being subservient to the state, and pawns in the welfare system?

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

[ Page 204 ]

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

I've been very pleased to have been associated with the job opportunities programme, and I would appeal to the finance Minister and Premier of our province to continue this programme beyond the April 30 deadline and incorporate this most imaginative social improvement into definite and long-term government policy, for the people of British Columbia.

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

Parent groups such as Parents Anonymous have seen with their own eyes the damage that drugs can do. The story of a child losing his ability to learn at school, deteriorating into sloppyness, in personal habits or losing ambition or his goals in life and alienating himself from society and his community is a shocking, personal experience for these parents.

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

I want to bring to this House some recent information which shows that these parents haven't been wrong after all in this non-scientific assessment — that marijuana and the non-medical use of drugs is wrong and they have been right. Now they are being given some of the scientific explanations as to why these drugs including marijuana are a plague on our society.

I would like to relate some recent exciting developments in the field of drug research that has been taking place in our very own province.

This follows reports in the respected medical journal, The Lancet, where the findings of four British doctors reported on the effects of marijuana in a series of young people who had used the drug for a period of from three to 11 years. They had sought medical attention because they had trouble learning or even remembering events. They showed lack of energy and they were unable to work.

When the doctors took X-rays of the brain, they found the kind of dilated ventricles that are seen with the destruction of tissue. This was the first definite report of permanent damage to the human brain as a result of marijuana and hashish.

Recorded earlier in the Journal of the American Medical Association was the experience of Philadelphia psychiatrists who examined chronic marijuana users who had sworn off the drug or the use of drugs. They have found they could not regain their ability to learn and to pursue university studies. Again irreversible brain damage was suspected. At least four scientific groups have found that marijuana-treated animals are unable to learn or to remember as well as their non-treated mates.

Evidence is growing steadily that from a scientific and medical point of view, and stripped of the emotional and philosophical arguments surrounding the marijuana controversy, the drug is dangerous to the human body.

Now to return to the British Columbia research. Here I would ask that this government consider helping in some bold new experiments being done at the University of British Columbia. I am told that two brillant U.B.C. scientists, one originally from Czechoslovakia and the other from Japan, have recently found further evidence of harmful effects of marijuana on the brain tissue in animals. Their research thus far will be published soon in international scientific journals. What is needed now at the laboratory of the university is an electron microscope which would cost approximately $35,000 to enable these researchers to find further proof relating to the human mind. I would ask Mr. Speaker, that the drug and alcohol fund set up in the last session of this Legislature give this financial aid for continued research.

As I have said in this House before on the subject of non-medical use of drugs, in addition to a good education programme the way to counteract the non-medical use of drugs in this country is not by continual soul-searching and self analysis by the LeDain commission but by reliable scientific and medical information which can be given to the young people of our country as factual information. I hope the government will spend the $35,000 that I asked of the drug and alcohol committee.

But I do say again, that this government is doing more in the way of drug education and research and rehabilitation than any province in this country. It is leading the way in this country as well they should with the problem that we have.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I do want to say a word or two about housing, because it is of such real concern to many British Columbians today.

In the past few months the responsibility for housing has been put under the jurisdiction of the regional districts. This is a sensible idea, designed to speed up application for public housing, to distribute more equitably housing for senior citizens and, above all, to prevent the burden of housing to be carried by just one area.

Now these are all very good objectives, but I would question the need for building a bureaucracy to do what has been done efficiently and economically in the past few years. We see an example of bureaucracy gone rampant in the Ontario Housing Corporation where 100 employees are involved in simply the administration of senior citizen housing, as opposed to our Senior Citizens' Housing Act which has built over 10,000 senior citizens' units and has only one employee in Victoria looking after all applications and administration.

Our home-owner grant legislation is an ingenious piece of legislation that is administered by one employee in Victoria, with the onus placed on the recipient of the grant to fill out the application prior to receipt of the tax subsidy.

What could be simplier? Just one person in Victoria to assist in the administration. The provincial economic review of last July tells us that $102 million have been expended by this government on outright grants and second mortgages. No doubt by this time, although we don't have the figures, that figure must exceed over $130 million and when one considers the minimum administrative expense used to process those thousands of applications for home-owner grants and home acquisition grants and loans, we must give credit for one of the most efficient multi-million dollar businesses in existence.

My warning today to the regional district, with its new plans and ideas for housing, is that its emphasis should be on continuation of this efficiency, and to get on with the challenge of building homes, not offices to house a new level of bureaucrats.

Today I'm pleased to announce the publication of a new housing booklet which has been produced through the Department of Municipal Affairs. This is the second publication of its kind, the first was distributed about two years ago and many thousands of copies were requested by citizens of our province. It emphasises the need for co-operation from such groups as the construction industry, labour unions and municipal leaders. It answers questions about the most aggressive home-owner programme in North America, the

[ Page 205 ]

home-owner's grant, the home acquisition grant, the government second mortgage programme and it explains new programmes to provide hope and to provide assistance to those on low or moderate income who would like to have home ownership, but feel it impossible in this inflationary situation.

I feel optimistic about the opportunities for housing low income people in their own homes since I began to assemble material for this book, for I did find that there were many examples of modern housing throughout the province today that could not be found just two years ago when we designed the first book.

I believe this housing book should be given wide circulation by Hon. Members on both sides of the House. For there is no programme in the world to duplicate the housing opportunities described in the pages of this book. It demonstrates actual on-site programmes that are facts of life, Mr. Speaker, not dreams.

In reference to housing in British Columbia today, it shows the many ways that this government is prepared to consider innovation — new ideas in housing to the benefit of the citizens we serve. One of these innovative programmes is a first for Canada and I'd like to tell you about it.

It's a group of individual homes which are being built in Chetwynd, British Columbia — completely planned, completely constructed, by 20 Indian families. My good member who's been involved in the north with this Indian group will know how important it is to those families.

Before our involvement, those families were living in tar-paper huts at the edge of town, without electric light and without water facilities. With the co-operation of Central Mortgage and Housing, a progressive city council — an unbelievable city council — and our home-owner assistance plan these Indian families are building a community that has so far never been duplicated in Canada.

I can tell you now, Mr. Speaker, that the Chetwynd experiment is being greeted across this nation with enthusiasm and excitement. I feel sure it will lead to a new national philosophy for housing for our first citizens.

Last session, I expressed the disappointment of many British Columbians in the result of the decision by the International Olympic Committee at Amsterdam to choose Denver, Colorado, over Vancouver as the site for 1976 Winter Games. The outcome 18 months ago at Amsterdam was one which was influenced more by the ambivalence of our federal government than by weighing the merits of the sites offered.

Canada's chances to obtain either the Summer or the Winter Games were excellent by virtue of our Whistler-Garibaldi site. It was admittedly the finest site offered and supported without hesitation over all others by the individual winter sports federations. In spite of the fact that Montreal has not proven financial responsibility in its handling of the World's Fair and in spite of the fact that Montreal claims — and still does — that the summer Olympics will not cost the Canadian taxpayer a cent, and I would question that, Mr. Speaker, because it cost the Mexican Government over $500 million in 1968, but in spite of the fact, the federal government of this country and their preoccupation with vote getting and fence sitting offer two sites to the International Olympic Committee — and Vancouver lost out when the summer bid was voted on over the winter bids.

However, that is all behind us now and today our athletes are in Sapporo, Japan, on the eve of the opening of the 1972 Winter Olympics and they're off to a stormy start.

In a few moments, I would like to refer to the tourist potential of our province and in line with that I would like to mention again the benefits the Olympic Games could bring to our province.

I have a newspaper report from the London Times, December 15, 1971. The story originated in Geneva. The headline reads "Vancouver Should Apply to Stage 1976 Games." and I quote the article:

Beyond the mountains of Sapporo there looms a still more forbidding peak: the suitability or otherwise of Denver for the games of 1976. It may be recalled that the International Olympic Committee at their recent meeting in Luxembourg, referred the matter back to the next congress at Sapporo next month.

No doubt the compromise of a tobaggan run capable of accommodating a two-man bob will be raised at Sapporo. Doubts have been growing about the skiing events, too — indeed about the whole Denver concept, and there must be a strong possibility that the Sapporo meeting will reverse the decision in Denver's favour, made in Amsterdam 18 months ago.

Vancouver offered a perfect setting at Garibaldi, a setting, moreover, where a bob run would be welcomed rather than miles of white elephant. I beg them to renew their petition.

I have read you a columnist's report from Geneva and he seems to think, with his background of sports and the knowledge of the sporting community, that they will ask to have the petition renewed from Vancouver.

If the International Olympic Committee reverses their decision, it should not be very difficult really to get the federal government to support and re-enter Vancouver.

For according to federal ministers and the Prime Minister himself, they only supported Montreal's bid because Montreal vowed to refrain from asking the federal government for any financing at all for the Summer Olympics. So that should leave, Mr. Speaker, the federal government completely free and certainly willing to support British Columbia and Vancouver in the event of the decision for Denver to be withdrawn.

I urge, Mr. Speaker, that we in British Columbia be ready and willing to host the 1976 Olympics if the invitation is extended to us once again.

Now I do wish to say a little on the subject of tourism and its potential for our province. Of the $473 million gained by the province through tourism in 1970, 60 per cent of the total was spent in the lower mainland and greater Vancouver realised $236 million of this total.

The Canadian Tourist Association study suggested that the tourist industry becomes more important as leisure time increases and work weeks decline. We go back to 1920 when the average work week was 50 hours — today it is 40 hours. Predictions point to an average of 35.4 hours by 1976 and 30.7 hours by the year 2000. Obviously, shorter work weeks will be accompanied by longer vacations and greater tourist potential. The tourist market is usually dependent upon the amount of discretionary income available. At the present time, 25 million American families — that is 40 per cent of all the families in the U.S.A. — have an income of at least $7,500 and at this level research tells us that a large proportion of this income will become discretionary. Despite slow-down in the economy of the U.S. this proportion of families with discretionary income available is expected to grow rapidly.

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

[ Page 206 ]

tourism and has contributed so much to the City of Vancouver in the handling of the tourist business there, gave mention of the Japanese tourist market in his address to the House last night.

I would like to just emphasise that the future importance of the Japanese tourist market really appears staggering, when we consider that their Gross National Product is growing at twice the rate of that of the United States and that this country which was bankrupt in 1945 is now the third largest manufacturing nation in the world after U.S.A. and Russia.

Over the last five years Japanese tourism to all countries has been increasing at a rate of 25 per cent every year. However from 1968 to 1970 — the last two years — Japanese tourism to Canada increased by a startling 70 per cent. At the present rate of growth the Japanese tourist will be as important to world tourism as the American is today.

In view of these facts industry and government should work together for a larger share of this increasing market for British Columbia.

Then we can look at the U.S. market which has always been one of the areas that we look to for our tourist potential. The new aerospace contracts let in the United States of America totalled $2.5 billion with the bulk of the contracts awarded to Boeing and Douglas Aircraft. So just think what this will mean to the north west — to Seattle and California who will be the prime beneficiaries of these contracts. Just think of what a boom this will create for us in the north west and particularily for British Columbia.

In 1968 people from the City of Toronto alone made 900,000 trips outside of that city, which points out the potential of the domestic tourist market.

I would like to speak a little about the importance of conventions: The most important part of the travel market to British Columbia, and more so Greater Vancouver, is conventions. They are big business. The convention delegate averages his spending at $55 to $60 a day, whereas the tourist will only spend approximately $10 on rooms, meals and entertainment.

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

The City of San Diego, a city of comparable size and attractions, is hosting 287 conventions with 189,000 delegates during 1972, which will bring $38 million of revenue.

Because conventions are big business it is now an increasingly competitive business. Cities from all over the world fly to North American conventions, which number about 25,000 each year. With so much competition it is extremely important that Vancouver have an active convention bureau that can ensure that the City of Vancouver remains a must destination.

With the increasingly competitive nature of the convention industry it has become imperative that we use a very aggressive sales approach in the convention marketing place.

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

Vancouver is ready. It has facilities. Vancouver has accessibility. Vancouver has a record of service to people. In 1972 Greater Vancouver had over 7,800 hotel and motel rooms available with 1,000 scheduled to be completed before the end of 1972 — just this year. Vancouver in particular, with its increase in new hotel rooms and convention facilities and those planned in the very near future, will be able to accommodate most major North American conventions.

By bringing this additional business to the province not only does the hotel industry gain, and allied industries, but the labour force of all industries, small businesses — which include airlines, transportation, retail stores, service stations et cetera. There should be more promotion from within the province. In inviting these national and international associations to come to our province, this type of business invariably brings repeat business and also brings the tourists at a later date.

Perhaps the Province of British Columbia should follow the example of that established by the Government of Quebec this past year, when, together with the City of Montreal, they headed a committee to Sydney, Australia, to invite the American Society of Travel Agents convention to meet in Montreal in 1974.

They were very successful and they obtained this convention of 3,000 delegates which will in turn focus attention of all travel agents, airline carriers, convention decision makers and others, on the City of Montreal.

The Provincial Government of British Columbia, should, as it has in the past, be very active in such conventions as the Association of Executive Secretaries, the International Association of Executive Secretaries, and attend each of these conventions as a provincial body, with the support of the local industry.

We should increase this promotion of convention business dramatically to compete with other convention cities. As we presently lack much in the way of secondary industry, as is often said in this House, convention and tourist business can very easily become the major secondary industry and ultimately No. 1 in this province in the beginning of our second century. I am very disappointed that cities such as Victoria and Vancouver have failed to use that portion of the per capita grant designated for tourism. Perhaps that part of the five per cent tax that we are now gathering from all hotels in the province as a room tax, can be used by the provincial government in the promotion of convention and tourist business.

The increase in the convention and tourist business would increase the volume of tax collected by the provincial government, which would more than take up the slack in additional spending by the provincial government.

A centennial idea that inspired much business and added to the tourist dollars last year was the invitation extended to major Canadian corporations to hold their board meetings in the province during the centennial year. I would like to see this invitation extended to like organisations throughout the world, Mr. Speaker. We don't need a centennial celebration as an excuse — the beauty and economic potential of our fine province are reason enough to extend such an invitation and to ask boards of directors of major corporations within our borders.

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

Your foresight and fine efforts in this respect have resulted in substantial benefits to the travel and hospitality industries and have contributed to the economic wefare of the community.

I may say that the hotel that expressed these thoughts to the government was able to "sell" three large conventions because of the exposure they had to the boards of directors that held centennial meetings in their hotel.

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

[ Page 207 ]

undertaken to see how feasible it would be to provide a group of interpreters, perhaps university students, with the major tourist areas of the province. Certainly those who have experienced travel in Europe must have been very impressed with the many interpreters provided to give every nationality a feeling of welcome.

Surely the Stanley Park tour or our world famous aquarium and Butchart Gardens must be exciting to any tourist, but would they not be more so to the Asian or European traveller if the explanation and historical background were given in his own language?

Government should lead the way in providing such a service within our own tourist attractions such as the Parliament Buildings and Barkerville, and after proper study, it should not be unreasonable to expect free enterprise to respond positively by providing translators on city bus tours, wax museums and privately-operated gardens.

Finally, on the subject of tourism, I would hope that our government will initiate discussions with the port of Vancouver with an eye to recognising the tourist potential of that great natural harbour. The 1971 figures of the busiest port in North America tells us that the port of Vancouver handled a record 35.3 million tons of cargo. This was up 30 per cent over the 27.1 million tons handled in 1970. Mr. Speaker, that in itself is a remarkable statistic, and a great credit to the National Harbour Board administration and staff — but unsaid and unseen in that figure of 35 million tons of cargo is the excitement and romance of a busy and thriving seaport, the majestic ships, the smell of the sea, the pulse of commerce, the stench of the fishpackers, the fishing vessels themselves, the beauty of the world's most beautiful harbour at sunrise or sunset, sheltered by the mountains, and creating minute by minute unforgettable scenes of colour, beauty and drama.

A cleanup of Vancouver harbour is needed, a concerted effort to rid the water of debris and garbage should be made, and no effort spared to make this harbour the cleanest, as well as the busiest one, in North America.

And I have support from the Honourable Member from Vancouver Centre in that regard, but I would like to say that dirty as Vancouver Harbour may be it isn't half as dirty as Victoria's harbour and that could use a clean up too. Although the port of Vancouver is administered by Ottawa, perhaps an appeal from this government for the port of Vancouver will start some planning which will see an imaginative fishermen's wharf, good sea food restaurants, well-organised water sewage, and safe access for tourists to view one of the world's finest attractions.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: We have, we just need more of them, Mr. Member. I wish to note reference within the throne speech to Her Majesty's visit in centennial year, and the co-operation of the British Columbia communities in the celebration of this 100th anniversary. I would like to congratulate the deputy Provincial Secretary for his outstanding contribution as centennial chairman last year.

We may have closed the book on the first 100 years in confederation, Mr. Speaker, but as we contemplate our place in Canada and in this second century, it should be obvious to British Columbians that the latter one-fifth of that 100 years was the most progressive ever for our province.

Probably the most miraculous achievement of all is that this Province of British Columbia unlike any other can look to the second century armed with a sound economic base, strong and practical leadership and fully confident in the bright future that is ours.

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

MR. R.M. STRACHAN (Cowichan-Malahat): The Honourable Member for Cowichan-Malahat reporting himself present and ready for duty. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for recognising me. It's a pleasure once again to take my place in this traditional debate. I want to start off by congratulating the mover and the seconder of the motion we're now debating.

The mover of the motion wondered why he had been picked for this particular job, in view of his self-admitted record. I think the mover and the seconder should view their selection for that job as a measure of the importance the Premier puts on the Speech from the Throne.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

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

Mr. Speaker, an interesting year since last we met here. My wife and I and our little trailer travelled all across Canada. I thought it was time I saw our country. The Minister says "another one of those Capitalists." How he must suffer when he sits in that humble dwelling of his, up in Savona in front of his $5,000 fireplace. How he must feel humble and really suffer for the people.

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

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

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. STRACHAN: I sat in the Quebec, what they call the National Assembly, that unhappy day when they heard Mr. Bourassa reject the Victoria proposals for the constitution.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR STRACHAN: No it wasn't. It was a very upsetting day for me as I sat in that legislative gallery and heard Mr. Bourassa make his official statement.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR STRACHAN: Pardon? No I didn't. I was sitting in the galleries, I wasn't on the floor. But let me tell you quite frankly every speaker in that House from every party applauded him when he walked into that House. And they applauded him when he made his speech. That was one of the experiences that I had.

