[ Page 117 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Throne speech debate

Hon. Mr. Radford — 117

Mrs. Webster — 120

Division on address to the Lieutenant-Governor — 125

The House met at 8:30 p.m.

Orders of the day.

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

(continued debate)

HON. J. RADFORD (Minister of Recreation and Conservation): Mr. Speaker, I would first of all like to thank the mover and the seconder of the throne speech. It's also a privilege, and I appreciate this particular debate because it allows the Members a great deal of leeway to bring up almost any subject that they may possibly have on their minds.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. RADFORD: Mr. Speaker, I do not have too many remarks on yesterday's lacklustre performance of the opposition in this House. All I can say is, what a way to start out the first day!

I was hoping for more constructive opposition, especially from the official opposition. I thought that after a year and a half in the opposition they would be improving; however, such is not the case. I suppose we are headed again toward the same experience of last year.

Again, let me take you back to last year, and it was in the third session last fall that the NDP put through 68 bills. Only 10 of them were opposed in votes. The Socreds voted against six, the Liberals against eight and the Tories against seven.

Overall, I suppose, in the last three sessions the government has passed 191 bills. Only 34 were voted against.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where is the opposition?

HON. MR. RADFORD: The Socreds voted against six, the Liberals eight and the Tories seven.

Interjections.

HON. MR. RADFORD: No, that's right. Mr. Speaker, that opposition over there reminds me of someone without teeth trying to bite into a big, hard, red, Okanagan apple. (Laughter.)

MR. R.T. CUMMINGS (Vancouver-Little Mountain): Toothless opposition.

HON. MR. RADFORD: Yes, I guess you could call them a toothless opposition.

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): What was wrong with the bills that they voted for?

HON. MR. RADFORD: Mr. Speaker, since my appointment as Minister of Recreation and Conservation some nine months ago many facets of the department are coming ... to delivery, right! — no, to my being more aware, really, of what the department is all about.

Firstly, this is a growth department, the budget having grown over five times in the last three years. This is in keeping with the nation-wide growth in the leisure industry and the changing public emphasis from economic to social benefits. Leisure time spending is already at least $4 billion in this country, although the statistics department in Ottawa have never seen fit to do too much of a study on this. I take these figures in relationship to what studies have been done in the USA.

The budget and funding of this department last year was $45 million, which includes all the funds for which we were responsible. The voted budget of $13.8 million was and is misleading in this respect. It is not a routinized expenditure as are many of the other departments with larger budgets.

Our continuously employed staff, year-round, is about 600 persons, increasing in the summer months close to 3,000 employees. We are a multi-discipline department with a great variety of responsibilities, involving many skills in direct and continuous relationships with other resource departments of federal, provincial, regional and local governments.

We are involved in most major resource decisions in this province through representation on the Pollution Control Board, Environment and Land Use Committee, regional district technical planning committees, regional inter-sector committees, and so on.

Mainly through commercial fisheries and parks, but also through other branches, we have many continuing interrelationships with national and international departments.

The department consists of four distinctly different but related branches, leading to a complexity in a variety of day-to-day problems matched by few in any other departments. This department is one of the largest and, I feel, the most complex departments of government — a growth department which relates more intimately to the daily lives of the citizens of this province than probably many other departments.

Not only do we require a high degree of technical expertise in many fields, but we also have a special knowledge and sensitivity to people's needs throughout the province. Our economic impact, although not as direct and visible as many as the extractive resources, is nevertheless very, very great.

The Department of Recreation and Conservation reflects more clearly than most other departments the changed policies of this government towards the management of resources in the Province of British

[ Page 118 ]

Columbia — policies which place the social needs of open space, recreation and the concern of our historic, scientific and scenic resources ahead of purely economic considerations.

Beyond the always important bread-and-butter considerations of jobs, housing, cost of living, we must more and more emphasize the quality of living and the quality of our environment.

We may profit in British Columbia from the lessons of those in other parts of the world who have learned too late the immense importance of an intact environment and the opportunities this offers for recreation, security and the development of an understanding of living systems. In this we may be one of the few areas (and I hope we are) to recognize those values in time to secure them for the future generation.