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

[ Page 208 ]

apologise to the Hon. Attorney-General, I hope he won't stamp his foot. I crossed the border into the United States and talked to people there too. I came right back across the United States, saw the tremendous agricultural area, corn 10 feet high, acre after acre. Then I saw the pollution hanging heavy over the industrial cities.

I talked to university professors, workers from the mills, carpenters in construction and retired people who had retired from industries, and it was a most interesting and informative and education trip. I was away about six weeks. A little over six weeks. I went to New Brunswick, I went to the capital of New Brunswick, I travelled down that Gaspe Coast, had some beautiful lobster, and made a special trip to Fredericton to see the legislative assembly there.

AN HON. MEMBER: Buy any dulce?

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

As always, Mr. Speaker, the first thing I do when I rise in the House is to give you a summation of the need of the constituency I represent — that's just north of here about 30 miles. The very heart and core, the hub of British Columbia.

Well, the Premier says the needs are getting less and less and it is true that we're getting there slow but sure. But, I have to put my claim before the House. We need more help from the province for municipalities to provide sewage disposal, adequate garbage facilities, and social welfare costs. The village of Lake Cowichan has tried twice now, to put a sewage bylaw before the people. It's been defeated both times because of the tremendously high initial cost. Just far too much for that small village to bear.

I think as we drive up and down the Island Highway we must have the junk yards along our highways cleaned up one way or the other. One way or the other we must get those junk yards cleaned up. I think we should have an expansion of the camp site facilities. I think we must open up the access roads to the lakes and the sea frontage, because, you know, we have access roads gazetted, and they're not opened up. They're fenced off in some cases. Private owners have built property on them, and time after time the people can't get access and there is a demand more and more for them.

And I don't want it referred to the regional district as their responsibility. I think it's a public highway gazetted and I think the government should do it.

You know the Hon. Member from Nanaimo the other day talked about a bicycle path up and down the Island. Well we have one but we call it the Island Highway. (Laughter).

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. STRACHAN: Well, it's even worse … no question, no question. But I want a four-lane highway with underpasses and overpasses where needed. Because there are many areas on that highway where it's positively dangerous for the young people to have to cross it. I want a new Crofton Road, I want the Cedar Road resurfaced, I want the road from Lake Cowichan to Honeymoon Bay rebuilt. Because that's the road that leads to logging roads that takes all our tourists out to the west coast of the Island on that circle tour. And it is a pretty dangerous road for campers and so on, and that should definitely have a priority.

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

I want continued extension of the mental health services that are coming in the district and I appreciate the fact that in Duncan we got that clinic opened last year. I want some form of service extended to Lake Cowichan and Ladysmith.

We still need more public health inspectors. I want an evaluation and survey of pollution causes the whole length of the coast of the island in the Malahat-Cowichan constituency.

I want a definite programme for protection and recovery of the Ladysmith harbour as a recreational area. We have some industry there but that kind of industry can be clean.

I think the Minister's going to have to re-examine his leasing programme with regard to that area though, because as the increase in booming leases is given, then it blocks off more and more of the harbour and creates more and more of a pollution programme.

I want the regional college finance formula changed because it's creating problems in the constituency and I want educational costs removed from the land.

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

But things happen in Cowichan-Malahat during the year. The federal government, that nasty federal government through the Canada Telstat announced that the anchor station on the west coast will be built in Lake Cowichan. The tender was awarded, it was awarded to a local contractor, $472,000 of employment and jobs for the people of the area.

Then, of course, we had the visit from the Royal Family referred to in the Speech from the Throne. And with everyone else I was happy to see them looking so well and I hope they did enjoy their trip and I agree that the deputy provincial secretary did a fine job.

But you know when the Queen and Prince Philip came to Duncan, and we were standing waiting in a row to meet them, Prince Philip walked up to where I was and said: "By the way, what was that awful smell you could notice as you came into Duncan?"

So we told them, we told them it was the pulp mill. "Well", he said, "aren't you doing anything about it?" And we said: "Well, we're trying to." And his last words before he left were: "Are you going to make them put a sock in?" And I said: "Well, we're going to try it."

So I'm asking the Hon. Minister, I'm passing on a message from Prince Philip: "Will you get them to put a sock in it?" As the Speech from the Throne was being read I was sitting about here somewhere and the Ministers were all across the way — A whole long row of 16 of them all down the front there, and as the Speech from the Throne was being read by His Honour — a very difficult job, reading that terrible speech — I went down them one by one and looked at their faces.

Every single Minister, including the Premier, had the glummest look in their faces I have ever seen. Even they were disappointed and unhappy with it. Even the Premier. There wasn't a single one of them with a smile on their face. Glum and dejected because of that particular speech.

AN HON. MEMBER: They were looking at you.

MR. STRACHAN: Oh no, they were looking at His Honour, listening to the speech that was being read. But, Mr. Speaker, the last 10 days I have been listening to the speeches coming from the Ministers across the way. And you know, over the years there's an observable formula that can be applied to the Minister's speeches and debate. And the formula is this. A measure of the election proximity is in direct ratio to the vitriolic strength, the tonal height, the

[ Page 209 ]

decibel count and the stridency level of the Minister's speech. And in this last week, and especially this last night, they were all registering pretty high on the election scale.

MR. BARRETT: Low in content.

MR STRACHAN: Oh, low in content. Well, that's another matter. I listened to the Hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs and he was giving us that dance of his — dancing all over the place, waving papers, airy fairy planners, inputs and outputs, deadputs and all the rest of it. And he made his usual offer to resign "if we haven't got the best municipal formula in Canada."

The Minister says "the municipalities are happy, they're doing great under this little government." We've just been told that, this Minister over here just told us that the Municipal Department put out some books on housing. Why didn't he publish this booklet? This report here on the state of municipal finances in British Columbia?

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

MR STRACHAN: Pardon? Not worth the paper it's written on? That's your opinion. But let's see what it says. It's not worth the paper it's written on because it exposes you.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

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

The principal source of revenue available to municipal governments were only able to retain for their own responsibilities 45 cents of every $1 they collected in 1968 and 54 cents must be turned over for the support of education, a service for which municipalities have no responsibility and for which they merely act as a tax collecting agency.

That's what it says a result of that survey. This is the point of the report U.B.C.M. had prepared — a two-year study of municipal finances all over the province.

What did it say about the net municipal expenditure for welfare? "Net municipal expenditure for social welfare has increased over the years." Now, in 1961 when we had a Minister of Municipal Affairs the percentage paid of social welfare costs, paid by the municipalities was 19.7 per cent. By 1969 when the Minister was the Minister against municipalities the municipalities are paying 31.4 per cent of social welfare costs in the Province of British Columbia. That's progress.

Always he stands up and attacks "the airy fairy planners," When he, the Minister against municipal affairs has this record that he would like to dispose of.

Then they go on to say …

MR BARRETT: Why don't you resign?

MR STRACHAN: … in terms of the capacity to support expanding municipal needs municipal governments in British Columbia in 1968 were in a much worse position then they were in 1957. A much worse position.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear. Resign!

MR STRACHAN: What else does it say? It talks about the trend and what is required. "Following course of action: Absorption of the province of a greater proportion of the costs of education, thereby improving the productivity of the properties tax for municipal purposes, and assumption by the province of the total cost of social welfare."

What else does it say?

Municipal government has always had an important role to play as an institution that is responsible and accountable to the citizens it serves. It cannot play this role effectively if it does not control a significant proportion of its revenue sources. If the trend toward increasing provincial control over the allocation of its revenues continues municipal government will lose its capacity for being responsible and accountable.

The papers have been referring to the Hon. Minister as a super Mayor. It's obviously the trend that he wants to see developed — "take away the local economy." Look at the levy for education as a proportion of the total property taxation in 1957 when we had a Minister of Municipal Affairs. We find in 1957, 61 per cent of the total — in North Cowichan this is — for education. Now it is up to 83 per cent of the total levy of the municipal affairs in North Cowichan.

What else does it say about North Cowichan? Social welfare costs — in 1961 when we had a Minister of Municipal Affairs $29,000; 1969 $114,000. On a percentage basis in North Cowichan — as I say when we had a Minister of Municipal Affairs in 1961, 31 per cent; 1969 47 per cent of the social welfare costs are being paid by the North Cowichan municipality. Then we look at the province as a whole: 1961 the municipalities as a whole were paying 19.43 per cent of social welfare cost, by 1968 that was up to 28 per cent of the total social welfare costs in their municipalities.

Why didn't he talk about these things the other night when he put on that song and dance act? Why didn't he face up to his responsibility and talk about these figures, the Minister against the Municipalities of the Province of British Columbia?

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

Interjections by Hon. Members.

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

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

MR STRACHAN: You will?

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

MR STRACHAN: You helped collect these figures …

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: I did not.

MR STRACHAN: Your department did…

MR SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR STRACHAN: As I've listened this last 10 days, Mr. Speaker, two thoughts began to come into my mind. One was expressed by an American artist who once said that the new is not revealed to those whose eyes are fastened in worship of

[ Page 210 ]

the old.

And the second thought that came into my mind applied to this government was that this government operates from memory instead of vision.

That was why the throne speech was full of memories but no vision, no vision. As I have listened these last 10 days I have heard this continual reference to the free enterprise system. The Attorney General talked about it as a system that gives a better way of life under the free enterprise system.

You know, there are people in history who would agree with him. Some people in history would agree with him. Here's one quote: "This American system of ours — call it capitalism if you will — gives to each and everyone of us a great opportunity if we only seize it with both hands and make the most of it."

Who said that? AI Capone… Al Capone. (Laughter). Sure. "Gives a great opportunity if only we seize it with both hands and make the most of it." Alright.

AN HON. MEMBER: Got a copy?

MR. STRACHAN: Another quote: "We shall protect free enterprise as the most expedient or rather the sole economic order." Who said that? Adolph Hitler… you are in great company. (Laughter).

In reality, this government doesn't know what it believes in, it doesn't know what it believes in. It's a government of chaos, confusion and contradiction. An old government that has lost its way but hasn't yet lost its cunning…and that's the question we have to ask ourselves. You have lost your way but you haven't lost your cunning. And that's what all the furor is about, all the turmoil, all the confrontations that are being deliberately promoted to misdirect the attention away from the people, of the real facts that this is a government of memory and no vision, a government of chaos, confusion and contradiction.

Here we are attacking Ottawa all over the place, and that awful Liberal government, and I hear that one of their Members over there is going around the ethnic groups in Vancouver telling them to vote Social Credit provincially but vote Liberal federally. Sure…

AN HON. MEMBER: Cry-baby Campbell.

MR. STRACHAN: Then we had that display the other day of an attack on that awful Liberal government in Ottawa because they granted permits for oil drilling. Oh, that awful Liberal government in Ottawa, whereas what happened, of course, was that the Minister over here is quite prepared to grant permits for exploration anywhere — Strait of Georgia, Queen Charlotte Islands, anywhere else. Contradiction…

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. STRACHAN: They don't know where they're going. They're lost. Then, of course, there's that famous episode between the Minister of Municipal Affairs and the Minister of Rehabilitation — the one told the other to "check up on your own chaos."

AN HON. MEMBER: I was getting worried…

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

Then there was the Moran dam situation, the Moran dam. You know, November the Minister of Lands and Forests and Water Resources, he said "it is utterly stupid to discuss the Moran dam issue now because the government is not even considering it at this point." Not even considering it at this point. That was November 1 – nobody's doing anything with it and if there was ever wasted time and confusion with people this has to be it.

"Williston said that anyone bringing the subject up now is doing so for political reasons because it is almost guaranteed to get them a headline in the newspaper." Now there was a headline in the newspaper just a month before that. October 1, just exactly a month before, the same year, last year. "Kiernan Backs Fraser Dam."

AN HON. MEMBER: Headline seeker!

MR. STRACHAN: "Recreation Minister Ken Kiernan indicated Thursday that he wants a dam built on the Fraser River, more to control flooding in the lower Fraser valley than to generate power. And he says no matter what the Energy Board says he wants the dam." No matter what the Energy Board says he wants the dam. Confusion, contradiction, chaos. There of course…

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

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

HON. W.K. KIERNAN (Minister of Recreation and Conservation): Point of order, Mr. Speaker…the question of deliberate misinformation knowingly by that Member. I ask that he withdraw the statement, because even the Press stuff that he is reading doesn't confirm what he's saying and he knows it. That is a point of order.

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. STRACHAN: "Kiernan says that he doesn't have to be told about ecological dangers of the dam when social disruption downstream could be caused by flooding." Then in direct quotes it says: "He was asked if he was saying that the Moran dam should be built to control flooding downstream even if it is found unfeasible by the Energy Board as a source of power generation, and he said: 'Not necessarily, but I am saying that flood control is being repeatedly ignored by many people."' A clear indication, clear indication.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

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

[ Page 211 ]

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, tell us now…

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Interjections by Hon. Members.

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

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

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

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR STRACHAN: You know last October there was a news report about the Minister of Public Works and the headline was "Government Spurns Award."

A beautification award for the provincial government buildings in Quesnel has been rejected by the government because it comes from Park and Tilford Distilleries. Works Minister W.N. Chant said Monday he felt acceptance would conflict with government policy banning liquor advertising and open the government to public criticism. "We didn't want to be accused of being hypocritical," said Chant.

"We didn't want to be accused of being hypocritical," but I pick up his annual report which came the other day and in the opening page I find a paragraph there referring to the situation. It says:

During the year part of our recently-constructed buildings have been nominated by chambers of commerce and other bodies for awards. These were the law courts building in Quesnel and Duncan. The one in Quesnel won the award. The residences, British Columbia Vocational School, Terrace

so on. "The Quesnel government building won an award for having made the most significant contribution to beautification in its zone."

Interjection by Hon. Member.

MR. STRACHAN: Suitable, suitable. I wish we had won the award. But this is hypocritical, to accept the awards when you consider who the judges were. Who were the judges? Let's see… Here's a picture of them looking at the Duncan building. Let's see who they are. A Mr. Fred C. Hollingsworth, president of the Architectural Institute of B.C., a professor — oh, one of these experts, one of these planners, you know —

AN HON. MEMBER: Airy fairy!

MR STRACHAN: Professor Samuel Lipson, president of Professional Engineers' Association of B.C. and a very gracious picture — no pun intended — of the Honourable Grace McCarthy, Minister without Portfolio.

You said it would be hypocrisy to accept the award, yet a member of the same government is out judging it on behalf of Park and Tilford.

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

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

MR STRACHAN: There was that terrible situation with regard to pollution the Kaiser Resources were having down in the interior, and that incredible situation where no charge could be laid against the Kaiser people for causing pollution because we hadn't issued them a permit to cause pollution. You know.

One of the newspapers in eastern Canada, The Toronto Daily Star made a series of awards and they awarded the Minister of Lands and Forests the Supreme Smelly of The Year is what they called it and there is a picture of it — Supreme Smelly of The Year.

Then of course we had that very emotional speech at the Social Credit convention by Mr. Dreidiger the president of the Social Credit League. That very uptight emotional speech here where he talked about these terrible Marxists and Socialists and agitators that were getting these young people on the street to protest the Amchitka blast. There he was, emotional appeal. These awful pinkos, these Marxists… And what happens? He forgot that just a week before that Premier Bennett had been asked for an opinion on the Amchitka blast and the Premier took exactly the same position that I had taken, to regret the blast not only there but everywhere else. There is another heading: "Bennett Joins In Protest Against Amchitka Go-ahead."

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

MR. STRACHAN: Bennett regrets go-ahead on Amchitka. So as I say the president of their association gets up and calls all these people Marxists, Socialists, hippies, long-hairs, draft dodgers. What is the Premier? What's the Premier? Then, of course, there was the Premier's statement about the economic union with the United States. Canada needs a bigger market, he says. The Premier came out in favour of this economic union with the United States, and I have to admit that he had some company, he had some support, because a few days later the Hon. Member from Saanich, John Tisdalle, backed the idea of economic union with United States. Now there is a real team in there fighting for it. (Laughter). There's a real team. The Premier and John Tisdalle in there punching for Canada and economic union with the United States.

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

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

Some years ago the then Minister of Trade and Industry, he is now Minister of Health, (Hon. Mr. Loffmark) made this statement: "That across-the-board approach to economic union or free trade was impractical." But even more recently was this, just about this time the Premier was making this statement about economic union with the United States and free trade the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Shelford)

[ Page 212 ]

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

Then of course the Minister went on to talk. The Minister said that the Canadian farmer, trade unions and the people may have to accept a new philosophy, that desirable projects and national programmes will have to be considered.

I listened to the speech by the Minister of Lands and Forests the other day. He enunciated a policy in which he indicated that we're going to continue to develop the economy of British Columbia in the same way as we have in the past and I refer you to, I think it's page 4, page 2 of his speech. He talked about direct employment providing jobs for so many and the salaries and wages, so much money, and so on within the forestry industry and we, intend to keep on going only more so. And yet this Minister of Agriculture, he says: "We must develop the job intensive industries". The Minister of Trade and Industry has appointed a new man and they say: "We're going after secondary industry, service industry and tertiary industry to create jobs".

One Minister says one thing, two others say something else. They don't know where they're going. They are just completely contradicting each other right up and right down the line.

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

I was interested in the job creation statements in the Speech from the Throne. I was interested in the reference to the fact that the reason the unemployment figures are as high as they are is because people keep coming to British Columbia.

The Premier is on record, in an interview in Executive magazine, not too long ago, where he says that this is the real thrust to a greater British Columbia, by attracting more people to the province. You don't have to bother about creating jobs or anything else. Just attract more people.

Then he complains about the social welfare costs and making the municipalities carry the load. Why are people coming to British Columbia? I mentioned last year that the government spent public money putting ads in all the papers across Canada. They put ads in papers all across Canada advertising the budget and all the rest of it.

But when I travelled across the country I picked up the local papers and I found advertisements right across the country, from business concerns in this province advertising for workers for British Columbia.

Here is one in the Saskatchewan paper, I think it was. "Attention, graduate nurses. Registered nursing staff required for new 150-bed. hospital. Prince Rupert Regional Hospital Board".

What's the matter with our schools, what's the matter with our Minister of Education, what's the matter with direction when we haven't been producing the nurses we need and we have to advertise in Saskatchewan, where we have young people out of work in this province?

There's the measure of the failure of the government's policy. What other ads are there? Here's one. This is in the Halifax paper. "Electricians required by Alcan in Kitimat". Where are our trade schools? Where's the Minister of Education's programme when they have to advertise in Halifax for electricians in Kitimat? When we have the unemployed we have here in this province.

"Recreation director required for the City of Trail." This is in the Regina Leader-Post. Then down below it. "Heavy-duty mechanic bulldozer operators required for southern B.C. Applicants must be qualified. Operating experience on D-8, D-9, crawler tractors," and so on. "Apply to personnel department, Caminco Limited, in Saskatchewan." Right for southern B.C. Where's our training programme, when we have to do this? You know, we have unemployed people in this province who are willing to go anywhere and do this work.

You know, a remark was made just a couple of months ago, by someone who's in the business of requiring heavy duty mechanics-operators, and he said, he likes it this way. He likes it this way. Because he can go out anytime he wants and get a first class operator. He liked the surplus labour market. These are words heard all across the country. Naturally, bring people to this province.

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

MR. STRACHAN: It's true. If I was unemployed and I talked to unemployed people who were travelling the country looking for jobs too, and you see an ad like that and you pick up this paper and that paper well: "things must be great out there, let's go out there and look for work." That's right.

This is what attracts them, industry itself. There was an ad in one of the papers for a sawmill outside Kamloops. Wanting all kinds of people. In the Edmonton paper I think it was.

All the time. This is what brings them in. This is why we have the large social welfare rolls we have. They aren't all American deserters, not all of them. A lot of them are Canadians who see these ads and think: "Well, things must be blooming out there."

I suggest that there's a lack of co-operation, a lack of planning somewhere along the line in this government, that these businesses in this province have to advertise all across the country when we have this unemployment right in this province.

Like every other Member of this House, I'm concerned about the future of this province, this country and the people in it. That's a general statement. To follow through we have to look at the specifics. This is not the time for frantic boasts like we've been getting from across the way, with 6.9 per cent of the work force unemployed, with a job opportunity programme which, despite its build-up hasn't worked, I'm quite sure, the way the Ministers hoped it would, with a cabinet bickering and divided, with the Premier saying love Ottawa or "Hate Ottawa and love the United States, love Washington and hate Ottawa." The Premier calling for a common market when the predictions of this government are that Japan will by 1988 be our largest customer.

Think of the predictions out of the Department of Industrial — whatever it is they call it, by 1980. J.B. Cline saying the U.S. is our greatest market, but he's developing new plants in the United Kingdom, Holland, Belgium, Spain and now South East Asia

You're opening the door wider and wider for foreign ownership, saying we need the capital. Ignoring the fact completely, that we are supplying most of the capital for this foreign ownership of our natural resources.

Last year the Leader of the Opposition recounted the situation with regard to the Kaiser development. $35 million came as a loan from a Canadian bank out of the savings of the Canadian people. What do you mean we haven't got the capital? We look at the Lornex mine, we find that the 1970 financing represented $21 million by Rio Algom, a Canadian company, out of profits earned in Canada, $2.3 million from Yukon Consolidated, $26 million by a consortium of

[ Page 213 ]

Japanese smelters and trading companies, $60 million under a Canadian bank loan and $40 million from the Central Mortgage and Housing.

More than 50 per cent of the total financing came right from Canadian banks. Almost all of the rest came from earned industry profits in Canada.

What do you mean we have to give it away? We're financing ourselves, we're financing our own takeover and later on in the session, in the budget debate, I will have a little more to say about that aspect of it too.

I agree that here in B.C. there's a high degree of vulnerability to the U.S. economic actions. But instead of continually moving to make us even more vulnerable, the duty of every leader in this country is to make us less vulnerable to what happens to the U.S. economy. Make us more masters of our own destiny.

We need somebody to speak for Canada. The Premier says that's anti-American. But you know, just last year the Minister of Labour, when he was protesting that Kootenay and Elk Valley railway thing, said it's the export of jobs, the construction of that railroad. Is that anti-American?

Interjection by Hon. Member.

MR. STRACHAN: The Minister of Agriculture, he attacked the U.S. D.I.S.C. plan. He said industry here is in danger. Is that anti-American? The Premier says if you're critical at all of wanting to change things that's anti-American. It's time the Premier of this province was pro-Canadian, not anti-Canadian.

The Minister of Agriculture said the U.S. Domestic International Sales Corporation posed a far worse threat to Canada, with more devastating, long-term effects than the current year's import surcharge and I agree with him. I agree with him. Again I say, contradiction over there. One Minister saying one thing and another saying something else.

Economic union, free trade, the Minister of Agriculture again: "Save Food Supply from U.S. Conquests, Shelford Urges." Free trade? Save food supply from U.S. conquests. That of course…

AN HON. MEMBER: He's an economic nationalist.

MR. STRACHAN: Just a few years ago, the then Attorney General of this province gave a speech. What did he say? He said: "Canada must free itself from the tight money grip caused by the United States syphoning Canadian dollars to help pay for the escalating Vietnamese war." That's what the Attorney General said. Not this Attorney General. He said: "We must seek to displace our dependence on New York, with a Canadian bond market and a Canadian equity market of truly major proportions." Is that anti-American? Is the former Attorney General anti-American? I don't think so. I think that makes good economic sense. Because I think that…

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR STRACHAN: You know, last fall the Minister of Health went on a trip too — not to Japan, not to Austria — but into northern British Columbia, along with the U.S. Ambassador, and the U.S. Consul. Here's the Minister of Agriculture saying we have to protect ourselves and the former Attorney General saying "we Canadians this," and the Minister of Industrial Relations saying we have to develop secondary and tertiary industry and here's this Minister up north showing the wonderful natural resources that we're prepared to give to them.

AN HON. MEMBER: Come and get it!

MR. STRACHAN: But whatever it is, there's no money in the treasury. They looked at the rivers up there and the water supply and all the rest of it. I don't know where these people are hiding their heads these last few years. I don't think they have ever heard of the President's report on energy, his message to the senate.

I don't think they've heard of the Schultz report on the energy needs of the United States or the remarks that are made in it or the realisation that as far as the United States are now concerned, this is one continent. They now speak about common ownership of the resources of this continent. They've used up theirs and squandered them. We have some left. They now talk about "common ownership" and "continentalism." Now, what is continentalism? I can buy internationalism as a belief because we're citizens of the world. But continentalism means that a country of 200 million people, with no resources, wants to be friendly with a country with lots of resources and only 20 million people.

AN HON. MEMBER: What's yours is mine and what's mine is my own.

MR. STRACHAN: Brice O'Brian, the president of the U.S. National Coal Association, while testifying before the U.S. Senate hearing on energy resources, said, that the U.S. considers "Canada our own for energy purposes."

The Minister takes the consul and the ambassador up north to let them see our energy resources.

AN HON. MEMBER: Come and get it!

MR STRACHAN: Come and get it, that's right! The following month, President Nixon in a statement on U.S. energy, indicated that the major solution to the crises that the U.S. was facing lay in the vast importation of Canadian resources — oil, natural gas, coal, hydro power and water — which have come to be known in the U.S. as continental resources, under a common ownership. They have used their own resources in a wasteful way and now ours are under common ownership. That's what it's all about.

Negotiations are now going on in Washington between Canada and the United States, the common ownership of our resources is the lever. That's what they're after. That's the club. The common ownership of our resources.

Unfortunately our Premier has said and done nothing that would tend to strengthen the backbone of the Canadian negotiations — all his policies are designed to weaken Canada's position in negotiating with the United States for any trade agreement. Instead he has sided with the United States against Canadian interests — his hatred for the Ottawa government has weakened Ottawa's bargaining power with the United States. The Schultz report, this is Honourablp George P. Schultz, the Secretary of Labour in the U.S. Cabinet, recommended a search for safe supplies of oil. It said, "the risk of political instability or animosity is generally considered to be very low in Canada." We're suckers.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't stir up the Indians.

MR. STRACHAN: That's right. Don't stir up the Indians.

[ Page 214 ]

It recommended — how do you like this, this is the Schultz report, it's beautifully worded. It recommended "common or harmonious policies with respect to natural gas and other energy related matters."

"Common or harmonious policies." The quid pro quo was supposed to be a relaxation of the oil restrictions then enforced. You know that Schultz report makes it very clear that they need our oil, they need it. And I have to admit that the Honourable Joe Greene goofed in that speech he made in Denver in 1971, because we had already agreed to give them — I forget, what was it — 6 trillion cubic feet of gas, or something, the gas export has already been settled.

The 10 per cent surcharge was designed to lever Canada further along the road to economic union or common ownership of our resources. That's what that was all about. The attitude and the quality of this government weakened the hand of the federal government in trying to bargain for Canada. The Schultz report, now this is interesting, the job of input-output money, no royalties, but pseudo royalties…you know all the rest of it. The Schultz report also points out that for every dollar invested in Canada to extract oil et cetera, 71 cents would be returned to the U.S. In the first year in the form of investment return. In the first year, that's the kind of suckers we are.

In the first year of investment. 71 cents returned in investment returned. That's not a bad return you know, that's not a bad return. Skimming the top off the Canadian economic production and I'm getting into that more in the budget speech too.

Then there's the question of NAPAWA, that's North Atlantic Water. Here's a report. North American Power and Water and Power Line. This is what the American consul went up there looking at. The natural oil in there. We can kid ourselves that we have been good friends with the United States and I hope we always will be. But since our economy and our resources are committed to the United States, they will always leave us free to pursue our own benefits. But I ask you, can 20 million people ever be equal partners with 200 million people?

AN HON. MEMBER: 20-to-1 odds.

MR. STRACHAN: The other day, last week, I picked up the Press and I read a speech made by Robert W. Bonner, the vice-president of MacMillan-Bloedel. I read the report of that speech in the Victoria Colonist and I sat down right away and I wrote to Mr. Bonner congratulating him on the speech.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you ever get to do that when he was in the House?

MR, STRACHAN: I congratulated him on that speech of five years ago regarding the Canadian equity market. I congratulated him on that speech. I agreed with him. But I sent him a letter congratulating him and yesterday I got a copy of the speech along with a letter.

I want to draw your attention to something in the speech. Mr. Bonner says: "Now we urgently need a scenario for the 1970's and beyond. We are no longer viewing the non-Soviet world as one in which American leadership is unquestioned in either a political or economic sense." Is that anti-American?

AN HON. MEMBER: It's embarrassing.

MR. STRACHAN: Is that pinko stuff?

AN HON. MEMBER: It's embarrassing.

MR. STRACHAN: That's what we say. That's what we say.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shocking, oh!

MR. STRACHAN: "Vietnam, the dilemma of the Arab-Israeli cockpit, American dollar devaluation, the new international payments, the Nixon-Pompidou meeting, President Nixon's frank statement towards the economic market in Japan — all these events and experiences attest to the fact that while American power is foremost it is increasingly foremost among equals."

AN HON. MEMBER: He should sign the Watkins Manifesto.

MR. STRACHAN: Then he goes on in to fine terms. He said:

Economists tended to find the post-industrial state as one in which more members of the labour force are engaged in the performance of services and in the production of goods. That is over-simplified, but according to the definition, Canada and the United States have already passed into the post-industrial era. The post-industrial state is simply one way of describing a society that has become very complex, no longer agrarian or based primarily on heavy industry, subject to rapid change, subject to rapid change, depending upon extremely advanced technology and a post-materialist value system.

That's what you haven't recognised yet. One thing: "Personally, I await the day when Canada worries less about the presence of foreign investment and worries more about exerting a stronger Canadian influence abroad to international corporations encouraged, owned and directed in Canada."

Well, he talks about the task. He says the task alone would require public, and private planning and collaboration of a totally unprecedented level of activity and success. "Apart from the fact that there are no easy answers to the questions I have just raised, the most critical comment in relation to such questions is that we seem to be backing into the future. We are not planning to manage change. We seem content to let it happen."

AN HON. MEMBER: Very, very flattering.

MR. STRACHAN: "At a time," and I'm still quoting…

At a time when corporate planning must be increasingly sensitive and responsive to external circumstances, government continues to display its programmes in a way which is the antithesis of planning. Worse than that, this approach to national planning is inadequate for a period when we must expect to cope with radical change.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's talking about you.

MR. STRACHAN: He's talking about you too. You too. "Instead of participative democracy the time calls for anticipatory democracy in which policy is for firmly rooted and genuine national objectives reached by prior consultation." How much prior consultation do you have? You, you're committed to that nineteenth century give-away

[ Page 215 ]

resources policy. The whole way. "The times call for more rather than less democracy."

AN HON. MEMBER: Who's at the Minister of Finance conference now?

MR. STRACHAN: The times call for more rather than less democracy. The times call for more not less democracy. We're faced with the dictatorial government over here that more and more is government by edict that more and more is undermining and denigrating the democratic processes.

I agree with Bonner. The times call for more democracy, not less. We need a reversal of that trend in this House. Right in this House. Public and private planning will be of poor quality unless they're directed to broad goals on which we can all agree.

As I say, I wrote to Bonner congratulating him on that speech. If we had a different kind of government here that wasn't committed to the past, that was a government of vision instead of memory, then we wouldn't be backing into the future. But we'd be marching in there with shoulders high.

I agree with Bonner that the time does require more planning and more democracy. I think there's a great opportunity based on this realisation for labour, management and government to get together, do the planning and march into that post-material society.

I reject the economic state for other reasons too. Because there are other factors to be considered.

The U.S. has squandered its resources with an economy of waste and built-in obsolescence. It has created its economic problems through a wasteful and hateful war in Vietnam. This year it is committing itself to a $75 billion budget to be squandered by its military industrial bureaucracy for so-called defence — $75 billion. I don't want to be part of that kind of society.

But, Mr. Speaker, while we are cousins we have a different culture. We have a different culture. We have to remember that the American culture is based on violence. They became a country by violence, by revolutions. They opened up their west. Just a minute, I'm defining the fact that we're of a different culture. We are a different culture.

AN HON. MEMBER: Culture based on violence.

MR. STRACHAN: They became a country by violence, by revolution.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

MR. STRACHAN: They opened up the west, they opened up the west with the rule that the law that came out of the end of a six-shooter.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. STRACHAN: They got themselves into the civil war. Civil war.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. STRACHAN: There was the violence within the university area. As I say, theirs is a different kind of culture. Any culture where there is a gun lobby, that can defeat a senator because he wants the owners of guns to be registered is not the kind of society that I want. When there's a gun law so powerful that when any senator wants any person with a gun to have it registered and the attacker would get him defeated than I have to question how close I want to be to that kind of country and the relationship I want to have with them. We are cousins. But we're of a different culture.

As a British Columbian, as a Canadian, as a citizen of the world I don't want my grandchildren tied to that kind of a life.

Mr. Speaker, in 1969 this government stampeded the electorate with a phoney programme. To fulfill the bright promises of 1969 you should have been developing job intensive industry — but you failed. We now have almost 64,000 unemployed and more people on social welfare than ever before. The natural resources of our province should have more processing right here in B.C. to provide the added value that will provide vastly-increased provincial revenues.

The government failed and the surpluses we have acquired have been built up by refusing to meet the needs of the people. Now all we have to do is look at the nurses' report on nursing homes in this province. That's all we have to do to see how we've failed.

The educational system should have been restructured to produce the management, leadership, the technicians, the skilled workmen, required by new technical and processing industries.

The Premier says he's not interested. Again this is a quote from Executive magazine. "The Premier says he's not interested in attracting a research and development industry to B.C." He just wants to export our raw materials.

The government failed to develop the educational system. But instead they declare war on the trustees and teachers. The health services of the province should have been expanded to meet the needs of our people. Again surpluses have been built up while our senior citizens need chronic care beds and extended care facilities — they declare war on the doctors.

Who leads us, Mr. Speaker, is less important than what leads us. This government has convinced people that profit is the touchstone of success. This has instilled into our people the desire to get more and more. This has become the prime motivation in our society. Someone has said, this has been elevated from a economic principle to a principle of life. With this as a guiding principle of your kind of society it is any wonder we have strikes and troubles, unhappiness, inequality and want?

The bankrupt policy of this government can only bankrupt the province. Your policies are going to leave the provincial cupboard of British Columbia bare. Just as the new government of Alberta's finding right now. After 35 years of the same kind of policies from a Social Credit government they arrive to find the cupboard bare. I just hope that the people of British Columbia don't wait until it's too late to get rid of that crew over there. So whoever takes over won't find the cupboard bare, the resources gone, committed, and with no money in the bank.

I'll bet you that now this is the story coming out of Alberta and I challenge you to do what I did two years ago. Go into the library, get the returns, the income returns, on oil into that province. You'll find that in the last five years they've been going down. You go and see. I did it. Your policy is dividing the society more and more into the have's and the have-not's. Insiders and outsiders. Chaos, confusion and contradiction.

The end product of 20 years of high-grading the economy

[ Page 216 ]

of the province. Twenty years of sell out. Twenty years of sell-out. All the noise and furor, the disorder and turmoil you are now trying to stir up before the next election and for one purpose and one purpose only — to try and win another election before the crisis of your own making catches up to you. B.C. deserves and must have something better.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon. second Member for Vancouver-Burrard.

MR. B. PRICE (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, once again I take my place in this debate and in a few months it will be 20 years since I first had the very distinct honour of representing Vancouver-Burrard in this House.

I feel very fortunate to have as my first Member a man who has fought a very difficult battle and I know that we're all very glad to see him getting back on his feet. It's been mentioned before in this House but without a doubt at least every Member in this room that drives down our 401 and sees these daffodils coming up in the spring they won't look at them without thinking of our first Member from Vancouver-Burrard.

I think; Mr. Speaker that one of the most significant things in the throne speech was in a little paragraph right almost at the end. It said we have much to be thankful for in British Columbia and we look forward to the coming year with renewed vigor and a sense of challenge.

I can assure you that I agree that we are very fortunate to be in British Columbia. When we compare what's going on in Ireland at this time and I think we indeed have a great deal to be thankful for.

Just in respect of what is going on in Ireland, Mr. Speaker, I can't help thinking in my own little way that we are most fortunate in this province to have a single public educational system where the children of all ethnic groups, all religions, go to school together. They don't care a hoot where their parents go to church on Sundays, and the result is you've got a group of people growing up with a common sense of attachment to each other that will never cease as long as we have our children going to school as they are today. I indeed think we are very, very fortunate.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PRICE: That's Bert Price — never mind somebody else. That's my own feelings and I feel that way.

Mr. Speaker, I feel disturbed at the speech made by the ex-Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Strachan). When he points out that the U.S. is a country based on violence it leaves me cold. I just can't see it. It defeats my thoughts and my thinking of the United States as a country, as a great country in the world. Here we are. One of the things that we boast about in North America is that Canada has 3,000 miles of undefended border. Yet this Member will get up and say that we have as a neighbour a country which is based on violence. These two facts don't go together.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PRICE: When he speaks about B.C. and its future and being in financial trouble I would like to know — from anybody here — I would like to know and so would anybody else where any jurisdiction in North America is better off financially today than the Province of British Columbia. There just is not one.