Each of the four branches in this department are intimately involved in the management and protection of our environmental, recreational, historical and wildlife resources. The needs of wildlife, for example, are based upon a need for quality living and habitat. This requirement has many positive implications for not only wildlife, but also recreation and general environmental security.

We long have recognized the value of wildlife in its natural environment as a measure of the quality of our own life, and a basic requirement for most forms of outdoor recreation. Mr. Speaker, environment for wildlife is environment for people. The role played for so long by this department, that of protecting quality wildlife habitat, has taken on a much greater significance with a developing public concern for the quality of our environment. The most basic requirements of both wildlife and people are our common ones. And those people working to sustain our wildlife are at the same time securing the future of all British Columbians.

Input into the shaping of land-use policies is the basis of an integrated approach to better land use — use that incorporates the less tangible values of aesthetics, recreation and education. The security of the natural environment is the basis of our management programmes. And we are working with other government agencies to ensure that this type of use is incorporated into land-use planning.

In addition, we are listening with keen interest to the knowledgeable professionals of our departments, and also to the thousands of conservationists who belong to fish and wildlife clubs, SPEC groups, naturalist clubs and many other organizations. I believe that this kind of communications did not take place with the last government.

Mr. Speaker, I'd now like at this time to talk about our provincial parks. One of the best methods available to us to secure an area for its natural values is the status conferred by a provincial park. But even here the pressures of an expanding population create problems to be solved only by innovative management. Our provincial parks face not only increasing demands for their use, but also an increasing variety in the types of demands made upon them.

For some users the transition from an insulated urban existence to an outdoor experience is a difficult one. The growing pressures of modern living demand a total escape to the peace and security of a wilderness experience. These needs also must be accommodated. The situation calls for both a vast increase in the amount and variety of park facilities and the development of new and flexible approaches to park planning.

At the year end, park attendance in B.C. was 9.7 million compared to 8.36 million in 1972. This, Mr. Speaker, is relatively close to Ontario which has a much higher population than B.C.; but because we have the natural environment here in British Columbia I suppose this is why we are always on an increasing incline when we come to discuss the park situation.

For the information of some of the newer Members in the House, and probably even for some of the opposition, I might explain some of our park classifications which are often misunderstood.

We have a classification called Nature Conservancy Areas which are wilderness tracts within provincial parks. They contain outstanding examples of scenic and natural history uninfluenced by the activities of man and dedicated to the preservation of undisturbed natural environments.

Class A parks are intended to preserve outstanding natural, scenic and historic features of the province for public recreation. They have a high degree of legislative protection against exploitation and annihilation.

Class B parks are also primarily for the protection of natural attractions but other resource use is permitted provided it does not unduly impair recreation values.

Class C parks are provincial parks intended primarily for the use of local residents and are generally managed by local parks boards.

In the past year, we have increased our Class A parks from 220 to 238 parks, an increase of 18 parks over the year which brings us to about 1.5 parks per month in Class A standards.

Also, in discussing Class B, Class C parks and recreation areas, which we have also increased from 8 to 13, including Skagit Valley and Kitsumkalurn in Terrace, we have now brought the total park acreage to 9,102, 963 acres — a far cry from three or four years ago of 6.8 million acres under the previous administration.

[ Page 119 ]

There are many problems in the parks. We are caught up in some of the trends of mobility; the era of the camper tourist is obvious. In my opinion, the provision of campsites is not and should not be the dominant factor in park policy. On a comparative basis for 1973, the Parks Branch provided about 15 per cent of all the campsites in British Columbia; the national parks provided 6 per cent; municipal parks, 4 per cent; and the private sector about 75 per cent.

Our provincial parks face pressure to accommodate an ever-growing influx of tourists, complicated further by a shift from the use of tents to the predominant use of motorized camper units and a growth in participation in outdoor activities so rapid that even yesterday's statistics are obsolete.

The origin of campground users changed little from 1972. British Columbia still represents the largest percentage of users: 58 per cent in 1973, down slightly from 58.6 in 1972. Canadians from other provinces increased from 19.1 per cent to 21 per cent. Residents of the United States declined from 22.3 per cent to 21.2 per cent.