His statement about local money invested in British Columbia and how it would be possible to use more British Columbia money for investment in B.C. — he pointed out how the Kaiser Company raised $35 million out of B.C. money and other companies of course have raised a great deal of money here too. But I think it may be overlooked that in British Columbia in 1971 there was $2,942.6 million invested in this country and if you think that kind of money is available from the 2 million people in British Columbia, you just don't know your facts. That kind of money is not here.

Again I think that it certainly points towards the satisfaction and the confidence that people have in this province to note that there is nearly $3,000 million invested in public and private investment in British Columbia during the 1971 year.

It was not my intention, Mr. Speaker, to speak about the Moran dam but when I hear people comdemning it merely for the sake of finding fault, I can't help thinking that the general public doesn't take that attitude and if you asked yourself what you would think of damming this same river if it were in California and it was necessary to save a possible flood which could wipe out thousands of farms on the lower Fraser Valley, I think you would look at it differently entirely.

I am quite sure that the general public, if they only knew the facts as they should be known regarding the possibility of flooding, would certainly be willing to agree that perhaps something is necessary to prevent such a catastrophe in some year to come.

If I thought we were going to get another '98 flood, I'd be in favour of it because you know very well, and I'm sure you do know, that that flood at that time was 6 ft. above the 1948 flood and believe me that did enough damage to people and property in this province.

Interjection by Hon. Member.

MR. PRICE: Well, let's hope not. You can't tell what's coming. If we have a late spring that could happen, if we have an early spring — and I think we will, I'm always a bit of an optimist — I don't think we will have too much trouble.

I was surprised to hear our Opposition Member complaining about companies advertising out of this province for help. Of course this is always help that is most necessarily highly-trained. It is impossible to get many branches of highly-skilled occupations in this province, in spite of the unemployment of 7 per cent, they're just not available. What do you want these companies to do, slow down their operations? Do you want them to close up, do you want them to lay off the men they have here now or do you want them to go outside and find them where they are? I can't find any fault with that. I think it's a very necessary thing.

Coming from an area with 100,000 people, we run into all the problems of a metropolis. Fortunately we are members of the City of Vancouver, we have an active city council which deals directly with Victoria and as far as the civic government is concerned, they very seldom come and ask for help of the M.L.A.'s.

One of the most important fields that I find myself contacted about are people that require help financially. I can quite honestly say that regarding help for people needing welfare I am nearly always able to get them help. There has been very few cases in all the years that I've been a member, that I haven't been able to help people when they needed it, seriously, from the welfare department, because the welfare

[ Page 217 ]

department is always sympathetic.

Workman compensation cases are a different thing and I find them more difficult. In some cases I've been able to help but my average is not very high.

One of the problems which is creeping up in the city today is this very serious situation where we have children sniffing glue and I don't know anything which will break parents' hearts quicker than to find out that their children are taking part in this action.

I personally think that the problem is exaggerated. I don't think it is nearly as widespread as people talking here would lead the general public to believe. But even though it may not be widespread, I still feel that control is necessary.

I have no hesitation in thinking that if a store is deliberately selling any form of solvent which when inhaled will produce hallucinations and also sell with it the equipment, like a plastic bag or give with it a plastic bag so as to make it easier for the child to use if for that purpose, to me that's contributing to juvenile delinquency and I think these people should certainly be charged.

You know, when it comes down to control — and it doesn't matter whether it's the control of glue sniffing, control of marijuana, control of heroin, or any of these things — the control always seems to be measured by dollars and cents. Even though this may be a very necessary thing to consider, when you have something like heroin which makes a person a slave for life, I doubt that the dollars and cents should be considered to a great extent.

In the case of glue sniffing, I'm rather surprised that the parents don't step in and close these stores up, that are selling these. If the problem gets bad enough, I'm quite confident that, in my own mind, that sooner or later parents will take this matter into their own hands and they will close these stores or wreck them.

In another area too, in this respect, I don't know why the authorities, which of course has to be the police, don't use parent groups or volunteers or organisations like the Canadian Legion. Well, I'm confident in my own mind they would be tickled to death to step in and try and get volunteers from among their members to try and help police these offenders. I'm quite sure that it could be done and on a much bigger scale than it is today and I have every confidence.

This is something that I would leave with the Attorney General because I think there is room for it and I think there is great benefit to be derived from it.

Of course we have the problem of pensioners in our riding and these things are very important to a certain group of people. You take the municipal pensioners that went on pension prior to 1957, and the workmen's compensation pensions who have been on pension for 25 years or 30 years. These people are not in a very happy position today.

I notice in one of our publications that, I guess it was the throne speech, where this year there is going to be $2 million extended to 8,400 pensioners in this province which means an average of $20 a month.

It wouldn't be so bad if it's $20 but these people who have been on pension for a long time, their little bit extra is infinitesimal and it doesn't mean too much. I noticed that workmen's compensation widows have had a 26 per cent increase since 1966. Well, if you can consider, had their husbands been living and working in almost any kind of industry, that they would have had a great deal more than a 26 per cent increase in their wages.

I think this is important to consider. When these old pensioners see our school boards grant teachers a 9.8 per cent increase and when they realise and read that the teachers are getting an average of $11,000 a year, you know it must make them wonder just where do they stand in their life's work.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think the Honourable Member is fringing on anticipation of the bill before the House.

AN HON. MEMBER: No he's not.

MR. PRICE: Well, when we consider these wages that are or salaries that are being paid to the professional groups today and the highly unionised groups, I can't help feeling that somehow or other we need a big change in our minimum wage.

The reason I say that is because today, many people are offered jobs that are on welfare, but they find out and the social workers very advisedly told them on paper, that they are far better off to stay on welfare.

I don't think you can blame the social worker for saying that because it's his duty to tell a person what is best for him and there is nothing wrong with that. I do find fault with the fact that minimum wages are so low that they are actually lower than you can earn on welfare. This doesn't make sense.

I listened to a radio by chance this morning and I heard Canada Manpower offering jobs for hairdressers in Victoria, for $1.95 an hour. I am quite convinced that when a woman goes and gets her hair done, that what she pays is certainly enough to give more than $1.95 an hour to the operator. Anybody who has a wife who gets her hair done, I don't think has any argument with that standpoint.

There is a need to increase these minimum wages. They are just not high enough. I know that if you ask any of these pensioners any opinion on it, they have no hesitation in supporting that opinion.

Housing is another thing, Mr. Speaker, which is a most serious thing in the area of Vancouver-Burrard and I think it will continue to be a problem for a long time.

In the city now there are no lots and no opportunity to build small homes or homes of any kind on lots. The only thing we can build now are apartment buildings and high-rises. This is one of the things that is causing the extreme shortage of places to live.

The older homes, where you could acquire three rooms maybe for $75 a month — and there have been lots of them — they have been torn down to make room for new buildings. When they build the new buildings the suites in them are worth anywhere from a minimum of about $140 a month. There's a great number of people that just can't afford to go into quarters of that kind.

I think that the government should be commended very highly for the home acquisition grants that they make available in this province — the only province in Canada — and I'm told that 2,500 people a month are inquiring about the possibility of trying to get a home with the help of these home acquisition grants.

It has been stated here earlier today, that the fund now invested in this home acquisition fund is close to $120 million. I am told by people that should know, that when this reaches $250 million it will be self-supporting, because the money coming in will be equivalent to the money going out and the fund will keep rolling over without any further investment by this province. I think it is an indication of the far thinking that's been done in putting these plans into operation.

[ Page 218 ]

The only thing that we can do, in an area like Vancouver-Burrard, Mr. Speaker, to alleviate the housing situation is subsidise housing. I can't say that I'm in favour of public subsidies for anything, but what are you going to do when you have people unable to get homes and they're living now by virtue of force in places that are not good habitation? There's a great need for better housing and the only thing we can do is to help these people get into better quarters even if it means carrying part of their costs.

I believe that it is much better to help families when their children are young than to wait until those children become rebels and we have to keep them in jail at a later age. This is what is happening. You only have to look at areas in the United States to see very definite evidence of this sort of thing. Our cities here are not old enough to reach the degree of degradation that you find in lots of the eastern cities of the United States, but nevertheless, they have approached a point where it is not fit, I don't think, for what can be called modern housing.

I only hope that the province will be very willing to give great support to the greater Vancouver regional district in their effort to build 1,000 home sites this year. Whether they will be able to do that or not is going to be dependent almost entirely on the support that they get from the provincial and federal governments.

The first Member from Burrard (Mr. Merilees) and myself very recently discussed this matter with Mr. Kesson, the new man that has been taken on the Greater Vancouver Regional District, to take care and advise on housing.

He maintains that certain plans that are available to the province through the federal government take three-and-a-half years to get off the ground. This is something which is very, very discouraging. When you see the need and recognise that the need is today for housing, when you are faced with the fact that you can't get federal help for three-and-a-half years, it changes the picture entirely.

I would like to go a little further in regard to housing, Mr. Speaker, and this doesn't apply to the City of Vancouver for the simple reason that this is too late. The cost of lots today on which to build a home, is reaching a point where it's so high that it makes it impossible for many thousands of people to take advantage of the home acquisition grants.

I am told that 27 per cent of the people in this province do not qualify for national housing mortgages. This is a very large amount. A home today is reaching $26,000 for the home plus the lot and lots today in Burnaby are worth $15,000 and up. If you go onto the north shore, they don't even get down to $15,000 and the result is that people are being forced to go out onto the Delta land to get home sites where land is much cheaper and this is the worst thing that can happen because you are using up agricultural land which just cannot be replaced.

I think it is time for municipalities, perhaps with the government's help, to look into the question of forming land banks and also instead of selling these lots as home building lots, they should lease them on long-term leases, perhaps for 50 or 65 years which is the maximum life of a home.

If they could lease these lots and reduce the cost to a home builder by the $15,000 cost, I am convinced that it would pave the way for many thousands of people to get into a home that they could call their own.

There would be no loss to a municipality because it would gather its taxes, the acquisition value of the property is continuing and will continue throughout our lifetime and much longer for the simple reason that, as the population increases, the demand for property is going to increase along with it and they are just not making any more land.

Two areas in the province are now working towards leasing lots, Port Moody and Coquitlam, and I think that this is something which should be watched very closely because I am convinced in my own mind that if people could lease these lots, on a long term, it would help to preserve the agriculture of the Delta land and it would be a great boon to the people that want to try and build a home with the help of the acquisition grant.

When we are talking about agricultural land, Mr. Speaker, I once again want to point out the terrific volume of fruits and vegetables which we import into this province. Most of them come from the U.S. and Mexico.

If you go into a supermarket to buy potatoes, the chances are 4 to 1 that you are going to buy imported potatoes. If you buy canned foods it's worse still because at least 90 per cent of them are going to be foreign-grown and even those that are canned in this province are usually canned by industries which are controlled outside of Canada. Which I suppose leads to another question because if the United States puts the D.I.S.C. programme into effect — "Domestic International Sales Corporation" — to reduce tax benefits to companies now producing or manufacturing outside of the United States proper, if they will return to the United States they'll get considerable tax benefits, if this happened we will no doubt be faced with the necessity to subsidise our processing plants here. There would be no choice because there wouldn't be any here.

I listened to the Minister of Agriculture for Canada a few weeks ago. And when he was questioned about the need to protect the growers in the lower mainland and in the rest of B.C. he sat on the fact that as far as Canada is concerned, in agricultural products there's about 43 per cent imported, but there's also 43 per cent exported.

Of course, he's thinking on a Canada-wide basis, and on the prairies of course it's nearly all export.

This is all very well, maybe, for Canada as a whole, but it certainly doesn't tell a proper picture for British Columbia. And here we are relying almost totally for our food supply from other countries, and I think this is wrong. There's no doubt about it that the market is here, and that's the most important thing when it comes down to producing anything, is to have a market.

I would only hope that somehow or other the federal government would offer some protection in the way of getting the American producers to exercise some quotas on what they send to this country, and also help from the federal government in making sure that they're enforced.

I would just like to say about expropriation — and I'm glad to see in the throne speech that there's going to be a study of this made this year — there is one fundamental thing which I think is necessary to expropriation by a government and that is to make sure they are giving a person a replacement value.

This is something which does not seem to have very much value when it comes down to dealing with people that they are going to expropriate. They may give them what they think is the value for the property. But as far as a replacement value this is something entirely outside of it, and I think there is a need to give consideration to the actual replacement value.

The lower mainland is facing a crisis — if you want to call it that — with regard to being plugged up with automobiles in the city centre. The question of how to overcome it seems to

[ Page 219 ]

be accepted in two words, rapid transit. Now, there's no doubt that the problem has been created by the automobile, but I'll say this Mr. Speaker, and I speak with some judgment on this, I think, because I've spent my life there.

I think the problem is also created by poor service, by our buses. And this shouldn't be taken lightly. Because 35 years ago when there was only a small percentage of the automobiles around, there was just as many people carried from specific areas, as are being carried today. The only thing today is that there are more areas.

But they were carried very satisfactorily on streetcars and later on by buses, but the buses ran faster and they gave a much better service. If we only had one-car families today like they had in those days, the wives and families would be up against a very serious problem because you just rely on buses to get you back and forth to town these days, it's impossible.

The problem of getting back and forth by automobile I think maybe a little bit exaggerated because people still get to work, and they still get home, and I think that an economic situation would solve the problem. Because if parking cost becomes too high people leave their cars farther away.

But I would say this, that I think the regional district council deserves a great deal of credit for their effort to try and come up with a solution to what is a real problem of transporting people, and I think that the work that's been done by the chairman of that committee, Mr. Allan C. Kelly should have a great deal of commendation because he's put in hundreds and hundreds of hours in going and telling people, and trying to tell them what is possible and what the committee is recommending.

Their recommendation today, of course, is an improved bus service. Mr. Speaker, I am heartily in agreement to that. And if they can only get going on it right now they could have it in operation in 1972.

But of course the regional district can't do this alone. The only way they could possibly function is to a very sizable subsidy from somewhere, presumbly Hydro or from the B.C. Government. And I would say, Mr. Speaker, quite frankly that the lower mainland has a right to a subsidy, and anybody that knows anything about it knows why. It's because the lower mainland is largely responsible for Hydro being able to have a postage stamp rate throughout this province.

It doesn't require very much imagination to see that somebody in using power in Golden or Prince George or any of these towns outside they just don't have the volume of use to warrant the same kind of a cost per kilowatt as they have in the lower mainland, and yet they're getting it.

Of course, the reason for it is because the lower mainland area is able to pay a high enough rate to subsidise the rest of the province, and there's nothing wrong with that. I think it was one of the most valuable things that happened to this province when they managed to get this postage stamp raise. Because when they had the very high cost of power outside of the lower mainland it made it literally impossible for industry to go anywhere in this province except where the power was at its cheapest. And there's nothing wrong with this, the government has great credit coming to it for being able to put such a programme into effect.

But don't forget that it cost the City of Vancouver and the lower mainland along with it, a lot of money to keep this programme going. Because historically rapid transit or public transit and electric energy distribution has been tied together,

I can't help feeling that there is very definitely room to give a subsidy to the regional district that would help promote the type of bus system which they think will solve the problem of transporting people without automobiles into the city centre, and to bring them in and take them home from the outside areas.

This is not just the City of Vancouver of course, that we're talking about. We're talking about the 14 municipalities in the three areas, that make up the entire lower mainland. I think that the next move in the public transit will set the stage. Because if they can demonstrate that they can handle the traffic properly with buses, it will probably alleviate the problem for such time until they can go into fast transport — that is with using trains — and maybe in 25 or 35 years from now they will go into the split level transit, which of course means underground.

I don't think there's any possibility of that before 25 years, because we just won't have the population to pay for it.

But I would ask you to remember that this affects half the population of this province, and surely that should have some bearing on the fact that we need some help financially to put this programme into effect, and to get it started.

I'm very glad, Mr. Speaker, to see that the throne speech mentioned the government may do something about a standard of noise level for automobiles and trucks. Because this is something that I've talked about here year, after year. The easiest form of pollution to control, from the standpoint of motor vehicles, the very easiest. And yet no effort at all has actually been made to make automobiles reach the level of quietness that they are easily capable of.

When we're talking about pollution, Mr. Speaker, I think that we should bear in mind that British Columbia is again very, very fortunate from the standpoint of pollution. We hear a great deal of pollution and what's happening in other parts of the world, and it's much more real than it is in the Province of B.C. When we've got 366,000 square miles, and only 2 million people you can't say that we've got any degree of pollution in the province.

I don't think the public are really properly informed as the measures to control pollution already taken by this government. I'm sure we hear hot lines belabouring the pollution subject all the time, and you've never heard so much misinformation in your life as you hear over some of these open lines.

I think there's reason to be afraid of certain things. I think the general public are very much fearful of drilling for oil on the specific coast. And I agree with them, I think it's something we should try and control for a long time.

Another thing I think I might mention is the Skagit River, and the possibility of flooding in that valley, and I personally am of the opinion that this will be done. But I do suggest that we might possibly make a trade with control of Point Roberts for the flooding of the Skagit Valley. This is something that might be considered and it might be probably of great use to this province and to the people of the lower mainland, particularly if we had control of Point Roberts because it's a bit of a nuisance to both sides of the border right now being isolated as it it.

Another point that I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, and that is that as far as air pollution is concerned I don't think many people recognise that the city of Vancouver is cleaner now — the air is cleaner now than it was 20 years ago. This has been created by the change over from coal to oil, and then from oil to gas.

[ Page 220 ]

The council has forbidden all out-door burning and unless you are pretty close to what is going on in the air and you do some flying around Vancouver to see how dirty the air is from a distance you don't realise what's taking place. But I can assure you from my observation that the air in Vancouver now is cleaner than it was 20 years ago. We don't have the smog, and we don't have the build-up of smoke. And I think that this is a good argument in favour of gas as a fuel.

In reference to gas I'm of the opinion that the B.C. people and industries should get the benefit of gas, natural gas at the lowest possible cost. I think a natural resource should be a public resource, and I'm of the opinion that it should be thoroughly controlled by a public body. The investment, and returns on investment for all production and distribution should be a matter of public knowledge and the government should act as a balance to protect the public and with this great natural resource, which is something which not too many parts of the world have, I think we should make sure that we get the full benefit of it in every way possible.

Also in the Speech from the Throne, Mr. Speaker, it mentioned that there had been 45 million trees planted, and this is certainly good news. When I find out that we have planted 21 million trees on the coast and 17 million in the interior at a cost of about 5 cents each to plant, I think it's wonderful news. Because we all know that about 54 cents out of every $1 spent in B.C. comes out of the timber. And this is probably going to be so for quite a long time.

I think that continuous planning is the only security we have. And I'm only sorry that somehow or other it costs so much to plant these trees. And I hope that more research will be done to try and reduce the cost of planning them because I think that as time goes on they may be able to plant from helicopters maybe 100,000 a day and you'll cut the cost down a great deal.

I'd, like to speak about another item which I think is important. I don't know, sometimes on these ideas that you present here, you'd think they were whistling in the dark. But nevertheless I think you have to keep trying.

I believe that we should have a public life insurance corporation in B.C. operated as a Crown corporation. You know, one of the few ways today to reduce income tax is to put money into pension funds. And I am told that in Canada we have at the present time $38 billion controlled by insurance and pension funds. There's no doubt…

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. PRICE: Just you try and listen for a minute because some of you fellows need an education too, particularly insurance salesmen.

A province like British Columbia is going to continue to meet investment capital for many many years to come. And I heard Dr. Shrum say that the B.C. Hydro alone is going to require $600 to $800 million a year if it's going to keep up to demands for electrical energy in this province.

Where is the money going to come from? At the present time we raise what we can here by parities and if there's any big amount needed we have to go into the world market, which is the United States. The money that is available today for investment in nearly every case is controlled by insurance companies, and it's all very well to say that insurance premiums collected in Canada must be invested in Canada but don't kid yourself that they are controlled by the company which elects them and they say where they go and how much they get for it. Don't let anybody kid you otherwise.

At the present time there is $10.5 billion in insurance coverage in life insurance in British Columbia. They collect an income of $154.5 million per year according to the report of the inspector of insurance.

I think, Mr. Speaker, that it would be one of the most useful things this government could do would be to create a company which would sell insurance for the simple reason that it would build up this tremendous investment fund. This is needed.

We have a fund now of which the government is caretaker which is in the neighborhood of $200 million and you don't hear the insurance companies complaining about that. This is taken care of, this is raised, of course, by government employees, workman's compensation, P.G.E. and L.C.B. and things like that.

This fund is performing a very useful purpose and according to a magazine which is put out by the provincial government employees they maintain that about 70 per cent or 58 per cent of this is invested in B.C. Hydro.

While I'm talking about this fund, I noticed an item in the B.C. Provincial, which I'm sure you all have a copy of, and they complained very bitterly about the pension fund. The heading of it says "Our Fund Earnings too Low." I think you should all read that because it's the kind of an article which I don't think should be in a provincial government employees' paper. They are finding serious fault with the way the fund is managed and this fund…

AN HON. MEMBER: Should it be censored?

MR. PRICE: I think the people who work for the government should censor it. Certainly. It's their funds.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PRICE: I think an article like that is a disgrace to the employees' union. I think they should keep things like that out because it's only breaking down the confidence which people have in a pension fund and that's the wrong thing to do, particularity when the fund is in a very healthy condition. It's earning over 6 per cent in spite of the fact that it has investments in it that are over 20 years old drawing 3 per cent. They have investments as much as 9 per cent.

You can't find fault with a fund when it's being handled in a manner like that.

I believe, Mr. Speaker, that such an insurance fund if started by the British Columbia government would have the support of unions of which they would be very glad to have a place where they could put their money in this province and know that it was going to be properly taken care of and they'd get a good return.

I'm quite sure that average citizens would be using it in a very satisfactory way. We had an instance the other day of where somebody was finding serious fault with the McGavin's fund and if the government acted as a caretaker and offered this privilege and made it available to companies I'm quite sure that they'd be very glad to have the government take care of these pension funds for them.

I'm quite sure it would have universal public support. I'm not alone in my viewpoint on this. From people that I've talked to, it has wide support even among the business segment of our population. We're a grass root movement and I'm just trying to sow a little seed. I'm quite sure that the

[ Page 221 ]

time will come when the government will do this.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PRICE: Ah, don't kid yourself. You come up with a good idea on this I'll not miss looking at it closely.

Mr. Speaker, I read an account in one of our dailies the other day where the chief of police, I believe it was in Port Moody, was complaining to his council very bitterly of a boy that had been found guilty, I think, of 15 cases of break-ins. He couldn't do anything about him because there was no room for him in Brandon Lake.

Now this is a subject that I've had some knowledge of in years gone by. I brought this subject up when I first came here, most of it in regard to the boys' industrial school and the girls' industrial schools which ended up in a investigating committee. I think it ended up too in a great improvement in the way the boys and girls were looked after in these schools.

I'm not in favour of big schools for taking care of delinquents, boys or girls. I think it's the worst possible thing you can do, to take all the bad boys and bad girls and put them into a heap in this province. I think it would be far better if we can find places to put these delinquent boys, or misled boys or untrained boys or whatever you call them, into homes where they could be among people that have no delinquent tendencies at all.

If you had one boy in a group, a big group, it would no doubt lead to his rehabilitation much faster than putting him into a place like Brandon Lake.

I'm not finding fault with the way Brandon Lake is being operated. I think that the people that operate it have done a very creditable job over the years. But there's no choice, they are only custodians and they can't do anything else. But I think it's a sad thing when a provincial or rather a local police chief is able to say that there is no place for them to go and they can't do anything when they continue to break-in and commit other delinquencies.

This is not fair even to the children or to the locality and I would certainly advocate that our government take another look at what is being done with regard to making a place to take care of delinquents, so that at least their parents and the public can have some hope of rehabilitation.

Another thing, too, that I'd like to speak on, Mr. Speaker, is the real estate company trust funds on deposit with charter banks. They are presently non-interest bearing and because of that they are available to the bank interest-free.

Now a real estate amendment not too long ago allowed interest on trust funds designated to a specific use into a law foundation. They ended up by having a considerable amount of return and it's available to the law of people for legal aid. I think to some extent it's also able to look after the bad debts of lawyers that for some reason or other get into trouble with their trust funds themselves. This doesn't happen — they have a fund there which is able to take care of.

I don't think the banks should be able to have this money interest-free. I think that it might be possible somehow or other for real estate companies to place this money in a voluntary trust where the money could be used to some purpose. Even if the bank used it as an insurance against N.S.F. cheques it would be a great advantage to the business public of this province, I can tell you — or they could use it for some form of junior achievement, or add it to the Cultural Fund and the Athletic Fund or put it into scholarships.

There's no reason in my estimation why this can't be done. At the present time the banks are using this money that's on deposit and they should be willing to pay for it. We had a few words the other day from one of our members on the benefit of a lottery system in British Columbia — public-owned lottery. I'm not in favour of lotteries, if the government did sell them. I've listened to discussions on the Irish Sweepstakes and with speakers that were supposed to know the facts have indicated that only 2 per cent of the Irish Sweepstake funds ever reach hospitals. But in the recent U.B.C.M. publication…

AN HON. MEMBER: It's 20 per cent.

MR. PRICE: No, 2 per cent, I don't believe you, 20 per cent, that many. In the U.B.C.M. publication they gave a rundown on the Manitoba lottery that was held on the Grey Cup and their prizes — I think the first prize was $100,000, second $25,000, third $15,000 and 700 prizes which went from $25 up to $10,000. They took in as revenue $1,885,000 and the benefits which accrued to the various organisations and they were approved charities and cultural and athletic funds.

The benefits were $1,102,600 or 58 per cent of the total value of the tickets sold. When you see 58 per cent of it going to a public benefit it makes you wonder whether or not such a thing might not be used to acquire public benefits.

I don't advocate lotteries, particularily if you're going to use it for specific things because I think it's the poorest way in the world of being sure of collecting any revenue. But it's certainly worth looking at when you see that Manitoba was able to keep 58 per cent or use 58 per cent of it for a good practice.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I think I've covered enough ground for this. There's lots to talk about but I'll reserve anything more that I have to say for the next debate.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Alberni.

MR. H.R. McDIARMID (Alberni): Feeling in a generous mood today!

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, 10 minutes hey? (Laughter).

MR. McDIARMID: Mr. Speaker, it gives me a lot of pleasure to resume my seat in this House after a rather lengthy visit to other lands. In spite of the objections of the Leader of the Opposition who was very distressed about what the Queen might say to my going, I had the opportunity to speak with the Queen and I assure the Hon. Leader of the Opposition that she felt that I'd make an excellent representative. (Laughter).

AN HON. MEMBER: She didn't know you wanted to leave the Commonwealth.

MR. McDIARMID: Strangely enough after one of my speeches in Kuala Lumpur no less a person than Tommy Douglas said it was a great speech. (Laughter). So maybe you'll have the kindness to retract your unkind remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I couldn't help but be interested in the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition who is oft times in Washington State and sometimes gets up to the Yukon. But I sent him a little card and it said "I like to travel. It makes me feel as if I'm getting somewhere."

Perhaps that might have applied to the both of us. But

[ Page 222 ]

you know, the thing about this I think in terms of travel I was going to say that when I did get back, one of the leading journalists wrote in his column that I still retained some of my tan.

Many of you brought this to my attention. The more knowledgeable among you said "we hope your liver disease will soon be better and your jaundice will clear." (Laughter). My friend from Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) who appears on the surface to be genuine and without guile has done us a great favour in pressing for parking in front of the building. But everything has its hooks and, you know, he knew I'd be intimidated beyond belief with my '64 Chev and would never park it there and now he's pressing for a new model. (Laughter).

Some of you, and particularily the Leader of the Opposition, have at times questioned sending a member from the government side to these conferences, perhaps with some value. But you know, it was an interesting thing because the speaker from Saskatchewan strangely enough belonged to the N.D.P. Funnily enough the Member from Manitoba also belonged to that party.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. McDIARMID: Perhaps if he wants some progress we might later start it there. You know, I think sometimes the question of the value of sending a member to the Commonwealth conference and perhaps the Commonwealth conference itself does little in itself really in terms of impact in world affairs. But I think for the people who go it is an extremely valuable experience.

Travel in itself, of course, is particularily broadening and to meet various peoples from the Commonwealth is a great experience. When you think that there is only one thing that makes this possible — the taxpayer. But apart from this, you know, when you get there the only thing that makes this conference possible is that everybody speaks English. It would cost far too much, with all the interpreters that would be necessary — you'd need another U.N. to happen. I can't help but think in this context that the separatists in Quebec who insist on French only are making a disaster there in term of the outlook on the world.

I had occasion at that conference to speak on the subject of pollution. I told them the simple story of pollution as it was in the City of Port Alberni, and the fact that the people had risen up against it and insisted that changes take place.

In having read in the paper the other day that M & B were looking at putting a mill in Malaysia, I couldn't help but hope that my remarks were taken with some seriousness because what I told them was that we have in fact in Canada recognised our errors. We are doing our best to stamp out the problems in old mills and we in fact have very high standards for new mills.

But we all occupy this earth. I hope that they wouldn't let the companies take the short way around and add mills which did not have proper equipment in their country.

Of the three things I think that stood out in my trip, if I had to say anything, was that in going from Hawaii to Hong Kong to Bangkok to Kuala Lumpur to Singapore to Australia, it had to be the papers, because the papers were all in English or the ones that I read were English. You know, we think that we have a corner on the problems of the world. But you know, if you cut out about three articles that marked where it was, it could have been any place in the world.

The nurses were going on strike in Malaysia, the problems in Australia of strikes, the problems they were faced — with the Americans with their dollar crisis at this point and time, and how it is affecting their exports of iron and coal to Japan. I couldn't help but think that the problems are the same world-wide.

Do you know, the other thing I thought — I believe in population control but you know when I got to Hong Kong and saw 4 million people in an area hardly larger than the Alberni Valley and saw how well basically they got on and the fact that it was safer to walk the streets of Hong Kong than those of New York by far, made me think that maybe overpopulation isn't the problem that we have got, but the problem of learning to get on together in cramped quarters when it's necessary to do so.

And perhaps the third thing of all others — I took a month to visit Australia and how similar are the problems of Australia are with those of Canada, an enormous country.

The State of Queensland which I travelled in extensively is almost one-and-half times as big as British Columbia. The population is sparse and very little of the land is inhabitable — 90 per cent of their population is distributed on a thin line around the coast. Ours is distributed on a thin line near our southern border.

Common English language — you know another problem the Labour Party is trying desperately to update their image in the eyes of average Australia. When I talked to cab drivers, bus boys and people in the hotel and so on and so forth I said: "What's the problem?" They said: "The unions. The unions are too greedy. There is too much power." You know this even got back to Mr. Goff Whitlam who is the head of the Labour Party in Australia.

Mr. Cameron, who is his shadow member for the portfolio of labour in their commonwealth government — which is their central government — made the statement which took everyone by surprise and got headlines in the Australian, the main newspaper, that they would not remove sanctions against illegal strikes if they were elected government.

Mr. Whitlam and Mr. Cameron appeared on national television to tell the people of Australia that they would give them some protection against illegal and irresponsible strikes. But what happened Mr. Speaker? This went back to the rank and file in that paper in that movement and within two days Mr. Whitlam had to make a public repudiation of the whole policy. Public repudiation. And you know I have to think that while the Leader of the Opposition is trying to create in the public image the fact that there's no strangleholds like that here in British Columbia that if he tried to make a move like that he'd find exactly the same problem, exactly the same problem.

We also heard about the great things that Australia was doing in terms of protecting the Barrier Reef — that this is all to the good. But did he also tell you at the same time that great dredges spewing muck and slime operate on their best beaches? There in front for everybody to see right on the most beautiful beaches on the ocean here are these sand mines going and chugging out the sand and the spew to get minerals out of it — so they haven't got all their problems solved by any manner of speaking.

The next thing that I would like to talk about, Mr. Speaker, for a minute is the Nitinat triangle. Much has been said about the Nitinat triangle and I am sure much more will be said about the Nitinat triangle before this House rises. But you know a couple of years ago Mr. Speaker, I stood here and said "The growth for the sake of growth is an unworthy

[ Page 223 ]

objective in itself," I believe that statement as fervently now as I did then.

I think by a corollary that the time has come, when we find various groups advocating the preservation of practically all of British Columbia for the animals, that we realistically have to say the preservation of nature for the sake of nature is not a worthy objective in itself.

I think that what we must do is we must be selective in British Columbia of those areas that really do have superlative qualities for preservation because after all the vast majority of British Columbia is so beautiful that you could make a case for almost every acre in the whole province. You know in your area as you do in mine the great hue and cry that went up to preserve all of Mount Arrowsmith, the great hue and cry to preserve the Nitinat triangle, the great hue and cry to preserve the White River and now we have the same thing mooted for Horne Lake.

But you know there has to be some end to this. We really do, I think, have to pick those areas that are really outstanding in terms of preservation and we just can't have people who are interested in preserving an area like the Nitinat triangle — which to me has a recreational potenial for the average person of about zero.

This area might be of interest to less than 2 per cent of the people who have the physical stamina to penetrate that kind of country. Let's not kid ourselves Mr. Speaker, the only way you're going to go in there is with a power-saw or an axe, you know the Sierra Club said "we took people in with canoes. People would climb Arrow Mountain." You know, they climbed Everest. You can do it if you set your mind to it but when less than 2 per cent of the population will really take any advantage of this kind of area it just does not make sense.

I want to talk about a subject that has gotten me into trouble with this House time and again, and that's alcohol. Now, the Premier and I have had our differences about alcohol and I still do believe in its moderate use. But he and I are on the same wavelength when it comes to drinking and driving. With 591 deaths on the road of British Columbia up to the end of November for this year surely no person in their right mind can say that it is not time to get tough with the drinking driver.

I want to say that the Attorney General has done a fantastic job of his advertising as others have said in this House. Did you know that while the deterrent may have been important I think that the advertising campaign has begun to cause a change in attitude. Here we are dealing with not the use but the abuse of alcohol — and this is what the ads stress, the abuse of alcohol — and people where I was out to having a drink and having a good time were gathered together and Sam was the driver that night. He couldn't have a drink or they took a cab and it was no longer smart to say: "You know I got really smashed the other night and I could hardly get into the car but I made it home alright."

A person makes a statement like that and all of a sudden he is being stared at as some kind of a kook, some kind of a nut and I do believe that we have to keep up the pressure because Christmastime may be one thing but our memories are short and we must get this same advertising company that has done such a good job keeping up the good work with other ads that will keep our minds on this for the rest of the year not just during the festive season.

The Leader of the Opposition said that we shouldn't let these people handle our political campaigns. I say, Mr. Speaker, we should go for the best right through the whole piece.

This brings me to another topic which I think one can tie in with the whole question of education and attitude. I disagree with the vast majority of speakers who got up in this House and said that the way to stop glue-sniffing is to stop selling every available volatile solvent in the world.

That is absolutely irresponsible, it's a red herring. There is no way — when people can buy marijuana in the streets, when they can buy L.S.D. — that the banning of these products is in any way going to stop their distribution to juveniles who are intent on getting them. No way, it's a snare and it's a delusion, Mr. Speaker.

The only way that we can get at this problem is through education. We must never underestimate the power of advertising. If advertising can get normally sensible reasonable males to buy a genital deodorant surely to goodness we can convince the kids that such things as this that destroy their minds are absolutely the most futile things in the world for them to be taking.

I urge you to start in the schools, Mr. Minister of Education, and let's get the message to the kids because if it's one thing that kids understand today it is if you tell it how it is. We know how it is, let's get the message across.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. McDIARMID: I don't believe it's the right approach, I can't in all honesty believe that simply by banning these things it is going to get at the root cause, there's no way. I really don't believe it. I don't even believe part of it.

You can go anywhere. You know, there are people that are mainlining flour. You know, how far will you go? I can't believe, I am unconvinced by the arguments.

There is only one way to get at it and that's to tell the kids it's a bad thing and those who aren't prepared to listen to that will get it anyway and you'll have to have a certain amount of destruction but after all people have been destroying themselves for some little time now one way or another.

But getting back to the alcohol problem, Mr. Speaker, something that concerns me about driving and alcohol is the area that I'm really concerned with. All our legislation in recent years has been directed towards the suspension of a driver's licence as being our ultimate weapon against the careless driver. Having gone to this point and into the point system I took the trouble to go to our local R.C.M.P. and say: "Alright, what's happened now that we have made this the focus?" Surely there must be more suspensions, and Mr. Speaker, there are.