A trend away from tents as a form of accommodation continued in 1973: 35 per cent of campground users utilized tents as compared with 37.5 in 1972. Camper vehicles increased from 29.3 per cent to 31 per cent, and trailers from 16.3 to 18 per cent.

These figures relatively show that there is a changing need for our approach to the whole outdoor-and-camping situation.

Incidentally, we are not yet able to accurately predict the effects of the petroleum shortage, particularly in the United States, on camper traffic in and out of British Columbia in the ensuing months.

I'd like now to move to the Fish and Wildlife Branch. Many of the problems that we face in the Fish and Wildlife Branch management develop from a lack of understanding of the processes and problems that face the wildlife and environmental manager.

To this end, we have placed a great deal of emphasis on education. Education of specific user groups is ensured through special programmes, but broad public education is essential for an understanding of the requirements of the resource. Education through public involvement, programmes in schools, publications and television is presently in operation to achieve these objectives. The appointment of six new wildlife information officers to regions throughout the province offers local stimulation for these and more general wildlife and environmental education.

Getting on to some of the predominant problems concerning the humane-trapping problem, the Province of B.C. last year contributed $5,000 for humane-trapping research in Guelph and McMaster Universities in the east. The Fish and Wildlife Branch attended a federal-provincial conference to solve this problem of inhumane trapping and to talk about new innovative traps that are about to be invented.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Hear, hear!

HON. MR. RADFORD: Also, last November, the sum of $4,000 was given and made available to the Association for the Protection of Fur-bearing Animals to assist persons in B.C. who are close to perfecting humane traps and are in need of assistance. We have some trappers who are barely maintaining an existence and have come close to perfecting a humane trap. So this province donated $4,000 to be administered through the Association for the Protection of Fur-bearing Animals to administer this fund through the Fish and Wildlife Branch.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): How many trappers are involved?

HON. MR. RADFORD: Last year, the economics of trapping in B.C. reached close to $1 million. Over half of our trappers are native Indians who derive a meagre living from trapping. We also intend to bring into existence a coordinator for the trapping industry who will educate and talk about new ways and discuss with the people new methods of trapping. No matter how humane a trap is, if it's set wrongly it can be the cruelest thing going.

Also, extensive holdings of vital bighorn sheep ranges in Chilcotin and formerly part of the Gang Ranch were traded for lands less critical for the survival of these valuable species in the Chilcotin area.

These are only some of the things that I mention, Mr. Speaker. There are many other items within the Fish and Wildlife Branch that I could discuss such as the upgrading of our inventory and research. We'll be making an announcement about our licence structure changes within the next week, and also other areas of enforcement.

I think I'll probably leave these to the budget for further discussion. As you know, there is a by-election on tonight and there are not too many people in the House so...

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): I'm listening, I'm listening! (Laughter.)

HON. MR. RADFORD: ...I'm saving some of the better things for the ensuing speakers.

HON. MR. BARRETT: How many trappers in North Vancouver–Capilano?

HON. MR. RADFORD: Oh, I don't know. They spring a lot of traps but they never seem to catch anything.

[ Page 120 ]

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to move now to the Provincial Museum.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's right. Put the Socreds in there. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. RADFORD: The Provincial Museum has a difficult task of documenting the history of the province, especially the history of the past 20 years.

It is not only a tedious job tracking down the records and objects of cultural value but it is also difficult because we face stiff competition from American and European museums. Last year a fund of $250,000 was created to stop the drain of our historical artifacts leaving B.C. Our provincial museum under this government has been provided with a substantially increased budget to get on with the important business of expanding their people-oriented programmes of acquiring British Columbia artifacts.

The history galleries which opened last year received acclaim from both experts and the general public. More than 1.25 million people visited the museum last year, pointing to the need to accelerate development of the other three-quarters of uncompleted floor space. The anthropology galleries will open this December, followed by a natural history gallery of coast and sea probably a year later.

I would now like to discuss the Commercial Fisheries Branch. Once a small part of the department, it is now an expanding and very productive unit playing an increasingly important role in the management and protection of the province's recreational and commercial marine resources. The staffing and funding of this branch has doubled in the last two years and we expect this emphasis to continue.

A nucleus of fishery scientists and technicians are now providing a strong and competent provincial voice in a resource field which, although dominated by federal jurisdiction, has important ramifications which affect the lives and well-being of thousands of British Columbians who make their living from the sea or who look to the sea and its resources for recreation and relaxation.

The professional people of the branch, of course, relate very closely to their contemporaries in the Fish and Wildlife Branch, especially in the matter related to the anadromous fish (the steelhead fish) which require both fresh- and sea-water habitat to complete their life cycles.

The Commercial Fisheries Branch also relates to resource managers of other agencies, particularly the Pollution Control Branch, due to the significance of water quality, fresh and ocean, and to the importance of pollution-free water in the management of marine resources.

The branch also serves as a provincial voice in the complicated international negotiations on multinational and bi-national fishing agreements and conventions, the results of which so greatly affect the lives and welfare of our fishermen and associated occupations.

Through good federal-provincial co-operative activities in this field, and some good luck in nature's response to such efforts, fishermen's incomes have doubled since 1968. With continued management success, fisheries production will double by 1980. This will depend to a large degree on the success of integrated resource management since further enhancement of our salmon species in particular is dependent largely on our ability to not only prevent degradation of spawning areas, which was so common in the earlier days through sloppy logging practices and pollution form industry, but it will also mean some hard decisions on resource allocation and costly works to improve on nature and to compensate for man's inevitable, continuing impact on the rivers and streams and the ocean.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that the Recreation and Conservation department will have a high degree of priority with this government. Thank you.

MRS. D. WEBSTER (Vancouver South): I'm very honoured to take part in this debate. This seems to be Vancouver South's turn in the House tonight, although it seems to be North Capilano's turn on the hustings.

I would like to congratulate both the mover and the seconder of the Speech from the Throne, and I would also like to observe how pleased I am that the throne speech placed emphasis on programmes planned in the areas where people's lives are personally affected. To name a few: the amendments to the Landlord and Tenant Act, the amendments to the Workmen's Compensation Act, changes in consumer marketing and, probably the most important of all at this particular time, planned provision for housing and expansion of the land banking programme which was started following the establishment of the Department of Housing. I think this should have a great deal of significance within the next few years.

It is also a great relief, Mr. Speaker, to the municipalities and to the cities, that the provincial government is assuming the responsibility for the system of welfare services and for the courts. These two programmes alone will relieve them of heavy financial responsibility. I know they have both been applauded in the City of Vancouver.

During the first year that our government was in office, the main emphasis has been on improving the lot of the elderly and of the handicapped. I believe that of all the legislation introduced in this time, the most welcome has been the Mincome programme

[ Page 121 ]

which has provided a guaranteed minimum income for people over the age of 65 and for the handicapped where it was needed. In the fall session last year that was extended to include people from the ages of 60 to 64.

For those who are 65 years and over and receiving Mincome, they also receive a medical card so that they have no worries as far as their medical expenses are concerned. As of January this year, Pharmacare has been included for those over 65. Let me say that the elderly are very happy with these benefits. After Pharmacare was introduced, elderly people would stop me on the street, shake my hand and say, "Thank you."

This is one of the most important things that has been legislated, Mr. Speaker. When people reach the age of 65 or 70, health problems occur and their bills for prescription drugs go up so high. If they are relieved of that then one of their greatest worries is taken care of. This is the first year within my memory that elderly people can live without fear in regard to economic and medical needs.

Also, with the introduction of a variety of home health-care programmes, fear of hospitalization for the elderly has also been greatly reduced.

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that it is the right time for the government to give assistance to young people with families. We are in what is probably the most serious inflationary period in our history, not only in British Columbia but in Canada — in fact, in the whole western world. This phenomenon has all the appearances of an economic collapse. It involves dangerously high prices for fuels due to the shortages and boycotts that are presently being felt. It involves the rapidly accelerating prices of food caused by world shortages of feed grain for animals. It involves exorbitant housing costs because we are becoming more and more an urban society. People are flocking in from the country into the city. That stream has not stopped; it has reached such a crest now that it is difficult to keep up with the housing costs as a result of it.