The suspensions for this current year are almost double in our area than they were before, almost double. The charges or the convictions for driving while your licence is under suspension are also almost double. I think that we have got to do something about making the driving while a licence is under suspension a very serious and dangerous thing for somebody to do in the Province of British Columbia.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. McDIARMID: They are in a little different area than the kids in public school. Many of these people are alcoholics, their habits are formed and the chances of educating these people into a reasonable way are much less than the group we are really talking about.

I think that when you look at this sort of thing on paper,

[ Page 224 ]

well let's name him "Mr. Edward Johnson, 20, of no fixed address was sentenced to four months in jail when he pleaded guilty to failing to remain at the scene of an accident while driving while his licence was suspended." He had a driving record covering one-and-a-half pages at the age of 20, which including four previous "failing to remain at the scene of an accident" convictions and five previous "driving while suspended" convictions since December 1968 and all he gets is four months.

This guy is an absolute menace. His licence is suspended for 12 months but what good is that going to do when he has already disregarded it for four previous convictions? I believe that we have to be looking toward a serious penalty of driving while your licence is under suspension.

The fines in our area range between $100 and $300 when you are convicted of this and the sergeant said that in his opinion a large percentage — over 50 per cent, somewhere I'd say between 70 and 80 per cent of these — also involved alcohol. Under the Summary Conviction Act they can be fined not more than $500 or six months in jail or both, but rarely is a jail sentence given out.

If they are charged as an indictable offence the term is jail for up to two years. It is my belief that what we should be looking at is after a person has had his licence suspended once and he drives while that licence is under suspension that these people should be charged with an indictable offence. It's only in this way that we are going to get this problem properly dealt with.

I would like to deal now with the one of the questions that was raised by the Honourable the Leader of the Opposition into a subject of considerable concern to Canadians and that is the question of a Canadian merchant marine.

Now, he may or he may not know that the federal government had a highly technical and highly complicated report prepared for them by Head, Menzies and Associates on this whole question of a Canadian merchant marine.

You know, they looked at the proposition of getting 16 super-cargo carriers at a cost in excess of $20 million each and all that these would provide in jobs is about 450 jobs — 450 jobs and a total outlay estimated in 1970 dollars at $269.2 million for 450 jobs.

What about the shipyards? Well now I'm glad that the Leader asked that question. Because you know the yards that build these you don't just find in every country of the world. In Canada, interestingly enough they can't build ships of that tonnage with present yards.

Here's the comment that they said: "And Canadian shipbuilding interests will be miffed to learn that the report suggests that the required vessels will be built in Japan."

In Japan, Mr. Speaker. $269 million in orders to Japan to provide 450 jobs in Canada. Now I can't think of anything more ridiculous than that sort of thing.

To just really get on to the question, he went further and he said if this should come to pass, Mr. Speaker, "If it should come to pass that we will insist that all our raw materials are sent on Canadian ships." All of our raw materials are sent on Canadian ships!

AN HON. MEMBER: That's right!

MR. McDIARMID: In the Wall Street reports of 1971, some of the Wall Street analysts were analyzing the profit picture of various American forest companies and here is what they said: "In the lumber industry the Canadian producers have the advantage of exclusion from the Jones Act." The Jones Act for those of you who don't know simply says that any product that is carried from one American port to another must travel on a American ship with American sailors. "They can ship good quality timber lumber into the most populated markets of both southeastern California and the eastern seaboard at great freight advantage of probably 50 to 75 per cent."

Here in Canada we have a freight advantage of sending our cargo into California and the eastern seaboard at 50 to 75 per cent advantage over the American and the Leader would destroy that advantage. Here we are trying to build up a hot-house industry and jeopardise our number one industry in the Province of British Columbia. That's the sort of economics, Mr. Speaker, that you would expect from a social worker and that's what we got.

Well it makes a little sense to the people in Alberni. In case you are wondering what is going to happen there in the next election then we might still have a little bet if I can induce you to make one.

I would like to touch upon something that happened in our constituency in recent times.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: I wonder if the House would care to hear the Honourable Member from Alberni continue. Order please!

MR. McDIARMID: Mr. Speaker, during the year we had a very interesting situation with regard to the remote west coast of Vancouver Island. The federal government announced that they were going to as of December 31 cease to subsidise Northland Navigation in Uchuck which service … Oh you're not concerned of course about the small communities, you can yawn Mr. Leader if you like. The people who are up there in those small northern communities without the benefit of transportation will understand what I am talking about. These areas, Mr. Speaker, are islands many of them areas in which it is completely uneconomic to put in roads. Areas and logging camps which change, some areas. Areas in logging camps where they occupy one inlet for two or three years and then move to another inlet. Mr. Speaker, you have similar problems in the Charlottes and I'm sure you understand even if the Leader of the Opposition does not understand.

What had happened was that the federal government said: "We are stopping these things at Christmastime because there is an adequate system of roads." But you know we've been working at an adequate system of roads in that community and making some progress. The town of Zeballos was recently hooked up to a road, but it's no great super highway and it's pretty tough to bring freight in over there in the winter time. The City of…

AN HON. MEMBER: Who paid for that road?

MR. McDIARMID: Who paid for that road? The Tahsis Company.

AN HON. MEMBER: Didn't the Highways Department build that highway into that isolated area?

MR. McDIARMID: Oddly enough, no. But you know, the road is in there, and also there is a road that was started, and

[ Page 225 ]

it's a tote road between Tahsis and Gold River where the snow now flies.

But you know this road was put in in a great hurry last year to facilitate a power line going into Tahsis and the road is certainly far from passable by ordinary vehicle or certainly for freight trucks.

You know, they said there was an adequate system of roads. It was some university professor who really didn't know who said that there was an adequate system. He just didn't know what he was talking about.

A road to Ahousat, 30 miles over the water, you know, where 500 Indians are. You know: "Why don't you build a road to Ahousat?"

Mr. Speaker, there is no way there's going to be a road to Ahousat in the next 50 or 100 years.

These services are necessary to the people of those communities. They pay a high enough price now in terms of the freight rate — which are 30 to 40 per cent over other areas in the lower mainland — without depressing them further. And I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I and those communities are going to press the federal government to reinstitute that service before the six months reprieve is up. And I must say to the credit of Mr. Jamieson that he did have a second look and he said: "We'll review this thing over the coming six months."

Give us a chance to make our case. But the interesting thing about it is that the report on which that decision was based is unavailable to us. Now what's so secret about a little transportation document to the West Coast? It isn't a national security risk or anything. Let's have the report I've asked for — the report, the N.D.P. Member for that area who's concerned asked for it and was denied the report. I think it's high time, Mr. Speaker, that this sort of idiotic secrecy about little projects like this is dropped completely.

AN HON. MEMBER: How about your own government?

MR. McDIARMID: You know, I'd like to get on to another topic which is of interest to me and that is that last year we had Princess Anne come and open our Pacific Rim National Marine Park. And it was a very proud day for me to stand on Long Beach while she unveiled a plaque making this a national park for the people of Canada for all time.

The federal government to their credit after a little prodding from the local M.L.A. built a residential school called Christie Indian Residential School which is a school where approximately 100 native Indian children come to board, and they attend public school with the white children in the village of Tofino which is approximately three miles away.

This facility was built on a most attractive beach in a lovely setting, and during the summer months the children will return to their homes up and down the coast and it will leave this facility vacant. I believe, and I've spoken about this in the House, that this is a unique opportunity to utilise this building all year round on behalf of the native Indian children for whom it was built. I think that we should have a summer school for the Indian arts in this building in the summer.

We have on the coast such prominent artists such as George Clutesi, we have people who carve magnificent totem poles, we have Indian teachers who can teach Indian children how to carve a dug-out canoe out of a piece of cedar. We have women who can still teach them how to make those attractive Nootka hats and other basketwork.

We can teach Indian arts, and I think that this would be an ideal place for the cultural fund to cooperate with the Department of Indian Affairs and also with our first citizens' fund to bring together Indian students from all over British Columbia who are interested in learning and who have an aptitude and ability for Indian arts. Bring in teachers, Indian teachers of note.

Here we could have a museum of some of the artefacts that presently are on some of the reserves around the West Coast. But not only a static museum, Mr. Speaker, but something alive and living. Because this West Coast park will attract people from all over Canada, to see our magnificent West Coast, and what better thing can there be than for these people to go in and see these things happening under their very eyes.

What better thing could it be for the Indian student to take a pride in themselves, knowing that they have a skill in skills that the white man does not? I think that this combination could give us something which would do credit both to the provincial and the federal government in something that would be of advantage to our people for a long time to come.

Hon. Mr. Brothers moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

HON. L.R. PETERSON (Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to standing order I have the honour to present the report of the special committee appointed on January 20 to prepare and report lists of members to compose the Select Standing Committees. I move that the report be received and taken as read.

Motion approved.

By leave of the House, the rules were suspended and the report adopted.

Hon. Mr. Williston presents the annual report of the British Columbia Water Resources Service of the Department of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources for the year ended December 31, 1971.

Hon. Mr. Bennett moves adjournment of the House.

The House adjourned at 5:44 p.m.

The House met at 8:00 p.m.

Introduction of bills.

Orders of the day.

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Minister of Education.

HON. D.L. BROTHERS (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, this likely will be the only opportunity when I will have a chance to speak on behalf of my constituents in the Rossland-Trail riding during this debate.

While our area has suffered with the downtrend in the Canadian economy, there is every indication that the year

[ Page 226 ]

1972 will show a substantial improvement.

It was mentioned in the throne speech that the new mining school commenced operations in Rossland in July of last year. This is the first open-pit mining school in Canada. It has been extremely successful. The students are selected by Canada Manpower and the success of the school has been outstanding in that there have been very few drop-outs.

When we had graduating ceremonies, representatives from the Mining Association of British Columbia came to interview the students and all of the graduates obtained employment almost immediately.

These students are trained to use heavy equipment and obtain blasting certificates, first-aid certificates and mine rescue certificates. In short, they are the best trained open-pit miners in Canada. The school has been so successful that our department, together with the mining association, is studying the feasibility of expanding it to become an underground operation as well.

Major reconstruction is proceeding on the Trail-Castlegar highway. I am pleased to announce today that, depending on financial contribution by Celgar, the provincial government is prepared to extend the road from Syringa Creek to Deer Park along the Arrow Lakes. This section of road was abandoned with the flooding of the reservoir behind the Keenlyside dam.

The road was originally constructed by our government in 1952-53 and allowed access for many people of our area to the beautiful recreational area along the Arrow Lakes.

Many people from our district, as well, had contemplated retiring in this beautiful climate but with the construction of the dam, access became impossible. Now, I have been asking the government and the Minister of Highways to have this road re-located for some time and I am personally delighted on behalf of the people of my area that the government has seen fit to provide money so that this work can proceed.

Along the southern trans-provincial highway another major link has yet to be completed and this is known as the Kinnaird-Salmo link. This is a very expensive portion of highway, but I feel that the time has arrived when a start should be made on it. While it is true that people can, travelling across southern British Columbia, gain access by travelling to Nelson and back to Salmo, or by travelling to Trail and Fruitvale and then to Salmo, yet traffic could be speeded up if this direct link were completed. I recommend to the government that a start be made on this important link this year.

A major re-location of the highway between Robson and Syringa Creek has been completed and the Department of Recreation and Conservation has financed a major development of Syringa Creek Park.

Approximately $100,000 was expended on campsites and picnic sites and more work is expected to be done this spring. When this campsite is completed, it will surely be one of the finest marine parks in the Province of British Columbia. Already many hundreds of tourists and residents have thoroughly enjoyed spending some time in this beautiful location along the Arrow Lakes.

The Speech from the Throne also made mention of employment in British Columbia and new construction. Reference was made to the court house to be constructed in Trail. This also has been a personal project of mine for some 20 years.

The City of Trail is one of the few major communities in the province without a provincial building. I have been extremely interested in seeing that such a building is constructed in Trail, and I was very glad, therefore, when the Premier authorised its construction. The site has now been agreed upon, the plans are well advanced, tenders should be called for in early spring, work will commence thereafter, and many men will be put to work. The building will include court house facilities and many provincial offices.

I think that congratulations are also due to Mr. Sam Konkin and the directors of K.I.D.A., that's Kootenay Industrial Development Association. Through their efforts they have been able to bring three new industries into our district — Premier Wood Products, which is expected to hire 85 men; Western Pemco Ltd. at Blueberry Creek which will hire about 55 men; and Quadra Manufacturing Ltd. at Columbia Gardens which will hire 35 men and bolster the economy of Fruitvale and Montrose.

I have always argued that the first industry is the most difficult. Once an industry is established it is far easier to persuade others to commence operations.

In closing these few remarks about what has transpired in the Rossland-Trail constituency, I again say while the last several years have been slow, I expect that this year will be a year of great development and progress in this important riding of the province.

Now I would like to turn to the portfolio of the Department of Education. There is so much to be said about what's going on in education that I propose tonight to talk about what's going on in the public school system. I cannot talk about what is going on in financing education, but I will enlarge on that when we discuss Bill No. 3. I will discuss post-secondary education and the narcotics, drug and tobacco committee during the budget debate.

So many developments have taken place in public school education since the last session of the Legislature. I have decided to talk about only those of major significance.

The public school system must be continually alert to change if it is to function effectively in meeting two fundamental needs. The need to preserve and transmit the knowledge, wisdom and skill of the past and the need to equip all pupils with the tools of learning for the future. It is a sobering thought I think to realise that the pupils now in our care will be living and making vital decisions in the year 2000.

In meeting these needs in practice, schools must always be concerned with two things. The first is the individual pupil. The so-called system can become so efficient, so highly-organised and supervised that the individual pupil gets lost.

The second group is the community or society. Again the system can become so preoccupied with the individual that it completely overlooks the fact that the individual must live in a community and that the people or the public collectively expect the school to teach him to do this, to observe the laws, to respect the values, to act as a responsible, contributing member of society.

These ideas underly the recent educational developments. The last major change in education occurred in the 1960's after the government received the report of the Royal commission headed by Dean S.N.F. Chant. This report expressed significant interest in vocational technological training and it urged the re-emphasis of intellectual development. It recommended the development of separate kinds of high schools, such as a collegiate academy for academic and technological study and vocational schools.

The government adopted some of the recommendations but instead of sending students into vocational, academic and technological schools after Grade 10, we approved of the development of different kinds of programmes in the

[ Page 227 ]

secondary schools and we began the construction, and I think very wisely so, of vocational schools, the British Columbia Institute of Technology, and we also laid the foundation for a system of colleges, all of which were primarily for post-secondary adult students.

I will have much more to say about this in my talk dealing with post-secondary education after the budget comes down. This year another major change in the direction of education has been made. About a year-and-a-half ago, our department requested the provincial advisory committee to study the existing curriculum and to recommend improvements. This committee included representatives of the B.C. School Trustees Association, the B.C. Teachers' Federation, the B.C. Principals' Association, and three public universities and the Department of Education.

They found, looking at the curriculum, that it was effective for some students, but it was far too highly structured and organised for others. The system tended to overwhelm the individual. Students were required to elect a particular programme and if it proved unsuccessful or inappropriate, it was very difficult for them to transfer.

Upon receiving their recommendations, I announced that effective in the fall of 1972, Grade 11 students will have a new kind of curriculum which will allow greater freedom in choice of courses and thus enable them to obtain a far broader education than was possible in the past.

Those who wish to take the kind of programme previously available may continue. Others may elect a different pattern of courses.

Under this new arrangement, which will come into effect for Grade 11 students in September, there will be two kinds of programmes to choose from. One is called selected studies, in which a student may still select one of the six basic fields but will no longer be required to choose a specialty within it. The other is called combined studies, in which the students can make up their own combinations of courses under the guidance or direction of the school.

Our department will retain the authority for prescribing courses and for laying down the general requirements for the province, to ensure a reasonable degree of order and uniform standards are kept. The schools will be given the responsibility of providing enough courses to ensure that each student will have the opportunity to study those subjects which will be of the greatest interest or value to him.

This new concept will be extended to the Grade 12 level in the fall of 1973 and when these students graduate in the spring of 1974, they will have had more opportunity than any of their predecessors in British Columbia ever had in determining the direction of their own education.

Obviously this new organisation makes it even more necessary to have effective educational counselling service. In my travels around the province — and incidently I have been to all the school districts in the province now — and in talking with the students, I have come to the conclusion that many students feel that the advice they get from the counselling service is not meeting their needs as they see them.

Often their counsellors will advise them to take certain courses and the students have subsequently discovered that they were wrongly advised and the courses in which they were enrolled were inadequate or insufficient in number.

I therefore asked the department to conduct a study on the efficiency of the counselling system in our province and while it will be some time yet before this study is completed, we are initiating some interim measures.

Foremost among these will be a two-day conference for counsellors which will be held on the lower mainland early in May. We want to brief the counsellors of the province on what courses are available at various post-secondary institutions and give them an opportunity to become more aware of the possibilities for high school graduates, so that they will be in a better position to advise the students.

In addition to the changes in curriculum organisation which I have already spoken about, there have been changes in the content of curriculum. For example there are new studies in environment and environmental problems, there are studies of cultures and cultural problems and new technological studies such as the mathematics of the computer.

One change that is likely to be of great significance in the years to come involves the phasing-in of the metric system for weights and measurements. Because of Britain's entry into the common market, which is dominated by the metric system, it is inevitable that Canadian students will be required to be familiar with this advantageous method of measuring quantity and distance.

We have been teaching parts of the metric system for some years in our science courses and in sports. In our new mathematics courses which will be introduced in the next few years, there will be an increased emphasis on metric measurements. In September, we are introducing a new primary mathematics programme on a permissive basis, and by September, 1973, all of the schools will start it at the Grade 1, 2 and 3 levels.

At the same time, the transition will also take place at Grade 7 and 8 levels. In home economics, where we have a foods and home management manual, which was published by the Queen's Printer for the Department of Education, we are in the process of revising this manual to include metric measurements along with the traditional measurements and we hope to have this reprinted and available to the schools by September, 1973. There will be problems of getting used to thinking metrically as we move into the new system, but in the long run it will be very beneficial to students of the future.

Last year, during our centennial celebrations, the schools of British Columbia engaged in a wide range of special centennial activities. A great deal of credit for inspiring, encouraging and organising province-wide programmes for this centennial year must go to the general chairman, Mr. Lawrie Wallace. I would like to express my congratulations to him on his being recognised by the Governor-General of Canada when he was awarded the Medal of Services of the Order of Canada.