Is it any wonder, Mr. Speaker, that under these conditions teachers and tradesmen, civil servants and hospital workers are seeking higher and higher pay increases just to keep running, to stay in line with the cost of living? The housing situation is desperate. Mr. Speaker, it is more than desperate, it has become next to impossible.

Homes have become a luxury item. In the East End of Vancouver some homes which five years ago were valued at between $6,800 and $10,000 are now on the market for $34,000. That means a 400 per cent increase within five years,

I find it very difficult to believe the low-cost housing provided in Champlain Villa which is in my constituency of Vancouver South, which originally was $16,200 per unit, is now up to $21,500. These homes, Mr. Speaker, were intended for people with incomes of $6,500 and less. A few years ago that was the average income, but with our present inflationary trend that income is fast losing its value.

This rapid rise in housing costs, Mr. Speaker, is not new. This inflationary spiral in housing started somewhere in the 1960s. In 1966 the price of houses took a huge jump. It became impossible then for people earning incomes anywhere in the range of $7,000 to get a mortgage. As time went on that basic floor level for mortgages slowly increased so that it is very difficult for people with much higher incomes than that $7,000 to get a mortgage today, unless they get some assistance.

Under this new housing Ministry I hope we can look forward to an easing in the housing shortage in the near future. For the first time since cost-sharing funds were made available, all federal housing funds allocated to this province have been committed. I think that is a wonderful first step.

During the 1960s, provinces like Ontario ran way ahead of us in the building of low-cost housing because the B.C. government of that day failed to pick up its matching federal grants. The degree of co-operation that now exists between the provincial Department of Housing and the federal Department of Urban Affairs is indeed encouraging. I have every confidence that our Minister will do everything possible to ease this housing situation.

I am also pleased to see that second mortgage loans are now easier for old homes. It is also important to note that if the loan has been fully paid off, the mortgagee will be eligible for re-issuance of the loan on another residence.

Also, Mr. Speaker, last year the government amended the Strata Titles Act to prevent conversion of apartments to condominiums without sufficient notice to tenants. This has been an insidious trend over the last four or five years, and it meant that very often only one month's notice would be given before an apartment was converted. It meant a great deal of suffering to people who could not afford a down payment on a condominium.

Mr. Speaker, people are desperate when more than half of their monthly income goes into housing. They are more than desperate when the house they are renting is sold over their heads for redevelopment. The situation becomes impossible for them when they are told that their income is insufficient to afford the price of the rental accommodation. This is exactly what is happening. Where are the low income and medium income people to go for accommodation?

I am pleased to say that the Neighbourhood Improvement Plan project is very encouraging. It has been enthusiastically greeted in Vancouver by the aldermen, with promises of the programme going into

[ Page 122 ]

effect quickly in such areas as Kitsilano, Kensington, Mount Pleasant, Cedar Cottage and Grandview. This alone is not enough to ease the housing shortage.

The only place that I know of in Vancouver where housing costs have remained level and remained at a low rate is in the co-op section of Champlain Heights, which is the Amor de Cosmos co-op village. This co-operative housing is built on government-leased land, on a 50-year lease. With an equity in the co-op of $1,600, a member can rent a two-bedroom house for as low as $152 a month. This has not changed since the beginning. Pardon me, Mr. Speaker, it has changed; June of last year the project was so successful that they lowered the rent by $5 a month.

A second co-op project is now under way in the Champlain Heights area. It has been so much in demand that before building of the housing project was started, the entire project was over-subscribed. I understand that these units will be approximately $15 higher than in the de Cosmos Village, but what is that, compared to the rise in prices of houses and of living accommodation everywhere else?

I hope the Minister plans to expand this type of housing which is still within the reach of people on low incomes.

Mr. Speaker, people are arriving in Vancouver daily. They probably are here in Victoria too, and the same is happening in all our major cities across Canada. The west coast is a very pleasant place in which to live and to work, but where do people go for housing, when the vacancy rate is practically zero, and housing starts are unable to keep up with the demand?

There are several parcels of land that are undeveloped around Vancouver; this includes the undeveloped portion of Champlain Heights, of course. Recently the City of Vancouver purchased the remainder of Langara golf course — 65 acres. The objective is to preserve about 35 or 45 acres of that for a golf course or park, and the remaining 20 acres would be used for housing.

Jericho has some 38 acres of land available, and plans are near completion for the south side of False Creek. Along with this, of course, there are the University Endowment Lands. But each time anyone has ever mentioned University Endowment Lands, there is an uproar started by "ecologists of convenience." Let me say, Mr. Speaker, there must be a balance between people and housing. And if there is to be a choice because of need, I would opt for people first.

Let us assume, I say assume, that a park the size of Stanley Park, 1,000 acres, were to be preserved in the Endowment Lands. That would mean that 700 acres could be turned over into housing, or a complete neighbourhood. I know that this would once more send these ecologists screaming, but, Mr. Speaker, it is easy to be an ecologist or an environmentalist if you have a roof over your head, if you have a warm, insulated home or apartment in which to live, and are able to keep up your payments. It is a different thing when you do not have this, when you are in desperation as to where to go because you are being pushed out of the home you have.

I agree with the conservationists that care must be taken to preserve that area of the Endowment Lands which are the habitat and the feeding and breeding area of the great blue heron. But this does not necessarily include the entire 1,700 acres. I believe the Minister will have a most difficult and complicated task on his hands, but I would like to express confidence that with his plans, which include land banking, an early start can be made on housing not only in Vancouver and Victoria but also in Prince Rupert, on Vancouver Island, in the Okanagan and Kootenays or wherever housing is needed to give young people decent homes in which to bring up their young families.

Mr. Speaker, I am very much in favour of parks — I've always been interested in recreation and parks. I believe that Vancouver and Victoria, as a matter of fact, most places in British Columbia, have done an excellent job of preserving parkland both within city territories and out in the province itself. Tonight I was very pleased when I heard the First Member for Vancouver South (Hon. Mr. Radford) speak about the preservation of parks and the extension of parklands within the province.

Over the years the waterfront property in Vancouver has been preserved all around from English Bay along through to Point Grey, except for a very small portion, and around the other side on the Fraser River as far as Angus Drive. But there's an area from Angus Drive right to Boundary Road in which there's a great deal of industrial and commercial development. However, there are street-ends that go down toward the river which cannot be used for anything else. I would suggest that these should be preserved in some way — in the form of mini-parks for public access. They could also be used for boat launching, or they could be used, for instance, for fishing platforms. As a matter of fact, someone suggested that a fisherman's wharf could be built out there. I think that would be a wonderful way to leave some access in that area since most people like to feel that they can get towards the water along our coastlines where water areas are available.

I would urge the Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Radford) to give consideration to this matter in relation to the formation of a joint strategy with the City of Vancouver and the North Fraser Harbour Commission so that these areas could be developed for public access.

Constantly we have many new people coming into British Columbia — from south of the border, from

[ Page 123 ]

the Caribbean, from Europe, from Asia and from Africa. In fact, British Columbia is assuming a very, very cosmopolitan type of atmosphere. In 1967, Dr. John Norris of UBC wrote a book for our centennial pageant called Strangers Entertained. At that time in his book he identified about 45 different ethnic and racial groups. I would think today with the influx of new people from all these various countries that the number of ethnic groups and racial groups might go far beyond the 45 that Dr. Norris identified at that time.

Do you realize, Mr. Speaker, that in our provincial civil service today, over 20 per cent are of non-French, non-English origin. Among the MLAs sitting here in this House, there are in all probability about 12 to 15 different cultural or ethnic societies represented.

During the past century many national groups have immigrated to B.C. and from time to time there's been a feeling of rivalry between the settled population and the immigrants. Much of this has been muted because of necessity due to common survival and need for helping each other. But, Mr. Speaker, we have not, in British Columbia as in some of the countries, become a melting pot, nor have we become a mosaic in all reality. We haven't produced a homogeneous society.