Under Lawrie's able leadership an education activities committee was formed. Fifty-two school district centennial committees were established, a special historic document kit was prepared, an essay contest on British Columbia's history was organised and hundreds of local pageants, adventure playgrounds, and student exchanges were organised.

Many of these projects not only gave a renewed interest in the past history of this province, but also resulted in permanent contributions to the future. I would also like to commend the many teachers and students for their efforts in this regard.

The correspondence branch of our Department of Education prepared a centennial course on the history, geography and natural resources of British Columbia. More than 7,000 adults throughout the province enrolled in this course and it was such an overwhelming success that we received hundreds

[ Page 228 ]

of complimentary letters.

Another major change in the public school system was announced last year and is going into effect this year. This will be a revised method of accrediting schools.

Prior to 1938, every Grade 12 student in British Columbia had to write departmental examinations. It was argued for a number of years that students who were obviously successful and who were recommended by their teachers should not have to write examinations. This proposal was picked up and recommended in 1925 by a Royal commission conducted by J.H. Putnam and G.M. Weir, but it was not put into effect by the provincial government until the 1937-38 school year.

Since that time, we have allowed accredited schools to decide which Grade 12 students should be recommended and which ones should be required to write examinations.

Before a school is given the privilege of recommending its students, it must meet provincial standards which are established by this accreditation committee. This committee evaluates the progress being made by every senior secondary school in the province by studying information supplied by principals, by the district superintendent of schools and from other sources.

Students in a school which has not received accreditation are required to write departmental examinations on two subjects out of eight areas of instruction. Each of these examinations takes about one-and-a-half hours to complete.

In April, 1970, we appointed a five-man committee consisting of a district superintendent of schools, a principal, a vice-principal, a director of instruction and the president of the B.C.T.F., to study the method of accrediting schools. In June, 1971, the committee finalised its report which resulted in our department changing the method of accreditation. An accreditation book was prepared and forwarded to all the principals of secondary schools in the province. I also forwarded a copy to all the members of the Legislature.

The new method of accrediting schools allows the whole teaching staff to evaluate their school instead of just the principal as formally.

It should be noted that the principle underlying this whole process is made up of two basic ideas. The first is accountability. A school is accountable to the school board and the Department of Education for the work that it does for its pupils and the community. It is not unreasonable to give every school an opportunity to become involved in rendering this accounting. The second major purpose is the sole objective of this process to insure continuing improvements. It is a simple truth that improvements are best brought about when those responsible see the need for them to determine their direction.

Accreditation as it is now viewed is an orderly process of evaluation and improvement. It is not a process of fault finding or penalising. It was also decided that schools which do not have accreditation and those which lose their accreditation will come under direct supervision of the department and the department will send out teams to evaluate these schools.

The department is also responsible for the operation of the Jericho Hill school for the deaf and the blind. It is our conviction that there is no simple method of teaching the 228 deaf children and the 67 blind children who are under our care at this school. We believe that each of these children deserves the kind of treatment which will enable him or her to achieve his or her maximum potential. We therefore, are prepared to offer as many programmes as there are children.

Our programme really begins at the pre-school level. For the blind children we provide a grant to the Canadian National Institute for the Blind, which looks after the pre-school training and counselling. For the deaf, we have modified our payment of grants so that where it is feasible we will be able to provide assistance to individuals as well as groups of children.

Pre-school classes for the deaf now exist in Victoria, Vancouver, Prince George, Kelowna and Courtenay and individual help is being organised for single children or very small groups in such distant places as Vanderhoof, Quesnel, Fort St. John and Dawson Creek.

With the assistance of a federal grant, the district superintendent at Jericho, Mr. John Walsh, has initiated a special programme for four pre-schoolers on the lower mainland who are both deaf and blind. With this grant, he is also arranging for the hiring of persons who will counsel parents on how to bring up deaf children.

There are, for example, six deaf Chinese children in Vancouver, whose mothers do not speak English. Because the Chinese language is based on the inflection of the voice as well as the spoken word, it is not possible to teach the children to read their mothers' lips. The superintendent at Jericho is arranging for the mothers to be brought together and taught, through the assistance of an interpreter, how to use some basic hand signals so that they will be able to communicate with their children.

There is also a very young deaf boy on the lower mainland who screams all day long. He is totally frustrated. He cannot understand his mother at all and he does not know anything about the world around him. Our first task here will be to teach the lad that there are ways to communicate, to get something without screaming and this will be done under the same programme as the training of the Chinese mothers.

When deaf children reach Jericho they are trained to read lips or sign language or both, as the need may be and some are then integrated to whatever degree possible into the total public education system. About one-third of the students are educated in off-campus classes in Vancouver and Victoria. Some of them are integrated 10 per cent of the time and some as much as 90 per cent. I have seen some of these students in action at the Kitsilano Secondary School.

We have found, through experience, that by bringing these young people back into society their social development is much more realistic than it could be by isolating them from society. The two-thirds who remain on campus are there because they learn better under total communication — that is, lip reading and sign language — and some of them are there because of secondary handicaps. We try to give each child whatever form of education is best suited to his specific needs and I do not know of any other institution for the deaf which is as versatile as at Jericho Hill School.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nowhere in Canada.

HON. MR. BROTHERS: When the children reach 15 years, we introduce them into a pre-vocational programme which will start getting them ready to go out into the world. We teach them a wide range of skills and through the co-operation of various business firms in Vancouver, we try to give the children an idea through field trips what it is like to work under different conditions, inside or outside, in a small place or in a large place.

We also try to develop in the children personality traits which will help them get a job, traits which are often sadly

[ Page 229 ]

lacking today. We teach the youngsters to go the extra mile as it were. I feel that this is very important.

We try to develop in them traits such as punctuality, cheerfulness and reliability.

All of our students graduate from Jericho when they are 18 years of age. Some of our graduates continue on to Gallaudet College, a four-year institution for the deaf which is located in Washington, D.C. We presently have 13 students attending this college. Some of our graduates go right into the labour force and some of these found work in places such as airports, industrial plants, where noise would bother the average person.

We also have a brand new career training programme at the Vancouver City College for those who wish further training. This is a four months' orientation programme, to be followed by specific training of each student in the career of his choice.

These students have their own counsellor-teacher who provides interpretive services for them in their various classrooms. For example, of the last year's graduates from Jericho, four proceeded to Gallaudet College with financial assistance from the federal and the provincial governments, two found jobs in banks, eight have gone to the Vancouver City College and only two have decided to stay at home.

Most schools for the deaf are either oral or total communication. Ours is outstanding, I believe, because of our willingness and eagerness to use any means possible to communicate with these children who do not have the use of their hearing organs.

Jericho is also different in that, while at least one-third of the children throughout the world who leave schools for the deaf are functionally illiterate — that is, they cannot read or write — our students are being prepared for post-secondary education.

I submit that this too is important, because there are some very bright deaf people entering challenging occupations, who in many other parts of the world might be reduced to simple jobs well below their intelligence and capacity. We believe, for example, that if a deaf boy wants to be a technician in the mineral processing industry and he has the ability, we should be able to teach him to become one.

We are also using some very sophisticated equipment in teaching deaf students between the ages of 10 and 16 years how to speak. We have a linguascope which is like a television picture tube that is divided into an upper and a lower screen. When the student tries to repeat what he thought the instructor said, the image of his word appears on the lower screen. Through experiment, the student finally manages to pronounce the word in the proper manner and you can imagine what a thrill this is for a youngster of that age who cannot hear his own words.

I mentioned earlier the problems which arise when a parent finds he is unable to communicate with his own child. It is as frustrating for the parents as it is for the children. In some instances, the prolonged emotional stress of this type of situation can lead to the break-up of a family.

We have concluded that parents, as well as deaf children, need our assistance. Accordingly, we have decided that the Jericho Hill School would sponsor a series of one week clinics at the school this spring for parents who would like to attend an intensive course covering every aspect of deafness. We have arranged for a psychiatrist, members of the staff of the Children's Institute for the Deaf, and experienced parents of deaf children who can pass along sound advice to others.

Although there is a lower incidence of blindness than deafness in British Columbia, our educational programme is equally thorough in both areas. Blind children usually come to Jericho at about five years of age. We teach them to read Braille with their fingertips and we also supply them with tape recorders and from the age of 10 years or so, we teach them how to touch-type with a typewriter.

For the blind children our philosophy is the same as it is for the deaf and that is to get them into society as soon as possible. We provide them with Braille text books, teach them how to take classroom notes on the tape recorder and how to submit their daily lessons in typewritten form.

We also teach them mobility. For example, we accompany them individually on their way by bus to and from school in downtown Vancouver. We teach them to count the proper number of steps as they move a bus stop to the crosswalk as well as teach them how to move with a crowd across the street.

As soon as each youngster has learned to survive in the world he cannot see, and to compete with confidence among classmates who can, we transfer him or her into the mainstream of public school systems. We want the deaf and the blind children to live and compete with the rest of us to whatever extent they are able.

Because of this approach and the determination on the part of the deaf and blind children, as well as the innumerable hours of training, guidance, and companionship provided by the staffs of the Jericho Hill School and the dedicated volunteer workers, you will find that the blind and the deaf children of British Columbia have developed outstanding confidence in themselves.

We have three large dormitories at Jericho for the 160 to 180 children who live there. In order to provide a relaxed, homelike atmosphere during the past year the dormitories have been painted a bright colour, carpets have been laid, and the standard institutional beds have been replaced by ones with bright coverlets similar to those that the children have in their homes.

We have also got considerable physical education and recreational equipment, and for the recreation of the students there are hobby rooms, billiard tables, table tennis, shuffleboard, a bowling alley and a swimming pool. If you can imagine it, we take the children skiing, scuba diving, camping, mountain climbing, and fishing.

We have softball and football teams and two sailing boats. I am positive that no other group of students in British Columbia has access to such a wide range of facilities as do these youngsters.

Construction is well along on a $1 million hospital and dining building at Jericho Hill. A modern, 22-bed hospital and dental clinic will be located on the ground floor, while on the second floor for the deaf and the blind children, in addition, tenders have been called for a gymnasium which will also contain space for physiotherapy, occupational therapy, mobility and sensitivity training for the blind. Bids on this project are to be received early in March.

We have many volunteers from all walks of life and of all ages come out to Jericho to assist us with such activities as sports, games, recreational activities, the arts and office work. Some of these volunteers help us in the production of Braille textbooks for our blind students. We are sincerely grateful for the assistance of such dedicated persons.

Last year, I informed the House that the Department of Education was carrying on an experimental programme concerning the use of educational television. This programme and experiment was carried out in Penticton, where we were

[ Page 230 ]

able to reach 12 out of the 15 schools, with two cablevision channels from the locally-oriented community antenna television system. When we embarked on this programme last January we wanted to see what type of educational television system could be established and what administrative and educational benefits resulted from such a system.

Many people seem to think that to start an E.T.V. programme all you have to do is buy some equipment and hire some staff. Our studies indicate that such is not the case. There are some very complex problems. For example the same videotape is not usable on all types of television equipment because the various makes of equipment are not necessarily compatible one with another.

In order to make the best use of a television programme, teachers must have the opportunity to study it. For a teacher to have material when it is needed by the class, scheduling of programmes on an E.T.V. system is also an important matter. Furthermore there is a difficult problem of obtaining suitable programmes for our schools.

It is a complete waste of public money to invest in an expensive distribution system if you don't have the highest quality, and those which are the most appropriate to the curriculum. Obtaining this type of programme often involves copyright costs. I just assumed you could take everything off the air or off the television programmes but you just can't tape everything and anything you wish from a television circuit, because of the copyright laws which are governed by the federal government. Purchasing these programmes has to be negotiated.

It was to find ways and means of dealing with such involved problems that we decided to embark on a controlled project in the Penticton school system.

The telecasts which were shown to about 4,700 of the 5,000 public school systems in the area, originated in the instructional materials centre in the Penticton Secondary Schools. E.T.V. programmes for this service were obtained from a number of sources, including the National Film Board, the Kamloops E.T.V. videotape library. A number of these tapes were produced by the audio-visual services branch of the Department of Education, in conjunction with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. These programmes have been stored on 200 video tapes in the Penticton instructional materials centre and now can be made available to other schools in the future.

One of the real challenges of this experiment was the production of a number of programmes for this purpose by the television students of the B.C.I.T. It was our department which organised this project, and I want to thank the staff and students of the B.C.I.T. for their services.

This was a "double pronged" experiment because it demonstrated to us not only the programmes initiated at the B.C.I.T. can be utilised by the public schools, but as well how we can use the extensive facilities of that institution for future involvement of E.T.V.

Representatives of the City of Penticton, the Okanagan Summer School of Fine Arts, the Penticton Health Centre, and other interested groups have approached the instructional materials centre in Penticton to learn more about the system and the ways in which their respective organisations might use this medium of communication.

I want to thank the Penticton School Board, who did a lot of work on this, because it cost them money as well as it did the provincial government. It was a very worthwhile experiment.

As a result of this experiment, we plan to carry on and expand the E.T.V. work which was commenced at B.C.I.T. We intend to open a production studio at the institute which will produce television video tapes for the use of school authorities across the province.

It was last year that our central television committee set up standards of equipment so that all districts will have the equipment which is compatible, and we have approved of the sharing of costs of basic equipment to operate television in public schools. I have also recommended to the government that, based on this very successful experiment, much more money will be made available for E.T.V. in the Province of British Columbia.

Equipment is now being purchased which will enable us to get started on the studio at the British Columbia Institute of Technology. It is the intention of the government to hire sufficient staff to proceed with a modest operation that will grow over the years to become a major service to education institutions at all levels in the province.

The throne speech reiterated the intention of the government to emphasise environmental excellence throughout the province, a policy aimed at improving the environment for the benefit of all our citizens.

The objectives of good soil, clear water, clean air will not be as difficult for us to achieve as it will for the people in many other parts of the world, because by being one of the younger nations in the global society, we have not committed as many errors as some of the others.

It is said that many nations have reached the point of no return, beyond which it would be extremely costly, even if possible for them to restore quality to their polluted air, water, and agrarian resources. We have not reached that point in British Columbia and in this regard we are extremely fortunate.

It is in this spirit that I wish to announce that the Government of British Columbia has decided to set aside and proclaim the week of May 1 to May 7 as Anti-Litter Week and on Monday of that week it will be designated as Environment Day for the students of this great province.

I hope that the school boards of the province, the principals of the public schools, will ask the teachers to spend the morning of that day in discussion with their students for the need for keeping beautiful British Columbia beautiful.

I hope that the teachers and the students will plan outdoor projects on the afternoon of May 1 that will improve the appearance of the schools and the surrounding communities, towns and villages, and highways. It might be that some municipalities would be willing to supply trucks for carting away refuse gathered by the students.

This will provide a dramatic opportunity for teachers and students to relate the principles of good living and good scientific practices that they have been studying, particularly in their social studies and science classes.

MR SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Burnaby-Edmonds.

MR. G.H. DOWDING (Burnaby-Edmonds): Mr. Speaker, I shan't be more than 40 minutes and therefore I must stick to my prepared address, which consists of notes, though not very extensive notes.

I want to point out, Mr. Speaker, that although this is our 100th anniversary of the first throne speech given in 1872, there will not be the same veneration 100 years hence, for the products we have been forced to debate for the past week or so.

[ Page 231 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: How do you know? How do you know?

MR. DOWDING: I read the throne speech that was printed in our book. To my amazement I found it was exactly the same and it confirmed my worse suspicions on opening day that there was hardly any substance to it at all.

Now, it's rather interesting in relation to that subject to realise the irony of the Minister of Education announcing at this time in this debate in relation to that document anti-litter week, and I can well see behind the green door that is the cabinet room, the…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. DOWDING: Well, it's green felt on the inside isn't it? I thought they had anti-snoop provisions there. At any rate, as I understand it, there was quite a debate in the cabinet as to who was going to carry the can when it came to announcing anti-litter week. And it fell upon the Minister of Education.

AN HON. MEMBER: He had nothing else to do.

MR. DOWDING: It seemed to me that was the only thing that he would be able to do this week, in view of the fact that we can't talk about the real problems of education, in the light of a bill that's on the order paper. It is ironic also to note that the Minister of Education has suddenly discovered that there are disadvantaged children who are not permitted into the school system, the retarded children. He referred tonight to autistic children. He ignored of course the retarded children. He has for the last 10 years ignored the retarded children so far as the public school system is concerned.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. DOWDING: The parents of retarded children have to pay and contribute to the cost of their education in a different voluntary system set up by the parents. They don't come within the provision of the Public Schools Act. No mention of them at Jericho, no mention of them in terms of the needs of children who are autistic, who end up usually in some kind of a make-do ward in a place that was meant for retarded children.

Now this situation has been drawn to the attention of this Minister year after year after year. The fact that nowhere in the Public Schools Act does it distinguish or discriminate between one child and another. Yet, we find an Act that is being misapplied by this government, to say "we will decide which children will get an education." The very ones that need it the most, because they are helpless get the least regard. They are treated as if they must be brushed to one side.

There's something else he didn't mention — that even among the school population almost a third of those children are emotionally disturbed to one extent or the other, according to some of the experts in the Canadian Mental Health Association.

That's a staggering figure in terms of our school population in British Columbia, and it's no wonder that so many problems develop in the field of delinquency in view of that. The answer is there's got to be more specialised service, there's got to be more attention to those children when they're young.

Now, it's rather provoking to think that a doctor sitting in this House obviously hasn't even read the studies done by Harvard University in terms of the critical period in which babies require the most attention, the most examination — between the ages of 10 months and three years.

What does this government do about that? Nothing, nothing. Do they have any programme for children in that critical period to study them, to study those children, to see what can be done in preventive work, that should be done while the critical period exists?

I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that we're going to have to consider some compulsory way of having the parents bringing their children to health units, psychiatric units, to whatever means we have to study those children before they become the problems that lead to the kind of breakdown in society that we have in British Columbia when they get to the age when they get into the drug culture, they get into delinquency problems, and the cost is so much more to cure than prevention in the first place.

Now, I heard no mention of a rather alarming situation in some of our schools although it is now current in the Press, and that is the problem of these gluelam beams which are present in many of our school auditoriums throughout British Columbia. I note from statements that appeared in the paper yesterday and today that Gluelam Products Ltd. which produced so many of these beams that were used in our more modern schools — and certainly in Burnaby I know of at least four or five school auditoriums or school gymnasiums where these beams were being used — they found that some have weakened or collapsed and it appears that there will be a great number more of them subject to that problem.