It's interesting to note that no second or third generation Chinese remains as strictly Chinese in culture any more. He takes on a sort of Canadian-Chinese identity which is different from the pattern of his native land. Yet he remains identified with his own group in a closely knit community. This is very, very true of the Chinese; it's very true of many of our other ethnic groups. It's true of the Norwegians, of the Swedes, of the Italians, of the Greeks or most others that you care to mention.

Last spring, for instance, the Finnish people held their grand annual festival here in Vancouver and I had the honour to be able to attend it. Most of the ceremonial was carried out in Finnish. But later on, when I spoke to some of the young people who had participated in the gymnastics and the dancing, and asked them about their understanding of the Finnish Culture, they related very closely to the cultural pattern of the Finnish people, but when it came to language, they could understand Finnish, but many of them said that they were not able to speak it any more.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Members to be a little quieter, please.

MRS. WEBSTER: As these ethnic groups live side by side, they tend to try to preserve their own culture and their own values. At the same time there's a constant changing or cross-fertilization because of what they pick up from people of other cultures whom they come in contact with. In this way, they not only enrich their own culture but they enrich the entire Canadian society. Part of this clinging together and enriching each other and forming one unique Canadian society has been because of the fear ... but most others of being taken over by the United States.

On the other hand, while most cultural groups have persisted in trying to retain their own language, due to needs of everyday pressure of business and industry in this western world it has become essential for them to learn English. Throughout British Columbia, language courses are flourishing for just that purpose.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The House is in session. I would ask the Hon. Members to be quiet.

MRS. WEBSTER: I believe that one of the hazards in settling down in a community of one identifiable ethnic group is that usually the man at work learns English, the children learn English at school, but the mother, who's left at home, is inclined to remain with her own language, and she falls behind her family.

Another factor that we have to be aware of is that some cultural groups integrate into Canadian society much more rapidly than others do. For instance, the Dutch and the Germans integrate very rapidly, and one reason is because rather than settling down in communities, except for some instances, they are more inclined to settle down individually. Also, they have learned English, in most cases, before they left their native country to come to Canada. That makes it a lot easier for them. On the other hand, the Italians, the Greeks, the Chinese and the East Indians do tend to cling within their own community and try to avoid assimilation.

I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we must be constantly aware of the fact that this slow cultural integration, along with the fact that there is a steady stream of people from all these countries coming in each year, has created an exciting, vigorous and identifiable Canadianism that is uniquely different from any other nation in the world. Whereas each ethnic group has its own cultural features, they all tend to blend together to give this country a cultural richness.

Recently there was a large influx of immigrants of East Indian origin from Uganda into British Columbia. Many of them have settled in the south-east section of Vancouver, where the East Indian community is, right around the area of the Sikh Temple on Marine Drive.

You may be surprised to know that there are over 5,000 East Indian Canadians in British Columbia, and over half of them live in the greater Vancouver area. Many of them are highly-skilled workers. They are very good citizens. Some of them are professional people. They are doctors, nurses, teachers, lawyers,

[ Page 124 ]

engineers and architects.

They are proud to be Canadians and proud to share this wonderful land with us. They openly welcome all who wish to worship with them in their beautiful temple and they have applied for and received a recreational grant towards the erection of a community centre to which they invite people regardless of race, colour or creed.

During the past few months some of the newcomers in the community, particularly some of the women who cannot yet speak English, have suffered harassment which may be interpreted as racial discrimination. I think this is really deplorable. It has been looked into and I must say that I have to express my appreciation to the Vancouver City Council, and the Vancouver police for taking quick action to see that no racial discrimination exists.

We also have a Human Rights Committee to whom they can go, and every case that comes up must be heard. We, as legislators, must see that no stone is left unturned as long as any case is left to be investigated.

I would like to commend the Vancouver School Board, and I would like to also commend the Minister of Education for the programme of language courses that are being put on in Vancouver to assist these people of ethnic and racial origin who don't speak English. The Vancouver School Board has introduced a three-year experimental programme in bilingual instruction in Punjabi and English and the Moberly annex, which they say is working out as a happy and very successful project.