I'm wondering what the Department of Education is doing about this. Because as soon as it became known that this company was faced with this problem they immediately went into receivership. No one can sue them.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. DOWDING: Did they post a bond to protect the public? Did they take out insurance to protect the public? Is there any recourse? I ask that question, Mr. Speaker. Is there any recourse to the public authorities in British Columbia and the school boards and the school districts? For example, in the event that there is a collapse of those beams or they have to be repaired, who's going to foot the bill? The taxpayers?

Who permitted the company to go into receivership under those circumstances without any protection for the public so far as that company was concerned? And I note that since March 1970, they had been producing this type of glue and used it on these beams and then after warnings were given to them in December 18, 1970 three of the beams had collapsed at the construction site. Tests disclosed that these beams came apart easily.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. DOWDING: This is going to happen, it's going to happen again, it's going to happen again, these collapses. And I want to get some assurance from the Minister of Education, or from the Minister of Lands Forests and Water Resources, that this government is doing everything to see that all safety provisions, and standards are enforced before some tragedy or other occurs, and I heard no assurances from the Minister

[ Page 232 ]

in that regard.

Now, there's another matter that I would like to see dealt with, and that is in regard to the problem of landlords and tenants. Two years ago in this House the Attorney General stood up and proclaimed that he had found a bill of rights for tenants, and amendments were suitably put before us which purported to protect tenants in a way that they had not enjoyed in the past 400 years. When you look at the Landlord and Tenant Act passed in 1970, temporary sections 60 and 61, you obtain the notion reading those sections that a judge in the provincial court deals with the question of landlord and tenant and that when application is made to change the tenancy between a landlord and tenant that the matter will come before a provincial court judge. If there are any defences — for example, if the tenant shows that the tenant had a bona fide complaint to any governmental authority of the landlord's violation of any statute or municipal bylaw dealing with health or safety standards, including any housing standards law, or that the notice to quit was given because of the tenant's attempt to secure or enforce his legal rights — the judge may refuse to grant an order to vacate the premises.

I want to point out to the Hon. Attorney General that there have been a number of cases in the courts which didn't go through this route as it's set out in the so called bill of rights but went to the Supreme Court on writs of possession. Lo and behold, the Landlord and Tenant Amendment Act of 1970 is just proved to be a useless document so far as protecting the tenants are concerned. It's quite right.

I suggest to the Attorney General that this is not the prerogative between courts of British Columbia, that, for example, if you have in a municipality no bylaw providing for security deposits then it follows that it's illegal and in fact it's an offence under the Landlord and Tenant Act of 1970 for a landlord to charge a security deposit.

That has happened in some municipalities where they have no such bylaws. Was anything done about the landlord? Complaints were laid with the authorities. Nothing was done. This happened in Coquitlam. When it came to the tenant complaining to an authority he was immediately ousted by the landlord and when he went to try to exert his rights in court instead of being allowed to go into the small claims court provided under the Landlord and Tenant Act he found himself thrust into Supreme Court by the landlord who was in a position to afford that kind of law forum to fight his case.

There the writ of possession took over in the Supreme Court and that was the end of the matter. The tenant was thrown out.

I think it was a man named Davis and this complaint had gotten nowhere as far as the courts were concerned. So the Act is not serving its purpose.

Anyone who is sophisticated enough to know how to use the Supreme Court can get around the provincial court and around the so-called bill of rights that was proclaimed by the Attorney General as the answer to the problem.

I point out along with that that it's time now for the Attorney General to raise the jurisdictional limits of the small claims division to $1,000. Because cases that involve anything less than $1,000 are obviously not going to be worth either the plaintiff or the defendant scrapping about it in the county court. Because the cost level for fees, disbursements, costs against the losing party make it almost prohibitive for the average person who is not in the business of fighting major law suits to spend his time in the County Court.

I suggest that on limits of $1,000 or less these matters should be taken to small claims division. Now it's $500 but with inflation and the way the bills of lawyers are going up I think that $1,000 should be the jurisdictional limit of small claims division.

That way the costs would not be a factor to the average person who wants to get his claim litigated but on the other hand is deterred from looking for justice in the courts because of the cost involved.

Take a minor car accident. Why should it cost often $500 or more in fees, costs, disbursements just to fight the case over a matter of $800? Add it up. Right away, you've doubled the cost practically before you've finished. The lawyers get a lot and I'm telling you that I don't think the lawyers want those cases anyway.

So you'd be obliging everybody including the public if you raised the limit to $1,000.

Interjection by Hon. Member.

MR. DOWDING: I think that that might be an excellent idea judging by the kind of people you give Q.C.'s to and the ones that refuse it.

I might also deal with another matter that the Attorney General raised in this House. I thought he was stamping his foot rather petulantly. He felt that the Leader of the Opposition and this group are rather interfering with his prerogatives by a simple visit to the State of Washington.

I quite innocently went on that safari hoping that I'd learn something about the system that they have down there in their Legislature to make it function. I was really delighted by the warmth of the response, the welcome we received and the way they particularly greeted our Leader who was treated as if he was a visiting lion.

I think he well deserved it because he made a very modest, very gracious speech in that Assembly, in the House and in the Senate. You would have been proud of him. He stood up for our parliamentary system, he was a credit to this Legislature and I say that he did a great service to the people of British Columbia.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. DOWDING: You know, they're a little different than we are. We're a bit stuffy when it comes to some of the rules we have here. It might surprise some of our Members to learn that under every desk they have a telephone. You can quietly pick up the phone, buzz your office, your secretary, and send in for any papers you want, or books or anything else. Or you can give directions to your staff. All this can be done right at your desk. Instead of sitting there hectoring the poor Speaker you could be doing that sort of thing instead.

AN HON. MEMBER: Instead of having an excuse to go out all the time.

MR. DOWDING: Another facility they have there. Instead of having our system of showing votes, which is a rather cumbersome and somewhat old fashioned method — it isn't the curtain method they have in the old mother of parliaments — but there they have quite an efficient system. They have a board where the clock is in our House and on that board — it's sort of like a tote board — all the red or green lights go on depending on whether you are voting yes or no.

[ Page 233 ]

Now it's quite interesting to watch as the House majority leader and the House minority leader start pushing buttons and you see all the lights lighting up on the board, red and green, depending on yes or no.

At the same time above the lights it shows what the score is from moment to moment. Quite an exciting horse race. It would be a lot simpler here, mind you, because you could have buttons for all the individual desks on this side and one button over there. (Laughter).

I pointed this out to them. But I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you another thing, that when we were there we had been unaware of the kind of welcome we were going to receive and of course we were somewhat overwhelmed by it. They even had an agenda for us. It started out by first arriving at Governor House, meeting the Speaker of the House, Thomas A. Swasey, Jr. who is a very delightful man and a very accomplished Speaker and I am sure the Deputy Speaker will remember him I believe he was there and he will agree with me, I'm sure, that Mr. Swasey is a very competent Speaker and handles the House with considerable flair.

Another interesting thing — in that House the minority leader and the majority leader are both treated with great respect and the minority and majority parties seem to have a much more easy relationship than I find often in this House.

Interjection by Hon. Member.

MR. DOWDING: I'm glad the Hon. Member raised that. It saved me raising it myself or finding some excuse to raise it. One of the interesting things that happened was this. The Honourable Senators were a little curious about how things were run in British Columbia. They wanted to know, one of them particularity wanted to know, how it was that they took over the B.C. Electric in this province.

We explained it had been nationalised and he immediately looked at us in horror as if we were some kind of pinkos.

I was a little embarrassed about it because I realised that the impression might go abroad that the government were a bunch of pinkos. So naturally, not wanting in any way to embarrass this government, I pointed out that they weren't really pinkos at all, that we had been responsible for that legislation having gone through even though we didn't like the way it was done.

That got the government off the hook. So when they come up here, I want you to be sure to be very careful and diplomatic not to take the credit for taking over the private power companies. Don't take the credit for taking over the B.C. Ferry service from the private owners because they'll think they're a bunch of pinkos.

AN HON. MEMBER: They're a bunch of fools.

MR. DOWDING: Actually I pointed out to them that you'd done it in a defensive move, completely out of fear for the political consequences if you didn't take it over. Not through any conviction that it was the right thing to do. This got you neatly off the hook so don't worry about it if they come up.

Now, another thing that I must mention to you about that was that we not only were welcomed and given a very full agenda but we were also invited to participate in a regular committee hearing that was specially put on for our benefit in which we were invited to participate as committee members.

I thought: "Well, gee, that's going a bit far. A little bit far. We're not going to try to run the affairs of the United States or the U.S. State of Washington." But we found that they invited our questions to witnesses and our statements in regard to Skagit Valley flooding.

They were very sympathetic to our position and we found that they agreed wholeheartedly in the main with our own view of the danger of flooding of the Skagit Valley.

If it wasn't for their Director of Environment I doubt if there would be that means of stopping the flooding that at the present time exist, despite the failure of this government to protect the resources of British Columbia.

Thank God there are intelligent forward-looking people in the State of Washington that support our position. The same is true of the tanker situation. As you know, Cherry Point poses a tremendous threat to 800 miles of coastline and to all the environment and life of British Columbia, right along its beaches. This is true also of Puget Sound. It is not viewed by the legislators in Olympia with any more favour than it is in this House. I'm sure that you will find that almost 80 per cent of them agree with us that it's a danger that should be stopped. The unfortunate thing is the federal government in the United States sees how it can make $15 billion out of the tanker programme to Cherry Point and indeed what's happening right now — trial tankers are coming from the Middle East to Cherry Point to get the refinery underway. It was just happening then at the time of our visit.

We're talking about 375,000-ton tankers which may in the end be along our coast and even larger. This is rather an appalling thought when you consider that if just one of those inside of 10 years is in collision the ecological harm is just beyond calculation. The cost to this province is beyond calculation.

To make it even worse, the computers that they have put to work indicates that such a disaster is liable to happen at least three-and-a-half times within 10 years. That is a forbidding thought.

Turning to other matters, there was one little gift that was given to me by a very distinguished senator who I was fortunate enough to invite to the floor of this House several years ago, Senator Widow.

They certainly have a way of dealing favourably with their older members. In the case of Senator Widow they passed a special senate resolution in 1969 that practically awarded him the state. It made it clear that from all sides of the House they looked forward to his continuing association for many years to come. Since that time he hasn't even had to fight an opponent in his own constituency or district. He ran unopposed.

I was just hoping that somebody would think of that in this House for those people who are over, say, 16 years service. (Laughter).

AN HON. MEMBER: No names. No names.

MR. DOWDING: No names. No drill. I noticed several of the older members perking up.

Now, there is another subject I want to deal in conclusion of my remarks. That is the question of the LeDain report and the problem of drugs. Particularity in the field of hard drugs, such as heroin.

It's clear from the statements of Mr. Munro, the Minister of Health and Welfare that he is considering implementing the LeDain report in some respects with regard to treatment centres and in regard to use of heroin in controlled amounts

[ Page 234 ]

to hard addicts. I just want to point out my opinion that this leads to a number of problems unless the federal government takes into account some other factors.

In my own constituency of Burnaby, just yesterday the R.C.M.P. announced that drug convictions in that municipality have increased by 47 per cent in the past year and crimes of violence associated with drugs have a corresponding increase in the municipality. I think this will be true in most of British Columbia and in Canada.

The LeDain commission on non-medical use of drugs suggests in its new report that heroin be made legally available in special circumstances for medical treatment of addicts. The report says that some rehabilitation methods with counselling and other support services have made more than 80 per cent of such addicts under medical treatment socially productive. The report says that some rehabilitation methods with counselling and so on also makes it possible for the hard-line addict to be treated and still continue in his habit. Now, let's examine this in terms of the British Columbia experience — and we have some knowledge of this from the support that the Narcotics Addiction Foundation has presented such as in March, 71. We find also the B.C. Medical Association has been doing a study of this and canvassing all their members to find out all they can about the drug population in British Columbia. They, the doctors, have estimated the users of opiate drugs far exceed the police records of 3,500 users. They say that between 7,500 and 15,000 addicts exist.

We do know that about 215 addicts are seeking help and treatment at any time from the Narcotic Addiction Foundation and the studies made by that foundation which I said were published in March 1971 concerning drug use among young adults show that out of 775 persons studied only 3 per cent of them came to the attention of police because of drugs.

You have heard the figure 3,500 that are in the police records, that the police watch or try to catch from time to time. This study showed that only 3 per cent of those 775 persons who are involved with drugs that were studied are under police surveillance and knowledge.

Most of the groups studied had personal incomes under $1,000 a year and ranged between 18 and 30 years of age — about 65 per cent I think were male and the balance female — about 14 per cent of these respondents claim to have criminal records and one-third of them admitted to selling drugs illegally.

So far as the steady heroin users are concerned their average cost per day for drug supplies was estimated by the Narcotic Addiction Foundation at $60 for caps, $15 each. That would work out to about $20,000 a year roughly that they required to feed that daily habit. If the police recorded 3,500 hard drug users or addicts in British Columbia then those people, that 3,500, of necessity must acquire $70 million in income every year simply to buy drugs without considering food, clothing, rent or other expenses.

Interjection by Hon. Members.

MR. DOWDING: No, but that's the average. I was amazed to find a drug addict that actually took 15 caps a day, some even higher.

If these police records only show a small fraction of the addict population and there exists even 7,000 addicts in British Columbia as estimated by the doctors — that's a low figure — it follows that the income required to feed the hard drug habit far exceeds $100 million a year.

How is this drug money raised? Obviously, from the studies, by the commission of crimes in the main — commission of crimes such as trafficking, they have to sell drugs in order to get money to buy drugs; by breaking and entering; burglery; robbery; theft; shoplifting and prostitution.

The public therefore is the prey of the addict and not only foots the bill for the incarcerated addict — and that costs plenty, Mr. Speaker — but he also has to pay for the ones who are at large roving about each community seeking illicit means of feeding their $60 a day habit.

All of this crime flows from the individual's decision to destroy himself by the use of drugs and behind the drug scene lurks the shadowy millionaire who receives a greater percentage of that $100 million per year and seems immune to detection or prosecution. Where does all that money go?

AN HON. MEMBER: Across the line.

MR. DOWDING: $100 million a year, where does it go? Parliament long ago decided that it is not a crime to be an addict bent on one's slow and expensive suicide. It is however a crime to be caught in possession of a prohibited substance or to be found selling it. It is clear that all the efforts to treat the addict medically as suggested in the LeDain report and with limited supplies of heroin and treatment centres will come to naught without further measures for the following reasons.

Firstly, addicts usually do not have a stable intake of drugs, there is always an increasing demand. No one stabilises at one cap, two caps, three — they keep going up, in the main. Secondly, the drug centre will continue to supply and push drugs to make up any increased need above the addict's medical ration. Thirdly, the addicts enlist and supply new addicts so merely supplying the drugs, I'm arguing, is not going to solve the problem even though that person is a sick person bent on his own form of going to hell.

So long as addicts are at large, society pays a fantastic price for that addiction. Education and prevention advertised in the LeDain Report are necessary but a more intimate social and educative process goes on in every school and in those places where the addicted persuade their friends and acquaintances to try a fix.

People such as Richard Needham, the columnist in Toronto, have suggested that society simply supply unlimited quantities of free drugs to the addicts with a callous comment that they will kill themselves, the illicit market will be ruined by free drugs, and we will be spared the crime, police courts, incarceration costs involved.

Now there're are few responsible Legislatures who would adopt this hard-boiled attitude. What attitude is that? It's inhuman, basically, to take that attitude that once a person is helpless on drugs that we should say: "Go to hell," in effect, "in your own cart." Which is what we would be doing, Mr. Speaker, if we send them to that kind of purgatory.

What alternatives are there that would reduce the $100 million drug bill we all unconsciously pay today and somehow spare our children from the continuing exposure of the drug peddlers?

The addiction scene is epidemic. If there were 10,000 typhoid or tubercular patients infecting our young people our health laws provide the means to identify, isolate and treat those carriers. No such safeguards exist for the carriers of heroin addiction. Instead of game of blind man's buff

[ Page 235 ]

between this drug squad of the police and the addicts takes place in the hope of catching the addict in possession of the drugs. It is no offence to be an addict.

The United States Army recently discovered a massive outbreak of drug addiction among returning veterans from Vietnam. These addicts are checked and detected medically. I am suggesting that we are going to have to detect our hard drug addicts, isolate and treat them and the federal government must address itself to legislative changes that achieve such a procedure.

The cost to British Columbia of tolerating the drug culture is at least $100 million per year. The fate of our schools and our children are threatened by the gravest crisis in our social history. I want to point out that this government is not particularly prone to want to treat the drug addict as a sick person in need of medical treatment and no doubt will quarrel with the proposals in the LeDain commission because it fears the possibility that if it is merely a health problem that the provincial government might be stuck with the bill.

But I want to point out that it's a national problem, at the present time it is under national regulation and prevention and it should remain that way. It's not the duty of any province to have to foot that bill. It is too large, too difficult. But in view of the enormity of the problem I was amazed and I think in a sense disgusted to find that the Minister of Municipal Affairs' attitude toward the problem was merely to throw up his hands.

I want to point out to those who doubt the British method that there has recently been a report in Her Majesty's Stationery Office in London in the Survey of Current Affairs, November 1971, page 564, that is well worth studying.

It states that as far as drug dependency is concerned in Great Britain, the figures in 1970 give grounds for guarded optimism about the containment of heroin addiction. The drug dependency treatment units established for the purpose of treating heroin and cocaine addiction are now only issuing about two-fifths of the amount of heroin they used twoand-a-half years earlier and the amount of methadone used is not increasing. In 1970 the number of new addicts and of the young among them was less than half that for 1969.

What I'm arguing is that the LeDain report on treatment centres treating the addict as a sick person in my view is probably a better solution than treating them as criminals in the ordinary sense to be hunted as quarry, and that individual preying on the community at such great costs to all of us. The cost is multiplied by the law that says an addict is free to roam preying upon the community to raise the money for his habit by an illegal means.

The problem is not solved by saying that the offence is possession of the drug, because then it just becomes a game of catch-me-if-you-can and the British experience is such that it argues that if you have treatment centres you must have a string on the addict. You must know where he is, he must be treated in the same way as a tubercular patient. That's what I am arguing.

I hope that this government will consider that LeDain report in that light because the cost to our communities is too great the way it is working now at $100 million a year. Anything that would keep a string on the addicts and make them comply in a sense to some rules of behaviour is better than the situation we have today.

Hon. Mr. Shelford moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Bennett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 9:32 p.m.