The school board members have also suggested that they are going to look towards setting up similar projects for the Greek-English community and also for the Italian-English community in those areas of the city where they feel it is appropriate.

English classes are also being offered to mothers who are newcomers to Canada, in order that they and their children can learn the language before the children start school. This programme is available at 10 elementary schools and community centres. While the mothers learn English in one classroom the children are taken care of by babysitters in another, so that they are taught English at the same time as the mothers.

Besides that, Manpower has programmes in English for adults which involve, at present, about 1,600 people just in the City of Vancouver alone, and I am sure these programmes are going on in other parts of British Columbia too.

The vigour of this new Canadianism that's being expressed is also being expressed in the arts as never before. For instance, the Vancouver Chinese community celebrated its New Year last week, and its celebration that was the jumping-off point for plans for building a cultural centre which will include a Chinese museum, a banquet hall and an auditorium.

Carlings-O'Keefe of Toronto just announced in Vancouver a couple of weeks ago that they are granting $1 million towards folk arts throughout Canada for ethnic groups of non-Canadian origin, as well as for our Indian and Eskimo aboriginal people.

In Vancouver East an old church has been bought and converted into a cultural centre for the development of the arts in that section of the city. A school for music with its beginnings in the old model school was started a few years ago by Mrs. Walter Koerner, and is now making a public appeal for expansion.

Equally striking are the things that are happening in Victoria. As you all probably know, Craigdarroch Castle is now a school for music and the arts, and it is really flourishing. I understand, too, that a new musical group has taken on the training of post-secondary students here in Victoria who received their original experience in school bands, so that they can continue with their band music.

This same thing is happening in Trail, where we have always had very successful, flourishing musical societies, and Little theatre is developing too, and expanding into all the small towns throughout British Columbia.

It is a great pride to know that in B.C. we have a growing colony of artists gaining international reputation. We have many fine authors, poets, painters, playwrights, actors. In Vancouver the Arts Club has done a tremendous job during the first 10 years of its existence in producing the works of young, new playwrights. In the field of writing we have new publishers who are developing Canadian books and promoting them, promoting Indian books, I think it is just a wonderful way of being able to expand and enrich the culture of this country.

One of the best, and now world-famous, architects lives right here in British Columbia.

In this climate of cultural awareness, Mr. Speaker, I would urge that the government increase its grant towards the development of the arts. I would also hope that the government....

Interruption.

MRS. WEBSTER: Mr. Speaker, I salute that fifth chair. I hope that the Liberal, the Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) is correct in placing it there (Laughter).

AN HON. MEMBER: Put the chair back, you may fall off it (Laughter).

Interjections.

MRS. WEBSTER: Mr. Speaker, I would like to conclude by saying that I hope the government will find some way of assisting the City of Vancouver to save the Orpheum Theatre.

[ Page 125 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

MRS. WEBSTER: It is acclaimed to be acoustically perfect, it seats about 2,500 people, and it is an outstandingly beautiful and spacious building. We wouldn't be able to replace it for double the price or maybe three times the price it would cost to refurbish it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Question, question.

MR. SPEAKER: The question has been called. Is there any further debate on the main motion?

The question is that the following address be presented to His Honour, the Lieutenant-Governor: We, Her Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia, in session assembled, beg leave to thank Your Honour for the gracious speech which Your Honour has addressed to us at the opening of the present session.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 35

NAYS — 12

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I move that this House will at its next sitting resolve itself into a committee to consider the supply to be granted to Her Majesty, and that this order have precedence over all other business, except introduction of bills. Seconded by the Hon. Member for Burnaby North (Hon. Mrs. Dailly).

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I move that this House will at its next sitting resolve itself into a committee to consider the ways and means for raising the supply to be granted to Her Majesty.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I move that this House to do Her Majesty's business do stand adjourned until 3 p.m. Monday next.

Interjections.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, because of the opposition's inability to speak, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 9:50 p.m.